Search

For the first comparison, we weighed predicted hospitalisations prevented by one booster dose of BNT162b2 with vaccine-associated SAEs from the manufacturer's randomised trial (3/5055).3 We found that the rate of expected SAEs would outweigh the benefits of the booster against hospitalisation by at least 18-fold. Lam and Nichols suggest that this was an inappropriate comparison, as not all SAEs result in hospitalisation. However, the definition of SAE as used in the trial included death, hospitalisation, disability, permanent damage, life-threatening event or condition, which required medical or surgical intervention to prevent a serious outcome.4 While all comparisons include some degree of incommensurability, comparing these SAEs with hospitalisations prevented by the booster is more reasonable than Lam and Nichols' suggestion of comparing SAEs to infections prevented. The COVID-19 infection hospitalisation risk in this age group was

OBJECTIVE: At present, no data are available to support the use of tibial interventions in the treatment of claudication. We characterized the practice patterns surrounding tibial peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) for patients with claudication in the United States. METHODS: Using 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims from 2017 to 2019, we conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent an index PVI for claudication. Patients with any previous PVI, acute limb ischemia, or chronic limb-threatening ischemia in the preceding 12 months were excluded. The primary outcome was the receipt or delivery of tibial revascularization during an index PVI for claudication, defined as tibial PVI with or without concomitant femoropopliteal PVI. Univariable comparisons and multivariable hierarchical logistic regression were used to assess the patient and physician characteristics associated with the use of tibial PVI for claudication. RESULTS: Of 59,930 Medicare patients who underwent an index PVI for claudication between 2017 and 2019, 16,594 (27.7%) underwent a tibial PVI (isolated tibial PVI, 38.5%; tibial PVI with concomitant femoropopliteal PVI, 61.5%). Of the 1542 physicians included in our analysis, the median physician-level tibial PVI rate was 20.0% (interquartile range, 9.1%-37.5%). Hierarchical logistic regression suggested that patient-level characteristics associated with tibial PVI for claudication included male sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.23), increasing age (aOR, 1.30-1.96), Black race (aOR, 1.47), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 1.86), diabetes (aOR, 1.36), no history of hypertension (aOR, 1.12), and never-smoking status (aOR, 1.64; P < .05 for all). Physician-level characteristics associated with tibial PVI for claudication included early-career status (aOR, 2.97), practice location in the West (aOR, 1.75), high-volume PVI practice (aOR, 1.87), majority of practice in an ambulatory surgery center or office-based laboratory setting (aOR, 2.37), and physician specialty. The odds of vascular surgeons performing tibial PVI were significantly lower compared with radiologists (aOR, 2.98) and cardiologists (aOR, 1.67; P < .05 for all). The average Medicare reimbursement per patient was dramatically higher for physicians performing high rates of tibial PVI (quartile 4 vs quartile 1-3, $12,023.96 vs $692.31 per patient; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Tibial PVI for claudication was performed more often by nonvascular surgeons in high-volume practices and high-reimbursement settings. Thus, a critical need exists to reevaluate the indications, education, and reimbursement policies surrounding these procedures.

BACKGROUNDSurgical site infections (SSIs) following colorectal surgery (CRS) are among the most common healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Reduction in colorectal SSI rates is an important goal for surgical quality improvement.OBJECTIVETo examine rates of SSI in patients with and without cancer and to identify potential predictors of SSI risk following CRSDESIGNAmerican College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) data files for 2011-2013 from a sample of 12 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions were combined. Pooled SSI rates for colorectal procedures were calculated and risk was evaluated. The independent importance of potential risk factors was assessed using logistic regression.SETTINGMulticenter studyPARTICIPANTSOf 22 invited NCCN centers, 11 participated (50%). Colorectal procedures were selected by principal procedure current procedural technology (CPT) code. Cancer was defined by International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes.MAIN OUTCOMEThe primary outcome of interest was 30-day SSI rate.RESULTSA total of 652 SSIs (11.06%) were reported among 5,893 CRSs. Risk of SSI was similar for patients with and without cancer. Among CRS patients with underlying cancer, disseminated cancer (SSI rate, 17.5%; odds ratio [OR], 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-2.26; P=.001), ASA score ≥3 (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.09-1.83; P=.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.06-2.53; P=.02), and longer duration of procedure were associated with development of SSI.CONCLUSIONSPatients with disseminated cancer are at a higher risk for developing SSI. ASA score >3, COPD, and longer duration of surgery predict SSI risk. Disseminated cancer should be further evaluated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in generating risk-adjusted outcomes.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:555-562.

The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation for borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (BL-PDAC) is increasing. However, the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy on the outcome of BL-PDAC remains to be elucidated. We performed a retrospective analysis of 93 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with BL-PDAC and primarily followed at Johns Hopkins Hospital between February 2007 and December 2012. Among 93 patients, 62% received upfront neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation, whereas 20% received neoadjuvant chemoradiation alone and 15% neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. Resectability following all neoadjuvant therapy was 44%. Patients who underwent resection with a curative intent had a median overall survival (mOS) of 25.8 months, whereas those who did not undergo surgery had a mOS of 11.9 months. However, resectability and overall survival were not significantly different between the three types of neoadjuvant therapy. Nevertheless, 22% (95% CI, 0.13-0.36) of the 58 patients who received upfront chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation remained alive for a minimum of 48 months compared to none of the 19 patients who received upfront chemoradiation. Among patients who underwent curative surgical resection, 32% (95% CI, 0.19-0.55) of those who received upfront chemotherapy remained disease free at least 48 months following surgical resection, whereas none of the eight patients who received upfront chemoradiation remained disease free beyond 24 months following surgical resection. Neoadjuvant therapy with upfront chemotherapy may result in long-term survival in a subpopulation of patients with BL-PDAC.

BACKGROUND: Overtreatment is a cause of preventable harm and waste in health care. Little is known about clinician perspectives on the problem. In this study, physicians were surveyed on the prevalence, causes, and implications of overtreatment. METHODS: 2,106 physicians from an online community composed of doctors from the American Medical Association (AMA) masterfile participated in a survey. The survey inquired about the extent of overutilization, as well as causes, solutions, and implications for health care. Main outcome measures included: percentage of unnecessary medical care, most commonly cited reasons of overtreatment, potential solutions, and responses regarding association of profit and overtreatment. FINDINGS: The response rate was 70.1%. Physicians reported that an interpolated median of 20.6% of overall medical care was unnecessary, including 22.0% of prescription medications, 24.9% of tests, and 11.1% of procedures. The most common cited reasons for overtreatment were fear of malpractice (84.7%), patient pressure/request (59.0%), and difficulty accessing medical records (38.2%). Potential solutions identified were training residents on appropriateness criteria (55.2%), easy access to outside health records (52.0%), and more practice guidelines (51.5%). Most respondents (70.8%) believed that physicians are more likely to perform unnecessary procedures when they profit from them. Most respondents believed that de-emphasizing fee-for-service physician compensation would reduce health care utilization and costs. CONCLUSION: From the physician perspective, overtreatment is common. Efforts to address the problem should consider the causes and solutions offered by physicians.