IMPORTANCE Low back pain (LBP) with or without lower extremity pain (LEP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Previous studies investigating costs in this population targeted patients receiving surgery. Little is known about health care utilization among patients who do not undergo surgery. OBJECTIVES To assess use of health care resources for LBP and LEP management and analyze associated costs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study used a retrospective analysis of a commercial database containing inpatient and outpatient data for more than 75 million individuals.

No abstract

BACKGROUND Idiopathic intracranial hypertension results in increased intracranial pressure leading to headache and visual loss. This disease frequently requires surgical intervention through lumboperitoneal (LP) or ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunting. OBJECTIVE To compare postoperative outcomes between LP and VP shunts, including failure and complication rates. METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted using a national administrative database (MarketScan) to identify idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) patients who underwent LP or VP shunting from 2007 to 2014. Multivariate logistic and Cox regressions were performed to compare rates of shunt failure and time to shunt failure between LP and VP shunts while controlling for demographics and comorbidities. RESULTS The analytic cohort included 1082 IIH patients, 347 of whom underwent LP shunt placement at index hospitalization and 735 of whom underwent VP shunt placement. Rates of shunt failure were similar among patients with LP and VP shunt (34.6% vs 31.7%; P = .382). Among patients who experienced shunt failure, the mean number of shunt failures was 2.1 ± 1.6 and was similar between LP and VP cohorts. Ninety-day readmission rates, complication rates, and costs did not differ significantly between LP and VP shunts. Patients who experienced more than two shunt failures tended to have an earlier time to first shunt failure (hazard ratio 1.41; 95% confidence interval 1.08-1.85; P = .013). CONCLUSION These findings suggest that LP and VP shunts may have comparable rates of shunt failure and complication. Regardless of shunt type, earlier time to first shunt failure may be associated with multiple shunt failures.

BACKGROUND: The morbidity and mortality associated with opioid and benzodiazepine co-prescription is a pressing national concern. Little is known about patterns of opioid and benzodiazepine use in patients with acute low back pain or lower extremity pain. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patterns of opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing among opioid-naïve, newly diagnosed low back pain (LBP) or lower extremity pain (LEP) patients and to investigate the relationship between benzodiazepine prescribing and long-term opioid use. DESIGN/SETTING: We performed a retrospective analysis of a commercial database containing claims for more than 75 million enrollees in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adult patients newly diagnosed with LBP or LEP between 2008 and 2015 who did not have a red flag diagnosis, had not received an opioid prescription in the 6 months prior to diagnosis, and had 12 months of continuous enrollment after diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Among patients receiving at least one opioid prescription within 12 months of diagnosis, we defined discrete patterns of benzodiazepine prescribing-continued use, new use, stopped use, and never use. We tested the association of these prescription patterns with long-term opioid use, defined as six or more fills within 12 months. RESULTS: We identified 2,497,653 opioid-naïve patients with newly diagnosed LBP or LEP. Between 2008 and 2015, 31.9% and 11.5% of these patients received opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions, respectively, within 12 months of diagnosis. Rates of opioid prescription decreased from 34.8% in 2008 to 27.0% in 2015 (P < 0.001); however, prescribing of benzodiazepines only decreased from 11.6% in 2008 to 10.8% in 2015. Patients with continued or new benzodiazepine use consistently used more opioids than patients who never used or stopped using benzodiazepines during the study period (one-way ANOVA, P < 0.001). For patients with continued and new benzodiazepine use, the odds ratio of long-term opioid use compared with those never prescribed a benzodiazepine was 2.99 (95% CI, 2.89-3.08) and 2.68 (95% CI, 2.62-2.75), respectively. LIMITATIONS: This study used administrative claims analyses, which rely on accuracy and completeness of diagnostic, procedural, and prescription codes. CONCLUSION: Overall opioid prescribing for low back pain or lower extremity pain decreased substantially during the study period, indicating a shift in management within the medical community. Rates of benzodiazepine prescribing, however, remained at approximately 11%. Concurrent prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids after LBP or LEP diagnosis were associated with increased risk of long-term opioid use.

Study Design. Retrospective longitudinal cohort. Objective. We investigated opioid prescribing patterns amongst adults in the United States diagnosed with low back or lower extremity pain (LBP/LEP) who underwent spine surgery. Summary of Background Data. Opioid-based treatment of LBP/LEP and postsurgical pain has separately been associated with chronic opioid use, but a combined and large-scale cohort study is missing. Methods. This study utilizes commercial inpatient, outpatient, and pharmaceutical insurance claims. Between 2008 and 2015, patients without previous prescription opioids with a new diagnosis of LBP/LEP who underwent surgery within 1 year after diagnosis were enrolled. Opioid prescribing patterns after LBP/LEP diagnosis and after surgery were evaluated. All patients had 1-year postoperative follow-up. Low and high frequency (6 or more refills in 12 months) opioid prescription groups were identified. Results. A total of 25,506 patients without previous prescription opioids were diagnosed with LBP/LEP and underwent surgery within 1 year of diagnosis. After LBP/LEP diagnosis, 18,219 (71.4%) were prescribed opioids, whereas 7287 (28.6%) were not. After surgery, 2952 (11.6%) were prescribed opioids with high frequency and 22,554 (88.4%) with low frequency. Among patients prescribed opioids before surgery, those with high-frequency prescriptions were more likely to continue this pattern postoperatively than those with low frequency prescriptions preoperatively (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.97–2.34). For those prescribed opioids preoperatively, average daily morphine milligram equivalent (MME) decreased after surgery (by 2.62 in decompression alone cohort and 0.25 in arthrodesis cohort, P < 0.001). Postoperative low-frequency patients were more likely than high-frequency patients to discontinue opioids one-year after surgery (OR 3.78, 95% CI 3.59–3.99). Postoperative high-frequency patients incurred higher cost than low-frequency patients. Postoperative high-frequency prescribing varied widely across states (4.3%–20%). Conclusion. A stepwise association exists between opioid use after LEP or LBP diagnosis and frequency and duration of opioid prescriptions after surgery. Simultaneously, the strength of prescriptions as measured by MME decreased following surgery. Level of Evidence: 3

Background: Widely-expected cuts to budgets for global HIV/AIDS response force hard prioritization choices. Setting: We examine policies for ART eligibility through the lens of the most relevant ethical approaches. Methods: We compare earlier ART eligibility to later ART eligibility in terms of saving the most lives, life-years, and quality-adjusted life years, special consideration for the sickest, special consideration for those who stand to benefit the most, special consideration for recipients' own health needs, and special consideration to avoid denying ART permanently. Results: We argue that, in most low and middle income countries with generalized HIV/AIDS epidemic, ethically, ART for sicker patients should come before ART eligibility for healthier ones immediately upon diagnosis (namely, before "universal test and treat"). In particular, reserving all ART for sicker patients would usually save more life years, prioritize the sickest, and display other properties that some central ethical approaches find imporatnt and that concern none-so ethically, it is "cross-theoretically dominant," as we put it. Conclusion: In most circumstances of depressed financing in low and middle income countries with generalized HIV/AIDS epidemic, reserving all ART for sicker patients is more ethical than the current international standard. Keywords HIV/AIDS; treatment as prevention; treatment guidelines; priority setting; ethics Decreases in development assistance for HIV/AIDS funding in recent years place pressure on programs in low-and middle-income HIV-endemic countries. 1 Projections suggest that growth in domestic spending will not fully compensate for these reductions in aid. 2, 3 If Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: We have no competing interests to declare.

No abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.