ObjectivesTo summarise incidence and prevalence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) for the overall patient population and different subgroups (age, sex, geographical region, ethnicity and type of insulin administration).DesignSystematic literature review (SLR).Data sourcesMedline (via PubMed) and Embase (1 January 2000 to 23 June 2016).Study selectionPeer-reviewed observational studies with reported data on the incidence or prevalence of DKA in T1D adults were included. A single reviewer completed the study screening and selection process and a second reviewer performed an additional screening of approximately 20% of the publications; two reviewers independently conducted the quality assessment; the results were narratively synthesised.ResultsOut of 1082 articles, 19 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with two additional studies identified that did not specify the patient age range and are therefore not included in the SLR. Overall, eight studies reported incidence with a range of 0–56 per 1000 person-years (PYs), with one outlying study reporting an incidence of 263 per 1000 PYs. Eleven studies reported prevalence with a range of 0–128 per 1000 people. Prevalence of DKA decreased with increasing age. Subgroup analyses were performed using data from no more than two studies per subgroup. There was a higher prevalence of DKA reported in women, non-whites and patients treated with insulin injections compared with men, whites and patients using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pumps, respectively.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first SLR on the epidemiology of DKA in T1D adults. Despite an increasing prevalence of T1D in recent years, DKA in adults has been poorly characterised. In an era when the benefit–risk profiles of new antidiabetic therapies are being evaluated, including the potential risk of DKA, there is a clear need to better elucidate the expected rate of DKA among T1D adults.

Patients with migraine who initiated prophylactic therapy had poor persistence with early gaps in therapy, were unlikely to switch prophylactic treatments, and most discontinued prophylaxis by the end of the first year.

Overall, RCT evidence strongly supported omalizumab efficacy and safety as add-on treatment in children 6 to 11 years old with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma. RWS data confirmed these findings in an extended patient population of children and adolescents that is more generalizable to the actual day-to-day management of these patients.

IntroductionTo assess the impact on hospitalization costs of multimodal analgesia (MMA), including intravenous acetaminophen (IV-APAP), versus IV opioid monotherapy for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.MethodsUtilizing the Truven Health MarketScan® Hospital Drug Database (HDD), patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total hip arthroplasty (THA), or surgical repair of hip fracture between 1/1/2011 and 8/31/2014 were separated into postoperative pain management groups: MMA with IV-APAP plus other IV analgesics (IV-APAP group) or an IV opioid monotherapy group. All patients could have received oral analgesics. Baseline characteristics and total hospitalization costs were compared. Additionally, an inverse probability treatment weighting [IPTW] with propensity scores analysis further assessed hospitalization cost differences.ResultsThe IV-APAP group (n = 33,954) and IV opioid monotherapy group (n = 110,300) differed significantly (P < 0.0001) across baseline characteristics, though the differences may not have been clinically meaningful. Total hospitalization costs (mean ± standard deviation) were significantly lower for the IV-APAP group than the IV opioid monotherapy group (US$12,540 ± $9564 vs. $13,242 ± $35,825; P < 0.0001). Medical costs accounted for $701 of the $702 between-group difference. Pharmacy costs were similar between groups. Results of the IPTW-adjusted analysis further supported the statistically significant cost difference.ConclusionsPatients undergoing orthopedic surgery who received MMA for postoperative pain management, including IV-APAP, had significantly lower total costs than patients who received IV opioid monotherapy. This difference was driven by medical costs; importantly, there was no difference in pharmacy costs. Generalizability of the results may be limited to patients admitted to hospitals similar to those included in HDD. Dosing could not be determined, so it was not possible to quantify utilization of IV-APAP or ascertain differences in opioid consumption between the 2 groups. This study did not account for healthcare utilization post-discharge.

Triangulation of results from two methods captured a richer story behind vaccine adoption decisions for hepatitis A. The discrepancy between policymakers' beliefs and existing data suggest a decline in priority of hepatitis A or weak investment in data collection. Filling the confirmed data gaps in seroprevalence or economic data is important to help guide policy decisions. Greater communication of the risk of hepatitis A and the benefits of the vaccine may help countries undergoing the epidemiologic transition.