Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
ItemProjected Burden of Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis in Australia: A Population-Level AnalysisAckerman, IN ; Pratt, C ; Gorelik, A ; Liew, D (WILEY, 2017-09-12)Objective To forecast the prevalence and direct health care costs of osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Australia to the year 2030. Methods An epidemiologic model of the Australian population was developed. Data on the national prevalence of OA and RA were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2014–2015 National Health Survey. Future prevalence was estimated using ABS population projections for 2020, 2025, and 2030. Available government data on direct health care expenditure for OA and RA were modeled to forecast costs (in Australian $) for the years 2020, 2025, and 2030, from the perspective of the Australian public health care system. Results The number of people with OA is expected to increase nationally from almost 2.2 million in 2015 to almost 3.1 million Australians in 2030. The number of people with RA is projected to increase from 422,309 in 2015 to 579,915 in 2030. Health care costs for OA were estimated to be over $2.1 billion in 2015; by the year 2030, these are forecast to exceed $2.9 billion ($970 for every person with the condition). Health care costs for RA were estimated to be over $550 million in 2015, including $273 million spent on biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs. Health care costs for RA are projected to rise to over $755 million by the year 2030. Conclusion OA and RA are costly conditions that will impose an increasing health care burden at the population level. These projections provide tangible data that can be used to map future health service provision to expected need.
ItemThe prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in Australia: a systematic review and meta-analysisLewis, D ; Newton, DC ; Guy, RJ ; Ali, H ; Chen, MY ; Fairley, CK ; Hocking, JS (BMC, 2012-05-14)BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis is a common sexually transmitted infection in Australia. This report aims to measure the burden of chlamydia infection by systematically reviewing reports on prevalence in Australian populations. METHODS: Electronic databases and conference websites were searched from 1997-2011 using the terms 'Chlamydia trachomatis' OR 'chlamydia' AND 'prevalence' OR 'epidemiology' AND 'Australia'. Reference lists were checked and researchers contacted for additional literature. Studies were categorised by setting and participants, and meta-analysis conducted to determine pooled prevalence estimates for each category. RESULTS: Seventy-six studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. There was a high level of heterogeneity between studies; however, there was a trend towards higher chlamydia prevalence in younger populations, Indigenous Australians, and those attending sexual health centres. In community or general practice settings, pooled prevalence for women <25 years in studies conducted post-2005 was 5.0% (95% CI: 3.1, 6.9; five studies), and for men <30 years over the entire review period was 3.9% (95% CI: 2.7, 5.1; six studies). For young Australians aged <25 years attending sexual health, family planning or youth clinics, estimated prevalence was 6.2% (95% CI: 5.1, 7.4; 10 studies) for women and 10.2% (95% CI: 9.5, 10.9; five studies) for men. Other key findings include pooled prevalence estimates of 22.1% (95% CI: 19.0, 25.3; three studies) for Indigenous women <25 years, 14.6% (95% CI: 11.5, 17.8; three studies) for Indigenous men <25 years, and 5.6% (95% CI: 4.8, 6.3; 11 studies) for rectal infection in men who have sex with men. Several studies failed to report basic demographic details such as sex and age, and were therefore excluded from the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Chlamydia trachomatis infections are a significant health burden in Australia; however, accurate estimation of chlamydia prevalence in Australian sub-populations is limited by heterogeneity within surveyed populations, and variations in sampling methodologies and data reporting. There is a need for more large, population-based studies and prospective cohort studies to compliment mandatory notification data.
ItemThe Efficacy of Azithromycin for the Treatment of Genital Mycoplasma genitalium: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysisLau, A ; Bradshaw, CS ; Lewis, D ; Fairley, CK ; Chen, MY ; Kong, FYS ; Hocking, JS (OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC, 2015-11-01)BACKGROUND: Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) is associated with nongonococcal urethritis in men and cervicitis in women. Current guidelines recommend treatment with 1 gram of azithromycin; however, treatment failure has increasingly been reported. This meta-analysis estimates treatment efficacy following treatment with 1 gram of azithromycin. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for articles published to the end of February 2015 using the following search terms: (Mycoplasma genitalium) AND (azithromycin OR zithromax OR [treatment efficacy]). Studies were included if they were English language, had participants aged ≥12 years diagnosed with urogenital MG, and had microbial cure measured within 12 months of treatment. Treatment efficacy was measured as microbial cure at last follow-up after treatment. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies, including 1490 participants, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most studies were observational, with only 5 controlled trials identified. The random-effects pooled microbial cure was 77.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71.1%-83.4%; I(2) = 80.8%, P < .01). For the 12 studies conducted prior to 2009, pooled microbial cure was 85.3% (CI, 82.3%-88.3%; I(2) = 19.7%, P = .25); for the 9 studies conducted since the beginning of 2009, pooled microbial cure was 67.0% (CI, 57.0%-76.9%; I(2) = 80.9%, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of a single dose of 1 gram of azithromycin for the treatment of urogenital MG has decreased to approach 60%. Even though most of the available evidence is based on observational studies that have considerable variability in sample size and timing of microbial cure, this low efficacy is of considerable concern. It is vital that new treatment options for MG are investigated.
ItemRestrictive versus liberal fluid therapy in major abdominal surgery (RELIEF): rationale and design for a multicentre randomised trialMyles, P ; Bellomo, R ; Corcoran, T ; Forbes, A ; Wallace, S ; Peyton, P ; Christophi, C ; Story, D ; Leslie, K ; Serpell, J ; McGuinness, S ; Parke, R (BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2017-03-01)INTRODUCTION: The optimal intravenous fluid regimen for patients undergoing major abdominal surgery is unclear. However, results from many small studies suggest a restrictive regimen may lead to better outcomes. A large, definitive clinical trial evaluating perioperative fluid replacement in major abdominal surgery, therefore, is required. METHODS/ANALYSIS: We designed a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial (the RELIEF trial). A total of 3000 patients were enrolled in this study and randomly allocated to a restrictive or liberal fluid regimen in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by centre and planned critical care admission. The expected fluid volumes in the first 24 hour from the start of surgery in restrictive and liberal groups were ≤3.0 L and ≥5.4 L, respectively. Patient enrolment is complete, and follow-up for the primary end point is ongoing. The primary outcome is disability-free survival at 1 year after surgery, with disability defined as a persistent (at least 6 months) reduction in functional status using the 12-item version of the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: The RELIEF trial has been approved by the responsible ethics committees of all participating sites. Participant recruitment began in March 2013 and was completed in August 2016, and 1-year follow-up will conclude in August 2017. Publication of the results of the RELIEF trial is anticipated in early 2018. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01424150.