Clinical and economic outcomes of serious postoperative infections following resection of common respiratory and gastrointestinal solid tumors

Unlike infections occurring during periods of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, postoperative infections in patients with solid malignancy remain largely understudied. The purpose of this population-based study was to evaluate the clinical and economic burden, as well as the relationship of hospital surgical volume and outcomes associated with serious postoperative infection (SPI) – i.e., bacteremia/sepsis, pneumonia, and wound infection – following resection of common solid tumors.^ From the Texas Discharge Data Research File, we identified all Texas residents who underwent resection of cancer of the lung, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, colon, or rectum between 2002 and 2006. From their billing records, we identified ICD-9 codes indicating SPI and also subsequent SPI-related readmissions occurring within 30 days of surgery. Random-effects logistic regression was used to calculate the impact of SPI on mortality, as well as the association between surgical volume and SPI, adjusting for case-mix, hospital characteristics, and clustering of multiple surgical admissions within the same patient and patients within the same hospital. Excess bed days and costs were calculated by subtracting values for patients without infections from those with infections computed using multilevel mixed-effects generalized linear model by fitting a gamma distribution to the data using log link.^ Serious postoperative infection occurred following 9.4% of the 37,582 eligible tumor resections and was independently associated with an 11-fold increase in the odds of in-hospital mortality (95% Confidence Interval [95% CI], 6.7-18.5, P < 0.001). Patients with SPI required 6.3 additional hospital days (95% CI, 6.1 - 6.5) at an incremental cost of $16,396 (95% CI, $15,927–$16,875). There was a significant trend toward lower overall rates of SPI with higher surgical volume (P=0.037). ^ Due to the substantial morbidity, mortality, and excess costs associated with SPI following solid tumor resections and given that, under current reimbursement practices, most of this heavy burden is borne by acute care providers, it is imperative for hospitals to identify more effective prophylactic measures, so that these potentially preventable infections and their associated expenditures can be averted. Additional volume-outcomes research is also needed to identify infection prevention processes that can be transferred from higher- to lower-volume providers.^

A review of economic analysis in the vaccination program; decision making and governance: Adivisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) develops written recommendations for the routine administration of vaccines to children and adults in the U.S. civilian population. The ACIP is the only entity in the federal government that makes such recommendations. ACIP elaborates on selection of its members and rules out concerns regarding its integrity, but fails to provide information about the importance of economic analysis in vaccine selection. ACIP recommendations can have large health and economic consequences. Emphasis on economic evaluation in health is a likely response to severe pressures of the federal and state health budget. This study describes the economic aspects considered by the ACIP while sanctioning a vaccine, and reviews the economic evaluations (our economic data) provided for vaccine deliberations. A five year study period from 2004 to 2009 is adopted. Publicly available data from ACIP web database is used. Drummond et al. (2005) checklist serves as a guide to assess the quality of economic evaluations presented. Drummond et al.'s checklist is a comprehensive hence it is unrealistic to expect every ACIP deliberation to meet all of their criteria. For practical purposes we have selected seven criteria that we judge to be significant criteria provided by Drummond et al. Twenty-four data points were obtained in a five year period. Our results show that out of the total twenty-four data point‘s (economic evaluations) only five data points received a score of six; that is six items on the list of seven were met. None of the data points received a perfect score of seven. Seven of the twenty-four data points received a score of five. A minimum of a two score was received by only one of the economic analyses. The type of economic evaluation along with the model criteria and ICER/QALY criteria met at 0.875 (87.5%). These three criteria were met at the highest rate among the seven criteria studied. Our study findings demonstrate that the perspective criteria met at 0.583 (58.3%) followed by source and sensitivity analysis criteria both tied at 0.541 (54.1%). The discount factor was met at 0.250 (25.0%).^ Economic analysis is not a novel concept to the ACIP. It has been practiced and presented at these meetings on a regular basis for more than five years. ACIP‘s stated goal is to utilize good quality epidemiologic, clinical and economic analyses to help policy makers choose among alternatives presented and thus achieve a better informed decision. As seen in our study the economic analyses over the years are inconsistent. The large variability coupled with lack of a standardized format may compromise the utility of the economic information for decision-making. While making recommendations, the ACIP takes into account all available information about a vaccine. Thus it is vital that standardized high quality economic information is provided at the ACIP meetings. Our study may provide a call for the ACIP to further investigate deficiencies within the system and thereby to improve economic evaluation data presented. ^

Identifying characteristics of mentally ill homeless individuals who are successfully linked to health and social services post-incarceration via the jail inreach project

Healthcare for the Homeless—Houston (HHH) received a research grant from The Medallion Foundation, Inc. in March 2006 to pilot The Jail Inreach Project, an intensive “inreach” initiative to assess the impact of providing continuity of mental and primary health care services for homeless individuals who suffer from mental illness and/or substance abuse being released from jail. This pilot project was initiated by HHH, in collaboration with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office and the Mental Health Mental Retardation Authority of Harris County (MHMRA). Those who are flagged as “frequent flyers” and who are diagnosed with a mental illness are referred to the Jail Inreach Project. In order to maximize the effectiveness of the discharge plan, case managers offer the option of meeting the client at the time of release and bring them to the HHH clinic located four blocks from the jail. Participation in both the program and the option for direct release to the care of a case manager are voluntary.^ The purpose of this study is to determine the outcomes of the Jail Inreach Project and addresses the following objectives: (1) to evaluate the characteristics of inmates that chose to be released from jail to the direct care of an HHH case manager versus those who opt for self release and (2) to determine the number and percent of inmates that are linked to services and relationship with type of release (direct versus indirect), (3) to determine if there is a relationship between outcomes and characteristics and (4) to determine what outcomes are a function of release, controlling for characteristics. Statistical analysis, including frequencies, cross tabulations, chi-square and logistical regression, found that those who opt for self release are six times less likely to be successfully linked to services and that gender is the most significant predictor of choosing self release. Men are far more likely to opt for self release than women engaged in this program. These findings help inform policy and program design and development that addresses the difference in service utilization and successful linkage to services post-incarceration. Successful linkage to services, thus continuity of and access to care, further impact the effects of the revolving door phenomenon of mentally ill homeless individuals cycling between the streets, jails and hospital emergency centers.^

Comparison of clinical and economic outcomes between high-intensity care and hospice care for the end-of-life melanoma patients

The intensity of care for patients at the end-of-life is increasing in recent years. Publications have focused on intensity of care for many cancers, but none on melanoma patients. Substantial gaps exist in knowledge about intensive care and its alternative, hospice care, among the advanced melanoma patients at the end of life. End-of-life care may be used in quite different patterns and induce both intended and unintended clinical and economic consequences. We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked databases to identify patients aged 65 years or older with metastatic melanoma who died between 2000 and 2007. We evaluated trends and associations between sociodemographic and health services characteristics and the use of hospice care, chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy and costs. Survival, end-of-life costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were evaluated using propensity score methods. Costs were analyzed from the perspective of Medicare in 2009 dollars. In the first journal Article we found increasing use of surgery for patients with metastatic melanoma from 13% in 2000 to 30% in 2007 (P=0.03 for trend), no significant fluctuation in use of chemotherapy (P=0.43) or radiation therapy (P=0.46). Older patients were less likely to receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy. The use of hospice care increased from 61% in 2000 to 79% in 2007 (P =0.07 for trend). Enrollment in short-term (1-3 days) hospice care use increased, while long-term hospice care (≥ 4 days) remained stable. Patients living in the SEER Northeast and South regions were less likely to undergo surgery. Patients enrolled in long-term hospice care used significantly less chemotherapy, surgery and radiation therapy. In the second journal article, of 611 patients identified for this study, 358 (59%) received no hospice care after their diagnosis, 168 (27%) received 1 to 3 days of hospice care, and 85 (14%) received 4 or more days of hospice care. The median survival time was 181 days for patients with no hospice care, 196 days for patients enrolled in hospice for 1 to 3 days, and 300 days for patients enrolled for 4 or more days (log-rank test, P < 0.001). The estimated hazard ratios (HR) between 4 or more days hospice use and survival were similar within the original cohort Cox proportional hazard model (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78, P < 0.0001) and the propensity score-matched model (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.78, P = 0.0001). Patients with ≥ 4 days of hospice care incurred lower end-of-life costs than the other two groups ($14,298 versus $19,380 for the 1- to 3-days hospice care, and $24,351 for patients with no hospice care; p < 0.0001). In conclusion, Surgery and hospice care use increased over the years of this study while the use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy remained consistent for patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma. Patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma who enrolled in ≥ 4 days of hospice care experienced longer survival than those who had 1-3 days of hospice or no hospice care, and this longer overall survival was accompanied by lower end-of-life costs.^