To Test or to Treat? An Analysis of Influenza Testing and Antiviral Treatment Strategies Using Economic Computer Modeling

BACKGROUND: Due to the unpredictable burden of pandemic influenza, the best strategy to manage testing, such as rapid or polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and antiviral medications for patients who present with influenza-like illness (ILI) is unknown.\ud \ud METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We developed a set of computer simulation models to evaluate the potential economic value of seven strategies under seasonal and pandemic influenza conditions: (1) using clinical judgment alone to guide antiviral use, (2) using PCR to determine whether to initiate antivirals, (3) using a rapid (point-of-care) test to determine antiviral use, (4) using a combination of a point-of-care test and clinical judgment, (5) using clinical judgment and confirming the diagnosis with PCR testing, (6) treating all with antivirals, and (7) not treating anyone with antivirals. For healthy younger adults (<65 years old) presenting with ILI in a seasonal influenza scenario, strategies were only cost-effective from the societal perspective. Clinical judgment, followed by PCR and point-of-care testing, was found to be cost-effective given a high influenza probability. Doubling hospitalization risk and mortality (representing either higher risk individuals or more virulent strains) made using clinical judgment to guide antiviral decision-making cost-effective, as well as PCR testing, point-of-care testing, and point-of-care testing used in conjunction with clinical judgment. For older adults (> or = 65 years old), in both seasonal and pandemic influenza scenarios, employing PCR was the most cost-effective option, with the closest competitor being clinical judgment (when judgment accuracy > or = 50%). Point-of-care testing plus clinical judgment was cost-effective with higher probabilities of influenza. Treating all symptomatic ILI patients with antivirals was cost-effective only in older adults.\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our study delineated the conditions under which different testing and antiviral strategies may be cost-effective, showing the importance of accuracy, as seen with PCR or highly sensitive clinical judgment.\ud \u

Cardiovasc Diabetol

Lower-extremity arterial disease (LEAD) is a major endemic disease with an alarming increased prevalence worldwide. It is a common and severe condition with excess risk of major cardiovascular events and death. It also leads to a high rate of lower-limb adverse events and non-traumatic amputation. The American Diabetes Association recommends a widespread medical history and clinical examination to screen for LEAD. The ankle brachial index (ABI) is the first non-invasive tool recommended to diagnose LEAD although its variable performance in patients with diabetes. The performance of ABI is particularly affected by the presence of peripheral neuropathy, medial arterial calcification, and incompressible arteries. There is no strong evidence today to support an alternative test for LEAD diagnosis in these conditions. The management of LEAD requires a strict control of cardiovascular risk factors including diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia. The benefit of intensive versus standard glucose control on the risk of LEAD has not been clearly established. Antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet agents are obviously worthfull to reduce major cardiovascular adverse events, but few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the benefits of these treatments in terms of LEAD and its related adverse events. Smoking cessation, physical activity, supervised walking rehabilitation and healthy diet are also crucial in LEAD management. Several advances have been achieved in endovascular and surgical revascularization procedures, with obvious improvement in LEAD management. The revascularization strategy should take into account several factors including anatomical localizations of lesions, medical history of each patients and operator experience. Further studies, especially RCTs, are needed to evaluate the interest of different therapeutic strategies on the occurrence and progression of LEAD and its related adverse events in patients with diabetes

'Statins in retinal disease'

Statins are known for their blood cholesterol-lowering effect and are widely used in patients with cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. Research over the past three decades shows that statins have diverse effects on different pathophysiological pathways involved in angiogenesis, inflammation, apoptosis, and anti-oxidation, leading to new therapeutic options. Recently, statins have attracted considerable attention for their immunomodulatory effect. Since immune reactivity has been implicated in a number of retinal diseases, such as uveitis, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic retinopathy, there is now a growing body of evidence supporting the beneficial effects of statins in these retinopathies. This review evaluates the relationship between statins and the pathophysiological basis of these diseases, focusing on their potential role in treatment. A PubMed database search and literature review was conducted. Among AMD patients, there is inconsistent evidence regarding protection against development of early AMD or delaying disease progression; though they have been found to reduce the risk of developing choroidal neovascular membranes (CNV). In patients with retinal vein occlusion, there was no evidence to support a therapeutic benefit or a protective role with statins. In patients with diabetic retinopathy, statins demonstrate a reduction in disease progression and improved resolution of diabetic macular oedema (DMO). Among patients with uveitis, statins have a protective effect by reducing the likelihood of uveitis development