Session A3: Ljubljanica Connects - Enabling Fish Migration

Abstract: The heavily degraded area of the Ljubljanica River corridor upstream and downstream of the Ljubljana urban area is an important habitat for the fragmented and heavily endangered populations of Danube Salmon (Hucho hucho), Danube Roach (Rutilus pigus) and Striped Chub (Leuciscus souffia). Nowadays the water level upstream of the weir on the Ljubljanica River is too low therefore during low flow conditions the main Ljubljanica River channel is not connected to its tributaries. This represents a great obstacle for the habitat connectivity along the river reaches which is worsened by the improperly working fish passes. To enable fish migration along the river concrete restoration measures were performed. The reconstructions of sill and two fish passes on the Ljubljanica River have been implemented and barrier’s lifting system on the weir was modernized. During the entire project fish monitoring is being performed in different ways. It helps us to evaluate if concrete restoration actions (restoration of sill, two fish passes and a barrier) were successful and if fish migration is improved. We follow fish migration with marking the fish with Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE) tags. Regarding the location of catch we implant tags beneath transparent or translucent tissue combining different tag locations (dorsal fin, post ocular tissue) and colours (red and yellow). The success of restoration actions is monitored with the use of on line connected cameras installed on the fish passes. Records from the camera are analysed to evaluate number and type of fish using the fish pass. The data gathered from the fish monitoring will contribute to a better understanding of fish migration along the Ljubljanica and Sava River and will help to evaluate the project success

Utilization of diabetes medication and cost of testing supplies in Saskatchewan, 2001

The purpose of this study was to describe the patterns of antidiabetic medication use and the cost of testing supplies in Canada using information collected by Saskatchewan's Drug Plan (DP) in 2001. The diabetes cohort (n = 41,630) included individuals who met the National Diabetes Surveillance System (NDSS) case definition. An algorithm was then used to identify subjects as having type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Among those identified as having type 2 diabetes (n = 37,625), 38% did not have records for antidiabetic medication in 2001. One-third of patients with type 2 diabetes received monotherapy. Metformin, alone or in combination with other medications, was the most commonly prescribed antidiabetic medication. Just over one-half of the all patients with diabetes had a DP records for diabetes testing supplies. For individuals (n = 4,005) with type 1 diabetes, 79% had a DP record for supplies, with an average annual cost of $472 ±$560. For type 2 diabetes, 50% had records for testing supplies, with an average annual cost of $122 ±$233. Those individuals with type 2 diabetes who used insulin had higher testing supply costs than those on oral antidiabetic medication alone ($359 vs$131; p < 0.001)

The association between diabetes related medical costs and glycemic control: A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND: The objective of this research is to quantify the association between direct medical costs attributable to type 2 diabetes and level of glycemic control. METHODS: A longitudinal analysis using a large health plan administrative database was performed. The index date was defined as the first date of diabetes diagnosis and individuals had to have at least two HbA1c values post index date in order to be included in the analyses. A total of 10,780 individuals were included in the analyses. Individuals were stratified into groups of good (N = 6,069), fair (N = 3,586), and poor (N = 1,125) glycemic control based upon mean HbA1c values across the study period. Differences between HbA1c groups were analyzed using a generalized linear model (GLM), with differences between groups tested by utilizing z-statistics. The analyses allowed a wide range of factors to affect costs. RESULTS: 42.1% of those treated only with oral agents, 66.1% of those treated with oral agents and insulin, and 57.2% of those treated with insulin alone were found to have suboptimal control (defined as fair or poor) throughout the study period (average duration of follow-up was 2.95 years). Results show that direct medical costs attributable to type 2 diabetes were 16% lower for individuals with good glycemic control than for those with fair control ($1,505 vs.$1,801, p < 0.05), and 20% lower for those with good glycemic control than for those with poor control ($1,505 vs.$1,871, p < 0.05). Prescription drug costs were also significantly lower for individuals with good glycemic control compared to those with fair ($377 vs.$465, p < 0.05) or poor control ($377 vs.$423, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Almost half (44%) of all patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes are at sub-optimal glycemic control. Evidence from this analysis indicates that the direct medical costs of treating type 2 diabetes are significantly higher for individuals who have fair or poor glycemic control than for those who have good glycemic control. Patients under fair control account for a greater proportion of the cost burden associated with antidiabetic prescription drugs

Dementia and psychotropic medications are associated with significantly higher mortality in geriatric patients hospitalized with COVID-19 : data from the StockholmGeroCovid project

Background: Dementia and psychotropic medications are discussed as risk factors for severe/lethal outcome of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to explore the associations between the presence of dementia and medication use with mortality in the hospitalized and discharged patients who suffered from COVID-19. Methods: We conducted an open-cohort observational study based on electronic patient records from nine geriatric care clinics in the larger Stockholm area, Sweden, between February 28, 2020, and November 22, 2021. In total, we identified 5122 hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19, out of which 762 (14.9%) patients had concurrent dementia and 4360 (85.1%) were dementia-free. Patients’ age, sex, baseline oxygen saturation, comorbidities, and medication prescription (cardiovascular and psychotropic medication) were registered at admission. The hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of in-hospital, 30-day, 90-day, 365-day post-discharge, and overall mortal- ity during the follow-up were obtained. Then, the associations of dementia and medication use with mortality were determined using proportional hazards regression with time since entry as a time scale. Results: After adjustment, dementia was independently associated with 68% higher in-hospital mortality among COVID-19 patients compared to patients who were dementia-free at admission [HRs (95% CI) 1.68 (1.37–2.06)]. The increase was consistent post-discharge, and the overall mortality of dementia patients was increased by 59% [1.59 (1.40–1.81)]. In addition, the prescription of antipsychotic medication at hospital admission was associated with a 70% higher total mortality risk [1.70 (1.47–1.97)]. Conclusions: The clinical co-occurence of dementia and COVID-19 increases the short- and long-term risk of death, and the antipsychotics seem to further the risk increase. Our results may help identify high-risk patients in need of more specialized care when infected with COVID-19.Swedish Research Council (dnr: 2020-06101 WISER, 2021-013167, 2020-05805)National Institute for Neurological Research, Programme EXCELES (Project No. LX22NPO5107)European Union, Next Generation EUAlzheimerfondenKarolinska InstitutetPublishe

Economic burden and comorbidities of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among pediatric patients hospitalized in the United States

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This retrospective database analysis used data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) to examine common primary diagnoses among children and adolescents hospitalized with a secondary diagnosis of attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and assessed the burden of ADHD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Hospitalized children (aged 6-11 years) and adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with a secondary diagnosis of ADHD were identified. The 10 most common primary diagnoses (using the first 3 digits of the ICD-9-CM code) were reported for each age group. Patients with 1 of these conditions were selected to analyze demographics, length of stay (LOS), and costs. Control patients were selected if they had 1 of the 10 primary diagnoses and no secondary ADHD diagnosis. Patient and hospital characteristics were reported by cohort (i.e., patients with ADHD vs. controls), and LOS and costs were reported by primary diagnosis. Multivariable linear regression analyses were undertaken to adjust LOS and costs based on patient and hospital characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 126,056 children and 204,176 adolescents were identified as having a secondary diagnosis of ADHD. Among children and adolescents with ADHD, the most common diagnoses tended to be mental health related (i.e., affective psychoses, emotional disturbances, conduct disturbances, depressive disorder, or adjustment reaction). Other common diagnoses included general symptoms, asthma (in children only), and acute appendicitis. Among patients with ADHD, a higher percentage were male, white, and covered by Medicaid. LOS and costs were higher among children with ADHD and a primary diagnosis of affective psychoses (by 0.61 days and $51), adjustment reaction (by 1.71 days and$940), or depressive disorder (by 0.41 days and $124) versus controls. LOS and costs were higher among adolescents with ADHD and a primary diagnosis of affective psychoses (by 1.04 days and$352), depressive disorder (by 0.94 days and $517), conduct disturbances (by 0.86 days and$1,330), emotional disturbances (by 1.45 days and $1,626), adjustment reaction (by 1.25 days and$702), and neurotic disorders (by 1.60 days and $541) versus controls.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Clinicians and health care decision makers should be aware of the potential impact of ADHD on hospitalized children and adolescents.</p