Background-For the large and growing population of elderly patients with cardiovascular disease, it is important to identify clinically relevant measures of biological age and their contribution to risk. Frailty is an emerging concept in medicine denoting increased vulnerability and decreased physiological reserves. We analyzed the manner in which the variable frailty predicts short-term outcomes for elderly non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. Methods and Results-Patients aged Ն75 years, with diagnosed non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were included at 3 centers, and clinical data including judgment of frailty were collected prospectively. Frailty was defined according to the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale. The impact of the comorbid conditions on risk was quantified by the coronary artery disease-specific index. Of 307 patients, 149 (48.5%) were considered frail. By multiple logistic regression, frailty was found to be strongly and independently associated with risk for the primary composite outcome (death from any cause, myocardial reinfarction, revascularization due to ischemia, hospitalization for any cause, major bleeding, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and need for dialysis up to 1 month after inclusion) (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.7), in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-16.8), and 1-month mortality (odds ratio, 4.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-13.0). Conclusions-Frailty is strongly and independently associated with in-hospital mortality, 1-month mortality, prolonged hospital care, and the primary composite outcome. The combined use of frailty and comorbidity may constitute an ultimate risk prediction concept in regard to cardiovascular patients with complex needs. Clinical Trial Registration-http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Within 12 weeks of surgery for colonic cancer, there was no difference in total costs to society incurred by LCR and OCR. The LCR procedure, however, was more costly to the healthcare system.

This Guidance for Priority Setting in Health Care (GPS-Health), initiated by the World Health Organization, offers a comprehensive map of equity criteria that are relevant to health care priority setting and should be considered in addition to cost-effectiveness analysis. The guidance, in the form of a checklist, is especially targeted at decision makers who set priorities at national and sub-national levels, and those who interpret findings from cost-effectiveness analysis. It is also targeted at researchers conducting cost-effectiveness analysis to improve reporting of their results in the light of these other criteria.The guidance was develop through a series of expert consultation meetings and involved three steps: i) methods and normative concepts were identified through a systematic review; ii) the review findings were critically assessed in the expert consultation meetings which resulted in a draft checklist of normative criteria; iii) the checklist was validated though an extensive hearing process with input from a range of relevant stakeholders.The GPS-Health incorporates criteria related to the disease an intervention targets (severity of disease, capacity to benefit, and past health loss); characteristics of social groups an intervention targets (socioeconomic status, area of living, gender; race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation); and non-health consequences of an intervention (financial protection, economic productivity, and care for others).

Objective To assess whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer specific mortality. Design Population based randomised controlled trial. Setting

The SET strategy is superior to the DET strategy, when number of deliveries with at least one live-born child, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and maternal and paediatric complications are taken into consideration. The findings do not support continuing transfers of two embryos in this group of patients.