What Congress Knows and Sometimes Doesn\u27t Know

It is a striking feature of the legislative process that Congress is neither required to articulate reasons for its actions nor subject to constitutional challenge merely on the ground that its choices are uninformed. The Constitution contains a variety of procedural rules for enacting legislation. It also requires that statutes conform to a number of substantive requirements. But Congress has traditionally enjoyed wide latitude in deciding whether and to what extent it bases decisions on policy-relevant knowledge or articulates the factual foundations for its actions. Until recently, even when evaluating statutes under close judicial scrutiny, the Supreme Court has tended to defer to Congress\u27 special competence as the fact-finding branch of the federal government Such deference recognizes the significant fact-finding value inherent in Congress\u27 ability to conduct hearings and investigations, to subpoena witnesses and documents, and to assign to legislative committees and staff responsibility for detailed scrutiny of legislative proposals, their factual foundations and their suitability as responses to social policy concerns. It also recognizes that the variety of backgrounds and interests among legislators enables them to draw upon a wide knowledge of social and economic conditions. In addition, the tradition of judicial deference respects the democratically elect- ed legislature as the primary source of statutory law

Burden of anemia in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in French secondary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Arthritic disorders can be the cause of hospitalizations, especially among individuals 60 years and older. The objective of this study is to investigate associations between health care resource utilization in arthritis patients with and without concomitant anemia in a secondary care setting in France.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This retrospective cohort study utilized data on secondary care activity in 2001 from the Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information database. Two cohorts were defined using ICD-10 codes: patients with an arthritis diagnosis with a concomitant diagnosis of anemia; and arthritis patients without anemia. Health care resource utilization for both populations was analyzed separately in public and private hospitals. Study outcomes were compared between the cohorts using standard bivariate and multivariable methods.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were 300,865 hospitalizations for patients with arthritis only, and 2,744 for those with concomitant anemia. Over 70% of patients with concomitant anemia were in public hospitals, compared with 53.5% of arthritis-only patients. Arthritis patients without anemia were younger than those with concomitant anemia (mean age 66.7 vs 74.6, public hospitals; 67.1 vs 72.2, private hospitals). Patients with concomitant anemia/arthritis only had a mean length of stay of 11.91 (SD 14.07)/8.04 (SD 9.93) days in public hospitals, and 10.68 (SD 10.16)/9.83 (SD 7.76) days in private hospitals. After adjusting for confounders, the mean (95% CI) additional length of stay for arthritis patients with concomitant anemia, compared with those with arthritis only, was 1.56 (1.14-1.98) days in public and 0.69 (0.22-1.16) days in private hospitals. Costs per hospitalization were €;480 (227-734) greater for arthritis patients with anemia in public hospitals, and €;30 (-113-52) less in private hospitals, than for arthritis-only patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Arthritis patients with concomitant anemia have a longer length of stay, undergo more procedures, and have higher hospitalization costs than nonanemic arthritis patients in public hospitals in France. In private hospitals, concomitant anemia was associated with modest increases in length of stay and number of procedures; however, this did not translate into higher costs. Such evidence of anemia-related health care utilization and costs can be considered as a proxy for the clinical significance of anemia.</p

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological systematic review of health technology assessments

Background: Evaluations of diagnostic tests are challenging because of the indirect nature of their impact on patient outcomes. Model-based health economic evaluations of tests allow different types of evidence from various sources to be incorporated and enable cost-effectiveness estimates to be made beyond the duration of available study data. To parameterize a health-economic model fully, all the ways a test impacts on patient health must be quantified, including but not limited to diagnostic test accuracy. Methods: We assessed all UK NIHR HTA reports published May 2009-July 2015. Reports were included if they evaluated a diagnostic test, included a model-based health economic evaluation and included a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy. From each eligible report we extracted information on the following topics: 1) what evidence aside from test accuracy was searched for and synthesised, 2) which methods were used to synthesise test accuracy evidence and how did the results inform the economic model, 3) how/whether threshold effects were explored, 4) how the potential dependency between multiple tests in a pathway was accounted for, and 5) for evaluations of tests targeted at the primary care setting, how evidence from differing healthcare settings was incorporated. Results: The bivariate or HSROC model was implemented in 20/22 reports that met all inclusion criteria. Test accuracy data for health economic modelling was obtained from meta-analyses completely in four reports, partially in fourteen reports and not at all in four reports. Only 2/7 reports that used a quantitative test gave clear threshold recommendations. All 22 reports explored the effect of uncertainty in accuracy parameters but most of those that used multiple tests did not allow for dependence between test results. 7/22 tests were potentially suitable for primary care but the majority found limited evidence on test accuracy in primary care settings. Conclusions: The uptake of appropriate meta-analysis methods for synthesising evidence on diagnostic test accuracy in UK NIHR HTAs has improved in recent years. Future research should focus on other evidence requirements for cost-effectiveness assessment, threshold effects for quantitative tests and the impact of multiple diagnostic tests

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI): a single-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. METHODS: We did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91-1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed. INTERPRETATION: Remote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden