The expandable Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion - 2 year follow up

Study Design: This was a retrospective, observational study. Objectives: We hypothesize that the expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage achieves satisfactory clinical outcomes while allowing for safe placement, improvement, and maintenance of foraminal and disc dimensions at 24 months postsurgery with low risk of cage migration, subsidence, and nerve injury. Methods: TLIF with expandable cages was performed in 54 patients (62 levels) over a 24-month-period using open midline or minimally invasive surgery techniques with placement of Globus Caliber, Rise, or Altera expandable cages. All patients underwent clinical and radiological assessment at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1, and 2 years postoperatively. Clinical outcome was measured by Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog pain score for both back and leg (visual analog scores [VASs]). Radiological assessment was done by X-ray standing lateral position. Results: There were significant clinical improvements in ODI, VAS leg, and VAS back at all postoperative time points. Disc height, foraminal height, focal Cobb angle, and global Cobb angle were significantly increased and maintained at all time points for 24 months (P < 0.001). Dural tear occurred in one patient (1.9%). There were neither intra- or postoperative neurological complications nor cage subsidence nor migration. Conclusions: These preliminary results indicate that the use of an expandable interbody cage achieves good clinical outcomes by improving and maintaining foraminal dimensions and disc height with minimal complication rate

Burden of Illness in UK Subjects with Reported Respiratory Infections Vaccinated or Unvaccinated against Influenza: A Retrospective Observational Study

<div><p>Objective</p><p>Detailed data are lacking on influenza burden in the United Kingdom (UK). The objective of this study was to estimate the disease burden associated with influenza-like illness (ILI) in the United Kingdom stratified by age, risk and influenza vaccination status.</p><p>Methods</p><p>This retrospective, cross-sectional, exploratory, observational study used linked data from the General Practice Research Database and the Hospital Episode Statistics databases to estimate resource use and cost associated with ILI in the UK.</p><p>Results</p><p>Data were included from 156,193 patients with ≥1 general practitioner visit with ILI. There were 21,518 high-risk patients, of whom 12,514 (58.2%) were vaccinated and 9,004 (41.8%) were not vaccinated, and 134,675 low-risk patients, of whom 17,482 (13.0%) were vaccinated and 117,193 (87.0%) were not vaccinated. High-risk vaccinated patients were older (p<0.001) and had more risk conditions (p<0.001). High-risk (odds ratio [OR] 2.16) or vaccinated (OR 1.19) patients had a higher probability of >1 general practitioner visit compared with low-risk and unvaccinated patients. Patients who were high-risk and vaccinated had a reduced risk of >1 general practitioner visit (OR 0.82; p<0.001). High-risk individuals who were also vaccinated had a lower probability of ILI-related hospitalisation than individuals who were high-risk or vaccinated alone (OR 0.59). In people aged ≥65 years, the mortality rate was lower in vaccinated than unvaccinated individuals (OR 0.75). The cost of ILI-related GP visits and hospital admissions in the UK over the study period in low-risk vaccinated patients was £27,391,142 and £141,932,471, respectively. In low-risk unvaccinated patients the corresponding values were £168,318,709 and £112,534,130, respectively.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Although vaccination rates in target groups have increased, many people are still not receiving influenza vaccination, and the burden of ILI in the United Kingdom remains substantial. Improving influenza vaccination uptake may have the potential to reduce this burden.</p></div

Resource use and direct medical costs of acute respiratory illness in the UK based on linked primary and secondary care records from 2001 to 2009

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that influenza is associated with a substantial healthcare burden in the United Kingdom (UK), but more studies are needed to evaluate the resource use and direct medical costs of influenza in primary care and secondary care.MethodsA retrospective observational database study in the UK to describe the primary care and directly-associated secondary care resource use, and direct medical costs of acute respiratory illness (ARI), according to age, and risk status (NCT Number: 01521416). Patients with influenza, ARI or influenza-related respiratory infections during 9 consecutive pre-pandemic influenza peak seasons were identified by READ codes in the linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) dataset. The study period was from 21st January 2001 to 31st March 2009.ResultsA total of 156,193 patients had ≥1 general practitioner (GP) episode of ARI, and a total of 82,204 patients received ≥1 GP prescription, at a mean of 2.5 (standard deviation [SD]: 3.0) prescriptions per patient. The total cost of GP consultations and prescriptions equated to £462,827 per year per 100,000 patients. The yearly cost of prescribed medication for ARI was £319,732, at an estimated cost of £11,596,350 per year extrapolated to the UK, with 40% attributable to antibiotics. The mean cost of hospital admissions equated to a yearly cost of £981,808 per 100,000 patients. The total mean direct medical cost of ARI over 9 influenza seasons was £21,343,445 (SD: £10,441,364), at £136.65 (SD: £66.85) per case.ConclusionsExtrapolating to the UK population, for pre-pandemic influenza seasons from 2001 to 2009, the direct medical cost of ARI equated to £86 million each year. More studies are needed to assess the costs of influenza disease to help guide public health decision-making for seasonal influenza in the UK

The Good Behaviour Game intervention to improve behavioural and other outcomes for children aged 7-8 years: A cluster RCT

Background. Universal, school-based behaviour management interventions can produce meaningful improvements in children’s behaviour and other outcomes. However, the UK evidence base for these remains limited. Objective. The objective of this trial was to investigate the impact, value for money and longer-term outcomes of the Good Behaviour Game. Study hypotheses centred on immediate impact (hypothesis 1); subgroup effects (at-risk boys, hypothesis 2); implementation effects (dosage, hypothesis 3); maintenance/sleeper effects (12- and 24-month post-intervention follow-ups, hypothesis 4); the temporal association between mental health and academic attainment (hypothesis 5); and the health economic impact of the Good Behaviour Game (hypothesis 6). Design. This was a two-group, parallel, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Primary schools (n = 77) were randomly assigned to implement the Good Behaviour Game for 2 years or continue their usual practice, after which there was a 2-year follow-up period. Setting. The trial was set in primary schools across 23 local authorities in England. Participants. Participants were children (n = 3084) aged 7–8 years attending participating schools. Intervention. The Good Behaviour Game is a universal behaviour management intervention. Its core components are classroom rules, team membership, monitoring behaviour and positive reinforcement. It is played alongside a normal classroom activity for a set time, during which children work in teams to win the game to access the agreed rewards. The Good Behaviour Game is a manualised intervention delivered by teachers who receive initial training and ongoing coaching. Main outcome measures. The measures were conduct problems (primary outcome; teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); emotional symptoms (teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); psychological well-being, peer and social support, bullying (i.e. social acceptance) and school environment (self-report Kidscreen survey results); and school absence and exclusion from school (measured using National Pupil Database records). Measures of academic attainment (reading, standardised tests), disruptive behaviour, concentration problems and prosocial behaviour (Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation Checklist scores) were also collected during the 2-year follow-up period. Results. There was no evidence that the Good Behaviour Game improved any outcomes (hypothesis 1). The only significant subgroup moderator effect identified was contrary to expectations: at-risk boys in Good Behaviour Game schools reported higher rates of bullying (hypothesis 2). The moderating effect of the amount of time spent playing the Good Behaviour Game was unclear; in the context of both moderate (≥ 1030 minutes over 2 years) and high (≥ 1348 minutes over 2 years) intervention compliance, there were significant reductions in children’s psychological well-being, but also significant reductions in their school absence (hypothesis 3). The only medium-term intervention effect was for peer and social support at 24 months, but this was in a negative direction (hypothesis 4). After disaggregating within- and between-individual effects, we found no temporal within-individual associations between children’s mental health and their academic attainment (hypothesis 5). Last, our cost–consequences analysis indicated that the Good Behaviour Game does not provide value for money (hypothesis 6). Limitations. Limitations included the post-test-only design for several secondary outcomes; suboptimal implementation dosage (mitigated by complier-average causal effect estimation); and moderate child-level attrition (18.5% for the primary outcome analysis), particularly in the post-trial follow-up period (mitigated by the use of full information maximum likelihood procedures). Future work. Questions remain regarding programme differentiation (e.g. how distinct is the Good Behaviour Game from existing behaviour management practices, and does this makes a difference in terms of its impact?) and if the Good Behaviour Game is impactful when combined with a complementary preventative intervention (as has been the case in several earlier trials). Conclusion. The Good Behaviour Game cannot be recommended based on the findings reported here

Cost of PTX in SHPT following ESRD Assessment of Resource Use and Costs Associated with Parathyroidectomy for Secondary Hyperparathyroidism in End Stage Renal Disease in the UK Cost of PTX in SHPT following ESRD

Abstract Introductio