Validation of ICDPIC software injury severity scores using a large regional trauma registry.

BACKGROUND: Administrative or quality improvement registries may or may not contain the elements needed for investigations by trauma researchers. International Classification of Diseases Program for Injury Categorisation (ICDPIC), a statistical program available through Stata, is a powerful tool that can extract injury severity scores from ICD-9-CM codes. We conducted a validation study for use of the ICDPIC in trauma research. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort validation study of 40,418 patients with injury using a large regional trauma registry. ICDPIC-generated AIS scores for each body region were compared with trauma registry AIS scores (gold standard) in adult and paediatric populations. A separate analysis was conducted among patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) comparing the ICDPIC tool with ICD-9-CM embedded severity codes. Performance in characterising overall injury severity, by the ISS, was also assessed. RESULTS: The ICDPIC tool generated substantial correlations in thoracic and abdominal trauma (weighted κ 0.87-0.92), and in head and neck trauma (weighted κ 0.76-0.83). The ICDPIC tool captured TBI severity better than ICD-9-CM code embedded severity and offered the advantage of generating a severity value for every patient (rather than having missing data). Its ability to produce an accurate severity score was consistent within each body region as well as overall. CONCLUSIONS: The ICDPIC tool performs well in classifying injury severity and is superior to ICD-9-CM embedded severity for TBI. Use of ICDPIC demonstrates substantial efficiency and may be a preferred tool in determining injury severity for large trauma datasets, provided researchers understand its limitations and take caution when examining smaller trauma datasets.

Early clopidogrel versus prasugrel use among contemporary STEMI and NSTEMI patients in the US: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

BACKGROUND: P2Y12 antagonist therapy improves outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients. Novel agents in this class are now available in the US. We studied the introduction of prasugrel into contemporary MI practice to understand the appropriateness of its use and assess for changes in antiplatelet management practices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using ACTION Registry-GWTG (Get-with-the-Guidelines), we evaluated patterns of P2Y12 antagonist use within 24 hours of admission in 100 228 ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 158 492 Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients at 548 hospitals between October 2009 and September 2012. Rates of early P2Y12 antagonist use were approximately 90% among STEMI and 57% among NSTEMI patients. From 2009 to 2012, prasugrel use increased significantly from 3% to 18% (5% to 30% in STEMI; 2% to 10% in NSTEMI; P for trend <0.001 for all). During the same period, we observed a decrease in use of early but not discharge P2Y12 antagonist among NSTEMI patients. Although contraindicated, 3.0% of patients with prior stroke received prasugrel. Prasugrel was used in 1.9% of patients ≥75 years and 4.5% of patients with weight <60 kg. In both STEMI and NSTEMI, prasugrel was most frequently used in patients at the lowest predicted risk for bleeding and mortality. Despite lack of supporting evidence, prasugrel was initiated before cardiac catheterization in 18% of NSTEMI patients. CONCLUSIONS: With prasugrel as an antiplatelet treatment option, contemporary practice shows low uptake of prasugrel and delays in P2Y12 antagonist initiation among NSTEMI patients. We also note concerning evidence of inappropriate use of prasugrel, and inadequate targeting of this more potent therapy to maximize the benefit/risk ratio.

Comparative effectiveness studies to improve clinical outcomes in end stage renal disease: the DEcIDE patient outcomes in end stage renal disease study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is lacking to inform providers' and patients' decisions about many common treatment strategies for patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). METHODS/DESIGN: The DEcIDE Patient Outcomes in ESRD Study is funded by the United States (US) Agency for Health Care Research and Quality to study the comparative effectiveness of: 1) antihypertensive therapies, 2) early versus later initiation of dialysis, and 3) intravenous iron therapies on clinical outcomes in patients with ESRD. Ongoing studies utilize four existing, nationally representative cohorts of patients with ESRD, including (1) the Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for ESRD study (1041 incident dialysis patients recruited from October 1995 to June 1999 with complete outcome ascertainment through 2009), (2) the Dialysis Clinic Inc (45,124 incident dialysis patients initiating and receiving their care from 2003-2010 with complete outcome ascertainment through 2010), (3) the United States Renal Data System (333,308 incident dialysis patients from 2006-2009 with complete outcome ascertainment through 2010), and (4) the Cleveland Clinic Foundation Chronic Kidney Disease Registry (53,399 patients with chronic kidney disease with outcome ascertainment from 2005 through 2009). We ascertain patient reported outcomes (i.e., health-related quality of life), morbidity, and mortality using clinical and administrative data, and data obtained from national death indices. We use advanced statistical methods (e.g., propensity scoring and marginal structural modeling) to account for potential biases of our study designs. All data are de-identified for analyses. The conduct of studies and dissemination of findings are guided by input from Stakeholders in the ESRD community. DISCUSSION: The DEcIDE Patient Outcomes in ESRD Study will provide needed evidence regarding the effectiveness of common treatments employed for dialysis patients. Carefully planned dissemination strategies to the ESRD community will enhance studies' impact on clinical care and patients' outcomes.

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.

BACKGROUND: When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.

Risk of dislocation using large- vs. small-diameter femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Dislocation remains a difficult problem in total hip arthroplasty. Large-diameter femoral heads may lower the incidence of dislocation by enhancing the jump distance and decreasing impingement, but their performance against small-diameter heads has not been assessed. This study compared the mid-term radiographic and functional outcomes of two matched cohorts of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty who had a high pre-operative risk for dislocation and who received either small-diameter (26- or 28-millimeters) or large-diameter (≥36-millimeters) femoral heads. METHODS: All patients who received large-diameter heads (≥36-millimeter) between 2002 and 2005, and who had pre-operative risk factors for dislocation, were identified in the institution's joint registry. Forty-one patients (52 hips) who received large-diameter heads were identified, and these patients were matched to 48 patients (52 hips) in the registry who received small-diameter femoral heads. RESULTS: At mean final follow-up of 62 months (range, 49 to 101 months), both groups achieved excellent functional outcomes as measured by Harris Hip scores, with slightly better final scores in the large-diameter group (90 vs. 83 points). No patient showed any radiographic signs of loosening. No patient dislocated in the large-diameter femoral head group; the smaller-diameter group had a greater rate of dislocation (3.8%, 2 out of 52). CONCLUSIONS: Large-diameter femoral head articulations may reduce dislocation rates in patients who have a high pre-operative risk for dislocation while providing the same functional improvements and safety as small-diameter bearings.

Potent functional antibody responses elicited by HIV-I DNA priming and boosting with heterologous HIV-1 recombinant MVA in healthy Tanzanian adults.

UNLABELLED: Vaccine-induced HIV antibodies were evaluated in serum samples collected from healthy Tanzanian volunteers participating in a phase I/II placebo-controlled double blind trial using multi-clade, multigene HIV-DNA priming and recombinant modified vaccinia Ankara (HIV-MVA) virus boosting (HIVIS03). The HIV-DNA vaccine contained plasmids expressing HIV-1 gp160 subtypes A, B, C, Rev B, Gag A, B and RTmut B, and the recombinant HIV-MVA boost expressed CRF01_AE HIV-1 Env subtype E and Gag-Pol subtype A. While no neutralizing antibodies were detected using pseudoviruses in the TZM-bl cell assay, this prime-boost vaccination induced neutralizing antibodies in 83% of HIVIS03 vaccinees when a peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) assay using luciferase reporter-infectious molecular clones (LucR-IMC) was employed. The serum neutralizing activity was significantly (but not completely) reduced upon depletion of natural killer (NK) cells from PBMC (p=0.006), indicating a role for antibody-mediated Fcγ-receptor function. High levels of antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC)-mediating antibodies against CRF01_AE and/or subtype B were subsequently demonstrated in 97% of the sera of vaccinees. The magnitude of ADCC-mediating antibodies against CM235 CRF01_AE IMC-infected cells correlated with neutralizing antibodies against CM235 in the IMC/PBMC assay. In conclusion, HIV-DNA priming, followed by two HIV-MVA boosts elicited potent ADCC responses in a high proportion of Tanzanian vaccinees. Our findings highlight the potential of HIV-DNA prime HIV-MVA boost vaccines for induction of functional antibody responses and suggest this vaccine regimen and ADCC studies as potentially important new avenues in HIV vaccine development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials ISRCTN90053831 The Pan African Clinical Trials Registry ATMR2009040001075080 (currently PACTR2009040001075080).