No abstract

PurposePatient satisfaction is an important outcome in successful osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment satisfaction for medication (TSM) in people with knee OA (KOA), identify the factors predictive of treatment satisfaction, and describe the burden of illness.Patients and methodsThis cross-sectional, patient-reported study used an Internet-based survey and analyzed responses of respondents with KOA (N=400) on characteristics including pain sites and levels (including pain ratings using the Numerical Rating Scale and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire), treatment satisfaction (Global, Effectiveness, and Convenience scores) based on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9), and quality of life (QoL; based on the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale 2-Short Form). Respondents with only KOA (n=237) were compared with those having KOA and additional painful sites (KOA+; n=163). Factors predicting TSM were identified using multivariable linear regression analyses.ResultsRespondents with KOA were more likely to report intermittent pain for 3 months or more compared with those with KOA+ (58.6% vs 48.5%, respectively; P=0.044), while those with KOA+ were more likely to report consistent pain for 3 months or more (P=0.022). Respondents with KOA+ also had more difficulty due to their knee pain while sleeping (P=0.022) and resting (P=0.015). Reported TSM did not differ significantly across KOA vs KOA+ groups, with both groups reporting low satisfaction; all domains of QoL were worse for those with KOA+. Knee pain reduction by medication predicted higher satisfaction across domains, while lower pre-medication pain and post-medication pain matching expectations predicted higher TSQM-9 Global and Effectiveness scores.ConclusionMedication treatment satisfaction rates were low among Japanese respondents with KOA. Given that lower pain, greater pain reduction post-medication, and meeting pain management expectations were predictive of higher satisfaction, treatment strategies that can better address pain may prove beneficial for overall patient satisfaction.

IMPORTANCE Asthma is the most prevalent chronic illness among children, remaining a leading cause of pediatric hospitalizations and representing a major financial burden to many health care systems. OBJECTIVE To implement a new auditing process examining whether differences in hospital practice style may be associated with potential resource savings or inefficiencies in treating pediatric asthma admissions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A retrospective matched-cohort design study, matched for asthma severity, compared practice patterns for patients admitted to Children's Hospital Association hospitals contributing data to the Pediatric Hospital Information System (PHIS) database. With 3 years of PHIS data on 48 887 children, an asthma template was constructed consisting of representative children hospitalized for asthma between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2014. The template was matched with either a 1:1, 2:1, or 3:1 ratio at each of 37 tertiary care children's hospitals, depending on available sample size. EXPOSURE Treatment at each PHIS hospital. MAIN OUTCOMESS AND MEASURES Cost, length of stay, and intensive care unit (ICU) utilization. RESULTS After matching patients (n = 9100; mean [SD] age, 7.1 [3.6] years; 3418 [37.6%] females) to the template (n = 100, mean [SD] age, 7.2 [3.7] years; 37 [37.0%] females), there was no significant difference in observable patient characteristics at the 37 hospitals meeting the matching criteria. Despite similar characteristics of the patients, we observed large and significant variation in use of the ICUs as well as in length of stay and cost. For the same template-matched populations, comparing utilization between the 12.5th percentile (lower eighth) and 87.5th percentile (upper eighth) of hospitals, median cost varied by 87% ($3157 vs $5912 per patient; P < .001); total hospital length of stay varied by 47% (1.5 vs 2.2 days; P < .001); and ICU utilization was 254% higher (6.5% vs 23.0%; P < .001). Furthermore, the patterns of resource utilization by patient risk differed significantly across hospitals. For example, as patient risk increased one hospital displayed significantly increasing costs compared with their matched controls (comparative cost difference: lowest risk, −34.21%; highest risk, 53.27%; P < .001). In contrast, another hospital displayed significantly decreasing costs relative to their matched controls as patient risk increased (comparative cost difference: lowest risk, −10.12%; highest risk, −16.85%; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE For children with asthma who had similar characteristics, we observed different hospital resource utilization; some values differed greatly, with important differences by initial patient risk. Through the template matching audit, hospitals and stakeholders can better understand where this excess variation occurs and can help to pinpoint practice styles that should be emulated or avoided.

Background Approximately 50% of children with cancer in the United States who are aged <15 years receive primary treatment on a therapeutic clinical trial. To the authors' knowledge, it remains unknown whether trial enrollment has a clinical benefit compared with the best alternative standard therapy and/or off trial (ie, clinical trial effect). The authors conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to compare the morbidity and mortality of pediatric patients with cancer who are treated on a phase 3 clinical trial compared with those receiving standard therapy and/or off trial. Methods Subjects were aged birth to 19 years; were diagnosed between 2000 and 2010 with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), rhabdomyosarcoma, or neuroblastoma; and had received initial treatment at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. On‐trial and off‐trial subjects were matched based on age, race, ethnicity, a diagnosis of Down syndrome (for patients with ALL or AML), prognostic risk level, date of diagnosis, and tumor type. Results A total of 428 participants were matched in 214 pairs (152 pairs for ALL, 24 pairs for AML, 32 pairs for rhabdomyosarcoma, and 6 pairs for neuroblastoma). The 5‐year survival rate did not differ between those treated on trial versus those treated with standard therapy and/or off trial (86.9% vs 82.2%; P = .093). On‐trial patients had a 32% lower odds of having worse (higher) mortality‐morbidity composite scores, although this did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.45‐1.03 [P = .070]). Conclusions There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes noted between those patients treated on trial and those treated with standard therapy and/or off trial. However, in partial support of the clinical trial effect, the results of the current study indicate a trend toward more favorable outcomes in children treated on trial compared with those treated with standard therapy and/or off trial. These findings can support decision making regarding enrollment in pediatric phase 3 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Black children with asthma comprise one-third of all asthma patients in Medicaid. With increasing Medicaid coverage, it has become especially important to monitor Medicaid for differences in hospital practice and patient outcomes by race.