Dispersant Effectiveness: Studies into the Causes of Effectiveness Variations

Despite treating depression with antidepressants, their effectiveness is often insufficient. Comparative effectiveness studies and meta-analyses show the effectiveness of antidepressants; however, they do not provide clear indications as to the choice of a specific antidepressant. The rational choice of antidepressants may be based on matching their mechanisms of action to the symptomatic profiles of depression, reflecting the heterogeneity of symptoms in different patients. The authors presented a series of cases of patients diagnosed with depression in whom at least one previous antidepressant treatment was shown to be ineffective before drug targeted symptom cluster-matching treatment (SCMT). The presented pilot study shows for the first time the effectiveness of SCMT in the different clusters of depressive symptoms. All the described patients obtained recovery from depressive symptoms after introducing drug-targeted SCMT. Once validated in clinical trials, SCMT might become an effective and rational method of selecting an antidepressant according to the individual profile of depressive symptoms, the mechanism of their formation, and the mechanism of drug action. Although the study results are preliminary, SCMT can be a way to personalize treatment, increasing the likelihood of improvement even in patients who meet criteria for treatment-resistant depression.

Download Full-text

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Interventions With a Personalized Nutrition Component in Adults

Value in Health ◽

10.1016/j.jval.2020.12.006 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 24 (3) ◽

pp. 325-335 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Milanne M.J. Galekop ◽

Carin A. Uyl-de Groot ◽

W. Ken Redekop

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Personalized Nutrition ◽

Nutrition Component ◽

Effectiveness Studies

Download Full-text

A Call for a Reform of the Influenza Immunization Program in Mexico: Epidemiologic and Economic Evidence for Decision Making

Vaccines ◽

10.3390/vaccines9030286 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. 286

Author(s):

Roberto Tapia-Conyer ◽

Miguel Betancourt-Cravioto ◽

Alejandra Montoya ◽

Jorge Abelardo Falcón-Lezama ◽

Myrna María Alfaro-Cortes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Influenza Vaccination ◽

Vaccination Coverage ◽

Decision Analytic Model ◽

Limited Information ◽

Vaccination Policy ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Influenza Case ◽

One Year ◽

Effectiveness Studies

Limited information is available to determine the effectiveness of Mexico’s national influenza vaccination guidelines and inform policy updates. We aim to propose reforms to current influenza vaccination policies based on our analysis of cost-effectiveness studies. This cross-sectional epidemiological study used influenza case, death, discharge and hospitalization data from several influenza seasons and applied a one-year decision-analytic model to assess cost-effectiveness. The primary health outcome was influenza cases avoided; secondary health outcomes were influenza-related events associated with case reduction. By increasing vaccination coverage to 75% in the population aged 12–49 years with risk factors (diabetes, high blood pressure, morbid obesity, chronic renal failure, asthma, pregnancy), and expanding universal vaccination coverage to school-aged children (5–11 years) and adults aged 50–59 years, 7142–671,461 influenza cases; 1–15 deaths; 7615–262,812 healthcare visits; 2886–154,143 emergency room admissions and 2891–97,637 hospitalizations could be prevented (ranges correspond to separate age and risk factor groups), with a net annual savings of 3.90 to 111.99 million USD. Such changes to the current vaccination policy could potentially result in significant economic and health benefits. These data could be used to inform the revision of a vaccination policy in Mexico with substantial social value.

Download Full-text

10 Years of Pulsed-Xenon Ultraviolet Disinfection

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1017/ice.2020.1104 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (S1) ◽

pp. s438-s438

Author(s):

Mark Stibich ◽

Sarah Simmons ◽

Deborah Passey

Keyword(s):

Relative Risk ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Outcome Studies ◽

Uv Disinfection ◽

Clostridioides Difficile ◽

Environmental Effectiveness ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Hospital Acquired ◽

And Control ◽

Effectiveness Studies

Background: Ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection using low-pressure mercury lamps has been around since the 1940s. The advent of pulsed-xenon UV for hospital use in 2010 has provided a nontoxic and novel technology for hospital disinfection with the first data presented at the 2010 SHEA Decennial. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine the current body of evidence for pulsed xenon UV disinfection. Methods: The literature search criteria included the following: research conducted in domestic and international settings using pulsed-xenon for surface disinfection, published between 2000 and 2019, and reporting on environmental effectiveness or hospital-acquired reductions (HAIs). We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The meta-analysis included 24 studies: 12 HAI outcome studies and 12 environmental effectiveness studies. Meta-analyses were conducted by calculating the percentage reductions for environmental effectiveness, and for the HAI outcome studies, we used a random-effects model to pool the relative risk of HAI. The outcome studies used 272 and 299 months of data for the experimental and control groups, respectively. Results: There was an overall benefit of using pulsed-xenon UV. The overall relative risk of infection decreased compared to the control arm (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54–0.76). The percentage reductions in environmental studies were as follows: Clostridioides difficile (94.8%), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (91.5%), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (99.2%), and aerobic bacteria (94.2%). Conclusions: Overall, pulsed-xenon UV was effective for reducing environmental contamination and had the ability to significantly reduce HAIs.Funding: Xenex, Inc., funded this study.Disclosures: Mark Stibich receives a salary from Xenex and is a shareholder of Xenex. Deborah Passey receives a salary from Xenex Disinfection Services.

Download Full-text