Feasibility and willingness-to-pay for integrated community-based tuberculosis testing

BACKGROUND: Community-based screening for TB, combined with HIV and syphilis testing, faces a number of barriers. One significant barrier is the value that target communities place on such screening. METHODS: Integrated testing for TB, HIV, and syphilis was performed in neighborhoods identified using geographic information systems-based disease mapping. TB testing included skin testing and interferon gamma release assays. Subjects completed a survey describing disease risk factors, healthcare access, healthcare utilization, and willingness to pay for integrated testing. RESULTS: Behavioral and social risk factors among the 113 subjects were prevalent (71% prior incarceration, 27% prior or current crack cocaine use, 35% homelessness), and only 38% had a regular healthcare provider. The initial 24 subjects reported that they would be willing to pay a median $20 (IQR: 0-100) for HIV testing and$10 (IQR: 0-100) for TB testing when the question was asked in an open-ended fashion, but when the question was changed to a multiple-choice format, the next 89 subjects reported that they would pay a median $5 for testing, and 23$5 to get tested for TB, HIV, or syphilis. Among persons who received tuberculin skin testing, only 14/78 (18%) participants returned to have their skin tests read. Only 14/109 (13%) persons who underwent HIV testing returned to receive their HIV results. CONCLUSION: The relatively high-risk persons screened in this community outreach study placed low value on testing. Reported willingness to pay for such testing, while low, likely overestimated the true willingness to pay. Successful TB, HIV, and syphilis integrated testing programs in high risk populations will likely require one-visit diagnostic testing and incentives

The pathophysiology of restricted repetitive behavior

Restricted, repetitive behaviors (RRBs) are heterogeneous ranging from stereotypic body movements to rituals to restricted interests. RRBs are most strongly associated with autism but occur in a number of other clinical disorders as well as in typical development. There does not seem to be a category of RRB that is unique or specific to autism and RRB does not seem to be robustly correlated with specific cognitive, sensory or motor abnormalities in autism. Despite its clinical significance, little is known about the pathophysiology of RRB. Both clinical and animal models studies link repetitive behaviors to genetic mutations and a number of specific genetic syndromes have RRBs as part of the clinical phenotype. Genetic risk factors may interact with experiential factors resulting in the extremes in repetitive behavior phenotypic expression that characterize autism. Few studies of individuals with autism have correlated MRI findings and RRBs and no attempt has been made to associate RRB and post-mortem tissue findings. Available clinical and animal models data indicate functional and structural alterations in cortical-basal ganglia circuitry in the expression of RRB, however. Our own studies point to reduced activity of the indirect basal ganglia pathway being associated with high levels of repetitive behavior in an animal model. These findings, if generalizable, suggest specific therapeutic targets. These, and perhaps other, perturbations to cortical basal ganglia circuitry are mediated by specific molecular mechanisms (e.g., altered gene expression) that result in long-term, experience-dependent neuroadaptations that initiate and maintain repetitive behavior. A great deal more research is needed to uncover such mechanisms. Work in areas such as substance abuse, OCD, Tourette syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, and dementias promise to provide findings critical for identifying neurobiological mechanisms relevant to RRB in autism. Moreover, basic research in areas such as birdsong, habit formation, and procedural learning may provide additional, much needed clues. Understanding the pathophysioloy of repetitive behavior will be critical to identifying novel therapeutic targets and strategies for individuals with autism

Postoperative Outcomes Associated With Procedural Sedation Conducted by Physician and Nonphysician Anesthesia Providers: Findings From the Prospective, Observational African Surgical Outcomes Study.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for essential surgical services in Africa. Limited anesthesia services are a contributing factor. Nonphysician anesthesia providers are utilized to assist with providing anesthesia and procedural sedation to make essential surgeries available. There is a paucity of data on outcomes following procedural sedation for surgery in Africa. We investigated the postoperative outcomes following procedural sedation by nonphysicians and physicians in Africa. We hypothesized that the level of training of the sedation provider may be associated with the incidence of severe postoperative complications and death. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of inhospital adult surgical patients representing 25 African countries was performed. The primary outcome was a collapsed composite of inhospital severe postoperative complications and death. We assessed the association between receiving procedural sedation conducted by a nonphysician (versus physician) and the composite outcome using logistic regression. We used the inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score method to adjust for potential confounding variables including patient age, hemoglobin level, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physiological status, diabetes mellitus, urgency of surgery, severity of surgery, indication for surgery, surgical discipline, seniority of the surgical team, hospital level of specialization, and hospital funding system using public or private funding. All patients who only received procedural sedation for surgery were included. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-six patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 98 (29.2%) received sedation from a nonphysician provider. The incidence of severe postoperative complications and death was 10 of 98 (10.2%) in the nonphysician group and 5 of 238 (2.1%) in the physician group. The estimated association between procedural sedation conducted by a nonphysician provider and inhospital outcomes was an 8-fold increase in the odds of severe complications and/or death, with an odds ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 8.3 (2.7-25.6). CONCLUSIONS: The modest number of observations in this secondary data analysis suggests that shifting the task of procedural sedation from physicians to nonphysicians to increase access to care may be associated with severe postoperative complications and death in Africa. Research focusing on identifying factors contributing to adverse outcomes associated with procedural sedation is necessary to make this practice safer