Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn effective. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn effective. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Sáu, 3 tháng 5, 2013

Will Medicaid expansion under ObamaCare be effective? New study says 'No'

  • Health Care Costs

A new study recently released in the New England Journal of Medicine analyzed data from 10,000 low-income individuals randomly selected to apply for Medicaid coverage, comparing them to an identical group of people who did not have access to it.  The study, known as the Oregon Health Study, hoped to verify the effect expanded health care coverage had on individuals’ health and wellbeing.

The ultimate result: Expanded coverage did not improve individual health outcomes.  In fact, the results could be considered more harmful than positive.

RELATED: New study looks at how expanded Medicaid coverage affects individual health

This research is the perfect template to analyze whether or not ObamaCare is going to be an effective tool in making Americans healthier.  Some of the parameters the study measured included blood pressure, cholesterol, hemoglobin A1c, screening for depression, self-reported diagnosis, health care utilization and out-of-pocket expenses.

This was a randomized controlled study, and the conclusion was quite startling to me.  Despite the fact that there was expanded Medicaid coverage, it really did not significantly improve the health outcomes of the participants in the first two years of coverage.  But it did raise some negative aspects, such as individuals spending more on their health care needs and increased use of health care services.

There were some positive findings. Medicaid expansion did help doctors pick up more diabetes diagnoses, and individuals reported lower rates of depression as well as a reduced financial burden on the participants’ families.

However, while diabetes was detected more, the Oregon study really did not show a reduction in blood pressure, cholesterol or hemoglobin A1c levels, which are active measures of diabetic management.

What scares me the most is that this offers a false sense of hope for individuals, because it is showing little actual health benefits.  What it really is doing is increasing the cost of health care, and that is just a bad formula for our future.

This is a perfect example of how politics and medicine don’t mix.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 25 tháng 3, 2013

Fewer blood pressure screens may be more effective

  • blood pressure

After analyzing five years' worth of data for more than 400 patients, researchers conclude that the current practice of screening at every visit to the doctor's office - up to several times a year - may result in more people mistakenly diagnosed and unnecessarily treated for high blood pressure than would simple yearly screening.

Blood pressure measurements are often taken without following proper procedure, according to lead study author Dr. Gregory Garrison, so the readings can be widely inaccurate and lead to some people being wrongly diagnosed with hypertension, while others who have the condition are written off as just "more false positives."

"One, it results in unnecessary patient anxiety, repeated clinic visits, and laboratory testing," Garrison, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, told Reuters Health by email. "Two, it often lulls physicians into writing off a positive result because so few are confirmed."

Garrison and his colleagues found that taking fewer readings, while still sometimes inaccurate, would weed out almost half of the false positives.

The researchers looked at Mayo Clinic records for 68 patients diagnosed with high blood pressure and 372 patients without high blood pressure. Based on the readings from every doctor's visit, all 68 high blood pressure cases were identified, but 110 people without high blood pressure would also potentially have been wrongly diagnosed because of a stray high measurement.

When the researchers analyzed the same data but only considered one measurement per patient per year, they identified 63 of the patients with high blood pressure - at or before the original date of their actual diagnosis - and got 67 false positives, according to the results published in the Annals of Family Medicine.

An office blood pressure measurement can be inaccurate if it is not performed with the patient seated, arm supported, after a five-minute period of rest. Otherwise, blood pressure can rise temporarily for a variety of reasons, including the mild stress of being tested by a doctor, known as the "white coat effect."

"Blood pressure technique is not good at all, and does overestimate a lot of the time," said Dr. William Cushman, chief of the Preventive Medicine section at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Memphis, Tennessee.

But he disagrees with the Mayo team's conclusion. Overestimation results in unnecessary expense and anxiety, but doesn't usually harm the patient, said Cushman, who was not involved in the new study.

If less frequent testing fails to identify a few positive cases, that could be a bigger problem, he told Reuters Health.

In the study, annual testing failed to identify five of the 68 cases of hypertension, or a little over seven percent, which was not statistically significant in that case. But it could become significant when applied to a larger population, according to Cushman.

"In populations, we don't want to miss ten percent of people," Cushman said.

High risk patients with high blood pressure can start to see the benefits of treatment after six months or a year, so waiting twelve months between tests could have consequences for some, he added.

For most people, hypertension is a slow moving disease, and a diagnosis delayed by a few months or a year is unlikely to have noticeable negative consequences, according to Garrison.

"However, we have a number of patients, perhaps as many as 30 percent, who have hypertension for years without diagnosis and proper treatment," Garrison said. "This can result in heart disease, kidney disease, and many other complications."

These people can have elevated readings for years that go unnoticed or undiagnosed because they are written off as false positives and attributed to pain, infection or some other cause, he explains.

Measuring blood pressure less often and taking each reading more seriously could help catch some of those undiagnosed cases, Garrison believes.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force, a government-backed advisory body, recommends blood pressure screening once every two years for people at low risk for the condition and once yearly for those at high risk.

Doctors continue to test at every visit partly because patients expect it, Cushman said, and partly because there are generally no organized efforts to ensure patients and doctors remember to screen every year or two.

Before doctors can start screening less, that kind of system of reminders needs to be in place to ensure no patient falls through the cracks, Cushman said.

Getting blood pressure taken is very important," he added. "If an adult has not had their blood pressure taken in a year, or they don't know what it was, then they should get it taken fairly soon, or ask for it," he said.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 4 tháng 3, 2013

Drug shown to be effective, safe in psoriasis trial

Celgene Corp's experimental drug apremilast proved to be more effective than a dummy pill for psoriasis patients in a late-stage study, clearing the way for the company to file for U.S. regulatory approval in the second half of 2013.

Celgene said 59 percent of patients in the 844-patient trial achieved a 50 percent improvement in symptoms at 16 weeks, using a standard score of the severity and extent of psoriasis, compared with 17 percent of placebo patients. A 75 percent improvement in symptoms was seen in 33 percent of the treatment group and 5 percent of the placebo group.

The Phase 3 trial is the first of two pivotal studies of the drug in patients with psoriasis, a disease in which itchy, painful skin plaques are thought to be caused by an inflammatory response initiated by the body's immune system.

Apremilast is a pill that inhibits an enzyme known as phosphodiesterase 4, or PDE4, and acts to damp down inflammation.

Celgene said previously it planned to file for Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug as a treatment for psoriatic arthritis in the first quarter of this year.

Side effects were consistent with those seen in earlier trials of the drug, with the most common being diarrhea and nausea.

Celgene said no cases of tuberculosis or lymphoma were observed through Week 16, and there was no increase in risk of cardiovascular events or serious opportunistic infection.

"From a physician's perspective, this can definitely be a first-line therapy because of the excellent risk/benefit profile," said Dr. Richard Langley, director of dermatology research at Dalhousie University inHalifax, and one of the study's lead investigators. "I think the patient acceptance of this drug and the physician acceptance is going to be extremely high."

He noted that most psoriasis patients are currently treated with methotrexate, which can cause serious side effects.

Newer biologic drugs used to treat psoriasis, which include Amgen Inc's Enbrel and AbbVie Inc's Humira, can make patients more susceptible to infection, Dr. Langley said.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 21 tháng 2, 2013

Current flu vaccine less effective in the elderly, CDC says

Older people who received this season's flu shot appear to be less protected from the illness than younger people who were vaccinated. As a result, early flu treatment is especially important for anyone in this age group who shows flu symptoms, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The results show adults ages 65 and over who got this season's flu shot were just as likely to visit the doctor for flu symptoms as older adults who weren't vaccinated.

By contrast, getting the flu shot reduced the risk of visiting the doctor for flu by about 50 to 60 percent in people from other age groups.

Nevertheless, older people are still advised to get a flu shot, the CDC says. The vaccine's effectiveness can vary from season to season, and person to person. During some years, the flu vaccine has been found to provide significant protection for older adults; during other years, no protection has been seen, said Erin Burns, a communications officer at the CDC's Influenza Division. 

The new report only looked at whether this season's flu vaccine reduced the risk of doctors' visits for flu, and didn't examine hospitalizations for more severe flu illnesses. Some research shows that the flu vaccination can reduce the severity of illness in older people who do get sick. A 2011 study found that older people who received a flu shot were 61 percent less likely to be hospitalized for flu-like illness.

"While influenza vaccine is not perfect, overall, the evidence supports the public health benefit of vaccination," Burns said. "Vaccination is particularly important for people 65 and older who are especially vulnerable to serious illness and death, despite the fact that the vaccine may not work as well in this age group."

Because of their increased risk for flu complications, it's important for elderly people to seek treatment quickly if they develop flu symptoms, including fever, cough, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Antiviral medications for flu work best if they're given within 48 hours of the start of symptoms.

"Aging and chronic health problems can diminish the body’s ability to mount a protective immune response after influenza vaccination, which can result in lower levels of vaccine effectiveness in some older people," Burns said. But Burns notes that people ages 65 and older are a heterogeneous group, and some individuals have very responsive immune systems.

This year's flu season has been a particularly bad one for the elderly. Of the 8,953 people hospitalized for flu so far, more than half have been 65 or older, the CDC said. [See Why Is This Year's Flu Season So Bad?]

The new report examined the flu vaccine's effectiveness in 2,697 people between Dec. 2, 2012 and Jan. 19, 2013. When considering all age groups, the vaccine was 56 percent effective, meaning it reduced the risk of a doctor's visit for flu by 56 percent. This new estimate for the vaccine's effectiveness is slightly lower than an estimate given earlier this year, which said the vaccine was 62 percent effective.

The flu shot is recommended for everyone ages 6 months and older.

 

Copyright 2013 MyHealthNewsDaily, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


View the original article here