Background Genomic surveillance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) identifies unsuspected transmission events and outbreaks. Used proactively, this could direct early and highly targeted infection control interventions to prevent ongoing spread. Here, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of this intervention in a model that compared whole-genome sequencing plus current practice versus current practice alone. Methods A UK cost-effectiveness study was conducted using an early model built from the perspective of the National Health Service and personal social services. The effectiveness of sequencing was based on the relative reduction in total MRSA acquisitions in a cohort of hospitalized patients in the year following their index admissions. A sensitivity analysis was used to illustrate and assess the level of confidence associated with the conclusions of our economic evaluation. Results A cohort of 65 000 patients were run through the model. Assuming that sequencing would result in a 90% reduction in MRSA acquisition, 290 new MRSA cases were avoided. This gave an absolute reduction of 28.8% and avoidance of 2 MRSA-related deaths. Base case results indicated that the use of routine, proactive MRSA sequencing would be associated with estimated cost savings of over £728 290 per annual hospitalized cohort. The impact in total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was relatively modest, with sequencing leading to an additional 14.28 QALYs gained. Results were most sensitive to changes in the probability of a MRSA-negative patient acquiring MRSA during their hospital admission. Conclusions We showed that proactive genomic surveillance of MRSA is likely to be cost-effective. Further evaluation is required in the context of a prospective study.

BackgroundVariation in physiological deficits underlying upper limb paresis after stroke could influence how people recover and to which physical therapy they best respond.ObjectivesTo determine whether functional strength training (FST) improves upper limb recovery more than movement performance therapy (MPT). To identify: (a) neural correlates of response and (b) whether pre-intervention neural characteristics predict response.DesignExplanatory investigations within a randomised, controlled, observer-blind, and multicentre trial. Randomisation was computer-generated and concealed by an independent facility until baseline measures were completed. Primary time point was outcome, after the 6-week intervention phase. Follow-up was at 6 months after stroke.ParticipantsWith some voluntary muscle contraction in the paretic upper limb, not full dexterity, when recruited up to 60 days after an anterior cerebral circulation territory stroke.InterventionsConventional physical therapy (CPT) plus either MPT or FST for up to 90 min-a-day, 5 days-a-week for 6 weeks. FST was “hands-off” progressive resistive exercise cemented into functional task training. MPT was “hands-on” sensory/facilitation techniques for smooth and accurate movement.OutcomesThe primary efficacy measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Neural measures: fractional anisotropy (FA) corpus callosum midline; asymmetry of corticospinal tracts FA; and resting motor threshold (RMT) of motor-evoked potentials.AnalysisCovariance models tested ARAT change from baseline. At outcome: correlation coefficients assessed relationship between change in ARAT and neural measures; an interaction term assessed whether baseline neural characteristics predicted response.Results288 Participants had: mean age of 72.2 (SD 12.5) years and mean ARAT 25.5 (18.2). For 240 participants with ARAT at baseline and outcome the mean change was 9.70 (11.72) for FST + CPT and 7.90 (9.18) for MPT + CPT, which did not differ statistically (p = 0.298). Correlations between ARAT change scores and baseline neural values were between 0.199, p = 0.320 for MPT + CPT RMT (n = 27) and −0.147, p = 0.385 for asymmetry of corticospinal tracts FA (n = 37). Interaction effects between neural values and ARAT change between baseline and outcome were not statistically significant.ConclusionsThere was no significant difference in upper limb improvement between FST and MPT. Baseline neural measures did not correlate with upper limb recovery or predict therapy response.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCT 19090862,

No abstract

Established treatments for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) include cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) medication. Combined treatment may outperform monotherapy, but few studies have investigated this. A total of 49 community-based adults with OCD were randomly assigned to CBT, SSRI, or SSRI+CBT. Sertraline (50–200 mg/day) was given as the SSRI for 52 weeks. A 16-h-manualized individual CBT was delivered over 8 weeks with four follow-up sessions. Assessors were ‘blinded’ to treatment allocation. A preliminary health economic evaluation was conducted. At week 16, combined treatment (n=13) was associated with the largest improvement, sertraline (n=7) the next largest and CBT (n=9) the smallest on the observed case analysis. The effect size (Cohen’s d) comparing the improvement in Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale on CBT versus combined treatment was −0.39 and versus sertraline was −0.27. Between 16 and 52 weeks, the greatest clinical improvement was seen with sertraline, but participant discontinuation prevented reliable analysis. Compared with sertraline, the mean costs were higher for CBT and for combined treatment. The mean Quality Adjusted Life Year scores for sertraline were 0.1823 (95% confidence interval: 0.0447–0.3199) greater than for CBT and 0.1135 (95% confidence interval: ‑0.0290–0.2560), greater than for combined treatment. Combined treatment appeared the most clinically effective option, especially over CBT, but the advantages over SSRI monotherapy were not sustained beyond 16 weeks. SSRI monotherapy was the most cost-effective. A definitive study can and should be conducted.