22 research outputs found

    Unintended consequences of the potential phase-out of gamma irradiation [version 1; referees: 2 approved]

    No full text
    The radioisotope cobalt-60 (Co-60) is important for commercial, medical, and agricultural applications. Its widespread use has meant that Co-60 can be found in less secured facilities, leading to the fear that unauthorized persons could obtain and use it to produce a “dirty bomb”. This potential security concern has led to government calls for phasing-out Co-60 and other radiation sources, despite ongoing safety and security regulations for handling, transport and use of radioactive sealed sources. This paper explores potential implications of phasing out radioisotopic technologies, including unintended safety and cost consequences for healthcare and food in the US and globally. The use of Co-60 for healthcare and agricultural applications is well-documented. Co-60 is used to sterilize single-use medical devices, tissue allografts, and a range of consumer products. Co-60 is used in Gamma Knife treatment of brain tumors in over 70,000 patients annually. Co-60 is also used to preserve food and kill insects and pathogens that cause food-borne illness. Co-60 is effective, reliable, and predictable. Limitations of alternative sterilization technologies include complex equipment, toxicities, incompatibilities with plastic, and physical hazards. Alternative ionizing radiation sources for wide-reaching applications, including e-beam and x-ray radiation, have advantages and drawbacks related to commercial scale capacity, penetrability, complexity and reliability. Identifying acceptable alternatives would require time, costs and lengthy regulatory review. FDA testing requirements and other hurdles would delay replacement of existing technologies and slow medical innovation, even delaying access to life-saving therapies.  A phase-out would raise manufacturing costs, and reduce supply-chain efficiencies, potentially increasing consumer prices, and reducing supply. These consequences are poorly understood and merit additional research. Given Co-60’s importance across medical and non-medical fields, restrictions on Co-60 warrant careful consideration and evaluation before adoption

    Comparative effectiveness of a bioengineered living cellular construct vs. a dehydrated human amniotic membrane allograft for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in a real world setting

    No full text
    We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of a bioengineered living cellular construct (BLCC) and a dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allograft (dHACM) for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). Using a wound care-specific electronic medical record database, we assessed real-world outcomes in 218 patients with 226 DFUs receiving treatment in 2014 at 99 wound care centers. The analysis included DFUs ≥1 and <25 cm2 with duration <=1 year and area reduction ≤20% in 14 days prior to treatment (N=163, BLCC; N=63, dHACM). The average baseline areas and durations were 6.0 cm2 and 4.4 months for BLCC and 5.2 cm2 and 4.6 months for dHACM, respectively. Patients treated with dHACM had more applications compared to those treated with BLCC (median 3.0 vs. 2.0) (p=0.003). A Cox model adjusted for key covariates including area and duration found the median time to closure for BLCC was 13.3 weeks compared to 26 weeks for dHACM, and the proportion of wounds healed were significantly higher for BLCC by 12 weeks (48% vs. 28%) and 24 weeks (72% vs. 47%) (p=0.01). Treatment with a bioengineered living cellular technology increased the probability of healing by 97% compared with a dehydrated amniotic membrane (hazard ratio = 1.97 [95% confidence interval 1.17, 3.33], p=0.01)

    Scenario analyses, societal perspective.

    No full text
    *<p>Mixed public and private incremental vaccine cost was calculated by weighing the public and private vaccine cost by the proportion of those who receive the vaccine at public cost.</p
    corecore