Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background About 50% of all hospitalized fragility fracture cases in older Americans are hip fractures. Approximately 3/4 of fracture-related costs in the USA are attributable to hip fractures, and these are mostly covered by Medicare. Hip fracture patients with dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, have worse health outcomes including longer hospital length of stay (LOS) and charges. LOS and hospital charges for dementia patients are usually higher than for those without dementia. Research describing LOS and acute care charges for hip fractures has mostly focused on these outcomes in trauma patients without a known pre-admission diagnosis of osteoporosis (OP). Lack of documented diagnosis put patients at risk of not having an appropriate treatment plan for OP. Whether having a diagnosis of OP would have an effect on hospital outcomes in dementia patients has not been explored. We aim to investigate whether having a diagnosis of OP, dementia, or both has an effect on LOS and hospital charges. In addition, we also report prevalence of common comorbidities in the study population and their effects on hospital outcomes. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of claims data (2012–2013) for 2175 Medicare beneficiaries ( ≥65 years) in the USA. Results Compared to those without OP or dementia, patients with demenia only had a shorter LOS (by 5%; P  = .04). Median LOS was 6 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 5–7), and the median hospital charges were $45,100 (IQR: 31,500 − 65,600). In general, White patients had a shorter LOS (by 7%), and those with CHF and ischemic heart disease (IHD) had longer LOS (by 7 and 4%, respectively). Hospital charges were 6% lower for women, and 16% lower for White patients. Conclusion This is the first study evaluating LOS in dementia in the context of hip fracture which also disagrees with previous reporting about longer LOS in dementia patients. Patients with CHF and IHD remains at high risk for longer LOS regardless of their diagnosis of dementia or OP.

Primary prophylaxis, using factor VIII replacement, is the recognized standard of care for severe hemophilia A. Recombinant factor VIII-Fc fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) and emicizumab, a humanized, bispecific antibody, are approved for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in severe hemophilia A. These products have different mechanisms of action, methods of administration and treatment schedules. In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect treatment comparisons can provide informative evidence on the relative efficacy of the two treatments. The aim of the study was to compare the approved dosing regimens for each product, rFVIIIFc individualized prophylaxis and emicizumab administered once every week (Q1W), every 2 weeks (Q2W) or every 4 weeks (Q4W), based on clinical trial evidence. The comparison was conducted using matching-adjusted indirect comparison since clinical evidence did not form a connected network. Individual patient data for rFVIIIFc (A-LONG) were compared with data for emicizumab (HAVEN trial program) for mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) and proportion of patients with zero bleeds. Safety data reported across the analyzed treatment arms were tabularized but not formally compared. After matching, no significant differences were observed between mean ABR for rFVIIIFc and emicizumab administered Q1W, Q2W or Q4W. The proportion of patients with zero bleeds was significantly higher with rFVIIIFc compared with emicizumab administered Q4W (51.2% versus 29.3%, respectively; odds ratio 2.53; 95% confidence interval 1.09-5.89); no significant differences noted when rFVIIIFc was compared with emicizumab administered Q1W or Q2W. The mean number of adverse events expressed per participant was 1.9 for individualized prophylaxis with rFVIIIFc and 3.7-4.0, 4.1 and 3.6 for emicizumab administered Q1W, Q2W or Q4W, respectively. This indirect treatment comparison suggests that rFVIIIFc individualized prophylaxis is more efficacious than emicizumab Q4W, and at least as effective as more frequent emicizumab regimens, for the management of hemophilia A.

Background Storage symptoms, associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), often co-exist with voiding symptoms in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Storage symptoms are likely to be most bothersome, and may not be adequately resolved by treatment with α-blocker or antimuscarinic monotherapy. A recent randomised controlled phase 3 trial (NEPTUNE) demonstrated that a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of solifenacin 6 mg plus an oral controlled absorption system (OCAS™) formulation of tamsulosin (TOCAS, 0.4 mg) improved storage symptoms, as well as quality of life, compared with TOCAS alone in men with moderate-to-severe storage symptoms and voiding symptoms. This analysis aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS relative to tolterodine plus tamsulosin given concomitantly, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). Methods A Markov model was developed for men aged ≥45 years with LUTS/BPH who have moderate-to-severe storage symptoms and voiding symptoms. The model calculated cost-effectiveness over an analytical time horizon of 1 year and estimated total treatment costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results The FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS was associated with lower total annual costs (£860 versus £959) and increased QALYs (0.839 versus 0.836), and was therefore dominant compared with tolterodine plus tamsulosin. Time horizon, discontinuation or withdrawal rates, drug cost and utility values were the main drivers of cost-effectiveness. The probability that the FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS is cost-effective was 100% versus tolterodine plus tamsulosin, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY gained. Conclusions The FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS provides important clinical benefits and is a cost-effective treatment strategy in the UK NHS compared with tolterodine plus tamsulosin for men with both storage and voiding LUTS/BPH.

This study was carried out to find out whether Ramadan fasting would affect the renal function in kidney transplant recipients with normal or impaired graft function. Twenty-three transplant recipients, 17 with a normal function and 6 with an impaired but stable function with plasma creatinine levels not exceeding 300 mmol/l, were included in this study. The mean posttransplant period was 2.0 (range 0.6–6.3) years. Urinary and serum biochemical parameters, ciclosporin A level, and hematocrit were checked weekly, during Ramadan as well as 1 week before and after. Statistical analysis showed no significant changes in all parameters before, during, and after Ramadan. In conclusion, our findings indicate that fasting during the month of Ramadan does not seem to be associated with any significant adverse effects in kidney transplant recipients with normal or impaired graft function and suggest that it is safe for those patients to fast during Ramadan after 1 year of renal transplantation.