A Cost of Doing Business: Defense Contracting Fraud

The federal government relies heavily on outside contractors to provide essential research and services. Following World War II, the Department of Defense and the military began to rely on approved government contractors to develop, test and improve weapons and tools used to keep soldiers and the nation safe. Defense contracting is a massive business that commands billions of dollars a year. Despite the magnitude of the United States\u27 contracting system, detecting fraud and preventing bad actors from continuing to profit off of the government has proven difficult. The systems at hand: civil and criminal charges, suspension and debarment have consistently proven to be inadequate at preventing fraud. This story investigates the consequences (or lack thereof) for contractors who commit fraud. It also explains how the system is supposed to work and what tools the government has to protect itself. The story focuses on EOTech and its parent company L-3. EOTech was successfully charged with fraud at the end of 2015 yet L-3 continues to profit from the federal government. Website: https://shaneenglish.github.io/acostofdoingbusiness/index.htm

The Grizzly, April 25, 2013

Students, Dean Recall Boston During Bombings • Wismer to Get Summer Makeover • Residence Life Expands Gender-Neutral Housing • UC Organic Farm • Alumni Always Welcome • Ninjutsu Club\u27s New Identity • B\u27 Nats\u27 Concert • Opinion: Consider Your Privilege at Thrift Shops • Grizzly Staff Thanks Dr. Kirstie Hettinga • Senior Day Ahead for Spring Athletes • Cheers and Jeers: Ursinus, Philadelphia Athletics • Women\u27s Lacrosse Falls Shorthttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1883/thumbnail.jp

Feasibility of fully automated closed-loop glucose control using continuous subcutaneous glucose measurements in critical illness: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Closed-loop (CL) systems modulate insulin delivery according to glucose levels without nurse input. In a prospective randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the feasibility of an automated closed-loop approach based on subcutaneous glucose measurements in comparison with a local sliding-scale insulin-therapy protocol. METHODS: Twenty-four critically ill adults (predominantly trauma and neuroscience patients) with hyperglycemia (glucose, ≥10 mM) or already receiving insulin therapy, were randomized to receive either fully automated closed-loop therapy (model predictive control algorithm directing insulin and 20% dextrose infusion based on FreeStyle Navigator continuous subcutaneous glucose values, n = 12) or a local protocol (n = 12) with intravenous sliding-scale insulin, over a 48-hour period. The primary end point was percentage of time when arterial blood glucose was between 6.0 and 8.0 mM. RESULTS: The time when glucose was in the target range was significantly increased during closed-loop therapy (54.3% (44.1 to 72.8) versus 18.5% (0.1 to 39.9), P = 0.001; median (interquartile range)), and so was time in wider targets, 5.6 to 10.0 mM and 4.0 to 10.0 mM (P ≤ 0.002), reflecting a reduced glucose exposure >8 and >10 mM (P ≤ 0.002). Mean glucose was significantly lower during CL (7.8 (7.4 to 8.2) versus 9.1 (8.3 to 13.0] mM; P = 0.001) without hypoglycemia (<4 mM) during either therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Fully automated closed-loop control based on subcutaneous glucose measurements is feasible and may provide efficacious and hypoglycemia-free glucose control in critically ill adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT01440842

Terrorism studies: What we have forgotten and what we now know

In our current troubled times, terrorism and the threat of attacks on liberal states preoccupies both policymakers and much of the scholarly community. Four important books are reviewed here. These works represent the evolution of thinking on terrorism over the last three turbulent decades. Revisiting earlier thinking and bringing debates up to date about how to understand and respond to violent threats allows us to ponder what we ‘now know’ and may not know about terrorism and liberal states

The Grizzly, April 4, 2013

AFAC to Fund ESPN • No Tolerance for Open Containers • Staff Form Assembly • Transfer Students Offer Perspective on UC • Airband Event • Devoted Yet Battered Players • Blogging has Educational Benefits • Ursinus Students Celebrate World Water Month • Opinion: Seniors, Don\u27t Freak Out About the Future; Extra-Curriculars an Important Part of Education • Ursinus Athletics Struggles • Concussions Affecting UC Athleticshttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1880/thumbnail.jp

Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adult patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The accuracy of the signs and tests that clinicians use to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and initiate antibiotic treatment has not been well characterized. We sought to characterize and compare the accuracy of physical examination, chest radiography, endotracheal aspirate (ETA), bronchoscopic sampling cultures (protected specimen brush [PSB] and bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL]), and CPIS > 6 to diagnose VAP. We searched six databases from inception through September 2019 and selected English-language studies investigating accuracy of any of the above tests for VAP diagnosis. Reference standard was histopathological analysis. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We included 25 studies (1639 patients). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of physical examination findings for VAP were poor: fever (66.4% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.7–85.0], 53.9% [95% CI 34.5–72.2]) and purulent secretions (77.0% [95% CI 64.7–85.9], 39.0% [95% CI 25.8–54.0]). Any infiltrate on chest radiography had a sensitivity of 88.9% (95% CI 73.9–95.8) and specificity of 26.1% (95% CI 15.1–41.4). ETA had a sensitivity of 75.7% (95% CI 51.5–90.1) and specificity of 67.9% (95% CI 40.5–86.8). Among bronchoscopic sampling methods, PSB had a sensitivity of 61.4% [95% CI 43.7–76.5] and specificity of 76.5% [95% CI 64.2–85.6]; while BAL had a sensitivity of 71.1% [95% CI 49.9–85.9] and specificity of 79.6% [95% CI 66.2–85.9]. CPIS > 6 had a sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI 50.6–88.5) and specificity of 66.4% (95% CI 43.9–83.3). Classic clinical indicators had poor accuracy for diagnosis of VAP. Reliance upon these indicators in isolation may result in misdiagnosis and potentially unnecessary antimicrobial use

Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock

BACKGROUND Vasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 mu g of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors. RESULTS A total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiotensin II group (114 of 163 patients, 69.9%) than in the placebo group (37 of 158 patients, 23.4%) (odds ratio, 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.76 to 13.3; P<0.001). At 48 hours, the mean improvement in the cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction) was greater in the angiotensin II group than in the placebo group (-1.75 vs. -1.28, P = 0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in 60.7% of the patients in the angiotensin II group and in 67.1% in the placebo group. Death by day 28 occurred in 75 of 163 patients (46%) in the angiotensin II group and in 85 of 158 patients (54%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS Angiotensin II effectively increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock that did not respond to high doses of conventional vasopressors. (Funded by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company; ATHOS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02338843.)Peer reviewe

The Lantern, 2012-2013

• How They Run • What Was Said in Boston • On the Last Day of the Month • An Angel Tries to Surprise Humans • I Wonder if God Modeled Boys After Books • Marred with Modern Scars • Feather Bed • Ode to a Pen • Objet Petit A • Breaking News: Grownups Fear Return of Disco • Neuroscience • New Document • We Were Stars, and the Sky was Our Grass • About a Man • Trojan • An Ode • Yr Body Sour • That Lake in Jamaica • Live While Chiefs are Still Fighting • Lament for Mathematics • The Robert Frost House • People Fell in Love on Me • Sunday Review • Looks Silly in Tiny Desk Chairs • Two Years Later • Better Than Nothing • Istanbul • Packs of Cigarettes • Sonnet • Outside King of Steaks • Obstinance • Coffee Grinds • Autumn Equinox • Homecoming • Oh, San Francisco • Slide: A Beginning • Slowly Last Summer • Of Dogs and Men • Letters Not Sent • Before the Race • The Little Things • Tarpon Springs • Payment for Rebellion • Wednesday • When is President\u27s Day? • Heartless Parallels and Perpendiculars • Railway • Presto Agitato • Easier Said Than Done • Waves • Four White Women • Rope • Alter Ego Self Portrait • Pebbles • Coney Island • Guanjuanto • Growth • Evolve • Winter Blackout • Honeybee • Frames • Wanderlust • Guiding Light 1 • Frick\u27s Lock • The Ones That Never Leave • In Memoriam: Rachel Blunthttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/lantern/1179/thumbnail.jp

Multicountry survey of emergency and critical care medicine physicians' fluid resuscitation practices for adult patients with early septic shock

Evidence to guide fluid resuscitation evidence in sepsis continues to evolve. We conducted a multicountry survey of emergency and critical care physicians to describe current stated practice and practice variation related to the quantity, rapidity and type of resuscitation fluid administered in early septic shock to inform the design of future septic shock fluid resuscitation trials.Using a web-based survey tool, we invited critical care and emergency physicians in Canada, the UK, Scandinavia and Saudi Arabia to complete a self-administered electronic survey.A total of 1097 physicians responses were included. 1 L was the most frequent quantity of resuscitation fluid physicians indicated they would administer at a time (46.9%, n=499). Most (63.0%, n=671) stated that they would administer the fluid challenges as quickly as possible. Overall, normal saline and Ringers solutions were the preferred crystalloid fluids used often or always in 53.1% (n=556) and 60.5% (n=632) of instances, respectively. However, emergency physicians indicated that they would use normal saline often or always in 83.9% (n=376) of instances, while critical care physicians said that they would use saline often or always in 27.9% (n=150) of instances. Only 1.0% (n=10) of respondents indicated that they would use hydroxyethyl starch often or always; use of 5% (5.6% (n=59)) or 20-25% albumin (1.3% (n=14)) was also infrequent. The majority (88.4%, n=896) of respondents indicated that a large randomised controlled trial comparing 5% albumin to a crystalloid fluid in early septic shock was important to conduct.Critical care and emergency physicians stated that they rapidly infuse volumes of 500-1000 mL of resuscitation fluid in early septic shock. Colloid use, specifically the use of albumin, was infrequently reported. Our survey identifies the need to conduct a trial on the efficacy of albumin and crystalloids on 90-day mortality in patients with early septic shock

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707