Dataset Information

Major medical outcomes with spinal augmentation vs conservative therapy.

ABSTRACT: The symptomatic benefits of spinal augmentation (vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty) for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures are controversial. Recent population-based studies using medical billing claims have reported significant reductions in mortality with spinal augmentation compared with conservative therapy, but in nonrandomized settings such as these, there is the potential for selection bias to influence results.To compare major medical outcomes following treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures with spinal augmentation or conservative therapy. Additionally, we evaluate the role of selection bias using preprocedure outcomes and propensity score analysis.Retrospective cohort analysis of Medicare claims for the 2002-2006 period. We compared 30-day and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed vertebral fractures treated with spinal augmentation (n?=?10,541) or conservative therapy (control group, n?=?115,851). Outcomes were compared using traditional multivariate analyses adjusted for patient demographics and comorbid conditions. We also used propensity score matching to select 9017 pairs from the initial groups to compare the same outcomes.Spinal augmentation (vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty) or conservative therapy.Mortality, major complications, and health care utilization.Using traditional covariate adjustments, mortality was significantly lower in the augmented group than among controls (5.2% vs 6.7% at 1 year; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.92). However, patients in the augmented group who had not yet undergone augmentation (preprocedure subgroup) had lower rates of medical complications 30 days post fracture than did controls (6.5% vs 9.5%; odds ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.78), suggesting that the augmented group was less medically ill. After propensity score matching to better account for selection bias, 1-year mortality was not significantly different between the groups. Furthermore, 1-year major medical complications were also similar between the groups, and the augmented group had higher rates of health care utilization, including hospital and intensive care unit admissions and discharges to skilled nursing facilities.After accounting for selection bias, spinal augmentation did not improve mortality or major medical outcomes and was associated with greater health care utilization than conservative therapy. Our results also highlight how analyses of claims-based data that do not adequately account for unrecognized confounding can arrive at misleading conclusions.

SUBMITTER: McCullough BJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4023124 | biostudies-other | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Major medical outcomes with spinal augmentation vs conservative therapy.

McCullough Brendan J BJ Comstock Bryan A BA Deyo Richard A RA Kreuter William W Jarvik Jeffrey G JG

JAMA internal medicine 20130901 16

<h4>Importance</h4>The symptomatic benefits of spinal augmentation (vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty) for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures are controversial. Recent population-based studies using medical billing claims have reported significant reductions in mortality with spinal augmentation compared with conservative therapy, but in nonrandomized settings such as these, there is the potential for selection bias to influence results.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare major m ...[more]

PMID: 23836009

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceElectroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is highly effective and rapid in treating depression, but it carries a risk of significant cognitive adverse effects. Magnetic seizure therapy (MST), an investigational antidepressant treatment, may maintain the robust antidepressant efficacy of ECT while substantially reducing adverse effects due to its enhanced focality and weaker stimulation strength; however, previous clinical trials of MST were limited by small sample sizes.ObjectiveTo compare the antidepressant efficacy of MST vs ultrabrief pulse right unilateral (RUL) ECT.Design, setting, and participantsA between-participants, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 academic hospitals from June 2007 to August 2012. Adults aged 18 to 90 years who were referred for treatment with ECT, had a major depressive episode in the context of major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder, and had a baseline 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-24) total score of 18 or higher were included. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with MST or ultrabrief pulse RUL ECT. After the treatment course, patients were naturalistically followed up for up to 6 months to examine the durability of clinical effects.InterventionsTreatment with MST, applied at 100 Hz at 100% of the maximum device power for 10 seconds, or ultrabrief pulse RUL ECT, applied at 6 times seizure threshold.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change from baseline in HDRS-24 total score, with patients followed up for up to 6 months. A reduction of at least 50% in the HDRS-24 score indicated response, and at least a 60% decrease in the HDRS-24 score and a total score of 8 or less indicated remission.ResultsOf the 73 participants (41 [56.2%] female; mean [SD] age, 48 [14.1] years), 35 were randomized to MST and 38 to ECT. Among them, 53 (72.6%) were classified as completers (29 in the MST group and 24 in the ECT group). Both MST and ECT demonstrated clinically meaningful antidepressant effects. In the intent-to-treat sample, 18 participants (51.4%) in the MST group and 16 (42.1%) in the ECT group met response criteria; 13 (37.1%) in the MST group and 10 (26.3%) in the ECT group met remission criteria. Among completers, 17 of 29 (58.6%) in the MST group and 15 of 24 (62.5%) in the ECT group met response criteria; 13 of 29 (44.8%) in the MST group and 10 of 24 (41.7%) in the ECT group met remission criteria. There was no significant difference between MST and ECT for either response or remission rates. However, the mean (SD) number of treatments needed to achieve remission was 9.0 (3.1) with MST and 6.7 (3.3) with ECT, a difference of 2.3 treatments (t71.0 = 3.1; P = .003). Both MST and ECT showed a sustained benefit over a 6-month follow-up period, again with no significant difference between them. Compared with MST, ECT had significantly longer time to orientation after treatment (threshold level: F1,56 = 10.0; P = .003) and greater severity of subjective adverse effects, particularly in the physical and cognitive domains.Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that the efficacy of MST was indistinguishable from that of ultrabrief pulse RUL ECT, the safest form of ECT currently available. These results support the continued development of MST and provide evidence for advantages relative to state-of-the-art ECT.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00488748.

Project description:ImportanceSafety of hysteroscopic sterilization has been recently questioned following reports of general symptoms such as allergy, tiredness, and depression in addition to associated gynecological results such as pelvic pain, perforation of fallopian tubes or uterus, and unwanted pregnancy.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of reported adverse events between hysteroscopic and laparoscopic sterilization.Design, setting, and participantsFrench nationwide cohort study using the national hospital discharge database linked to the health insurance claims database. Women aged 30 to 54 years receiving a first hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization between 2010 and 2014 were included and were followed up through December 2015.ExposuresHysteroscopic sterilization vs laparoscopic sterilization.Main outcomes and measuresRisks of procedural complications (surgical and medical) and of gynecological (sterilization failure that includes salpingectomy, second sterilization procedure, or pregnancy; pregnancy; reoperation) and medical outcomes (all types of allergy; autoimmune diseases; thyroid disorder; use of analgesics, antimigraines, antidepressants, benzodiazepines; outpatient visits; sickness absence; suicide attempts; death) that occurred within 1 and 3 years after sterilization were compared using inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox models.ResultsOf the 105 357 women included (95.5% of eligible participants; mean age, 41.3 years [SD, 3.7 years]), 71 303 (67.7% ) underwent hysteroscopic sterilization, and 34 054 (32.3%) underwent laparoscopic sterilization. During the hospitalization for sterilization, risk of surgical complications for hysteroscopic sterilization was lower: 0.13% for hysteroscopic sterilization vs 0.78% for laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted risk difference [RD], -0.64; 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.60) and was lower for medical complications: 0.06% vs 0.11% (adjusted RD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01). During the first year after sterilization, 4.83% of women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization had a higher risk of sterilization failure than the 0.69% who underwent laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 7.11; 95% CI, 5.92 to 8.54; adjusted RD, 4.23 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 3.40 to 5.22). Additionally, 5.65% of women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization required gynecological reoperation vs 1.76% of women who underwent laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted HR, 3.26; 95% CI, 2.90 to 3.67; adjusted RD, 4.63 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 3.38 to 4.75); these differences persisted after 3 years, although attenuated. Hysteroscopic sterilization was associated with a lower risk of pregnancy within the first year of the procedure but was not significantly associated with a difference in risk of pregnancy by the third year (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83-1.30; adjusted RD, 0.01 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.07). Risks of medical outcomes were not significantly increased with hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization.Conclusions and relevanceAmong women undergoing first sterilization, the use of hysteroscopic sterilization was significantly associated with higher risk of gynecological complications over 1 year and over 3 years than was laparoscopic sterilization. Risk of medical outcomes was not significantly increased over 1 year or over 3 years. These findings do not support increased medical risks associated with hysteroscopic sterilization.

Project description:ImportanceRandomized clinical trials of bariatric surgery have been limited in size, type of surgical procedure, and follow-up duration.ObjectiveTo determine long-term glycemic control and safety of bariatric surgery compared with medical/lifestyle management of type 2 diabetes.Design, setting, and participantsARMMS-T2D (Alliance of Randomized Trials of Medicine vs Metabolic Surgery in Type 2 Diabetes) is a pooled analysis from 4 US single-center randomized trials conducted between May 2007 and August 2013, with observational follow-up through July 2022.InterventionParticipants were originally randomized to undergo either medical/lifestyle management or 1 of the following 3 bariatric surgical procedures: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, or adjustable gastric banding.Main outcome and measuresThe primary outcome was change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to 7 years for all participants. Data are reported for up to 12 years.ResultsA total of 262 of 305 eligible participants (86%) enrolled in long-term follow-up for this pooled analysis. The mean (SD) age of participants was 49.9 (8.3) years, mean (SD) body mass index was 36.4 (3.5), 68.3% were women, 31% were Black, and 67.2% were White. During follow-up, 25% of participants randomized to undergo medical/lifestyle management underwent bariatric surgery. The median follow-up was 11 years. At 7 years, HbA1c decreased by 0.2% (95% CI, -0.5% to 0.2%), from a baseline of 8.2%, in the medical/lifestyle group and by 1.6% (95% CI, -1.8% to -1.3%), from a baseline of 8.7%, in the bariatric surgery group. The between-group difference was -1.4% (95% CI, -1.8% to -1.0%; P < .001) at 7 years and -1.1% (95% CI, -1.7% to -0.5%; P = .002) at 12 years. Fewer antidiabetes medications were used in the bariatric surgery group. Diabetes remission was greater after bariatric surgery (6.2% in the medical/lifestyle group vs 18.2% in the bariatric surgery group; P = .02) at 7 years and at 12 years (0.0% in the medical/lifestyle group vs 12.7% in the bariatric surgery group; P < .001). There were 4 deaths (2.2%), 2 in each group, and no differences in major cardiovascular adverse events. Anemia, fractures, and gastrointestinal adverse events were more common after bariatric surgery.Conclusion and relevanceAfter 7 to 12 years of follow-up, individuals originally randomized to undergo bariatric surgery compared with medical/lifestyle intervention had superior glycemic control with less diabetes medication use and higher rates of diabetes remission.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02328599.

Dataset Information

Major medical outcomes with spinal augmentation vs conservative therapy.

Publications

Major medical outcomes with spinal augmentation vs conservative therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets