<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_346"
                     title="Daytime Sleepiness More Common in Young (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.008"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/SleepDisorders/tb/18221?impressionId=1265802988950"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Compared with 20-somethings and seniors, middle-age adults are less likely to suffer daytime sleepiness when they don&apos;t get a good night&apos;s sleep, according to a small study.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When three groups of healthy adults  --  young (20 to 30 years old), middle-age (40 to 55) and older (66 to 83)  --  were studied over four nights, slow wave sleep decreased and the number of nocturnal awakenings progressively increased with age, wrote Derk-Jan Dijk, PhD, of the Surrey Sleep Center at the University of Surrey in Guildford, England, and colleagues in the Feb. 1 issue of &lt;em&gt;Sleep.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;As the likelihood for eight hours of uninterrupted deep sleep decreased with age, there was no increase in the likelihood of daytime sleepiness, which led Dijk and colleagues to conclude that as people age there may be a change in the &quot;sleep (duration and depth) required to maintain alertness.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on that observation, the authors wrote that it could be argued that &quot;an eight-hour episode rich in [slow wave sleep] is insufficient for young adults but that an eight-hour sleep episode with less [slow wave sleep] is sufficient for older adults.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a result, middle-age and older adults are less likely to build up &quot;sleep debt&quot; during the daylight hours, so they manage with less time in deep sleep at night, less homeostatic sleep pressure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors hypothesized that this apparent need for less sleep may be a factor in age-related insomnia.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If older adults are unaware of the need for less sleep, &quot;their self-selected time in bed, which provides an input to the sleep homeostat, may become maladaptive and lead to reduced sleep consolidation and associated complaints.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dijk and colleagues recruited 44 young adults, 35 middle-age adults, and 31 older adults for their study. All were healthy at baseline and all were initially assessed for an eight-hour nocturnal sleep episode.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They were then randomized to two nights of either selective short wave sleep interruption by acoustic stimuli or sleep without disruption, followed by one night of recovery sleep.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two standardized measurement tools, the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) and the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS), were used to assess objective and subjective sleep propensity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Total sleep time per eight hour time in bed decreased significantly and progressively across the age groups such that older adults slept approximately 20 minutes less than middle-aged, who slept 23 minutes less than young adults,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The reduction in total sleep time &quot;was primarily related to an increase in the number of awakenings and the duration of wakefulness after sleep onset, rather than an increase in latency to sleep onset.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a result, sleep efficiency decreased significantly from 92.1% for the youngest group, to 82% for the older group (effect of age, &lt;em&gt;P&amp;lt;&lt;/em&gt;0.0001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The subjective sleep propensity tests revealed that &quot;young people were significantly sleepier than the middle-age people, who were the least sleepy of the three groups.&quot; Daytime sleepiness for the oldest group &quot;fell in between the other two groups [and] was not significantly different from either.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All three groups, regardless of age, demonstrated increased daytime sleepiness following a night of experimental disruption of slow wave sleep, but when the participants had an uninterrupted eight hours of deep sleep, it was only the youngest group that was drowsy during the daytime hours.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted that although there was less daytime sleepiness among middle-age and older adults in this study, sleep propensity was not measured during the evening hours, so it was possible that the age-related difference might diminish at twilight.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was sponsored by H. Lundbeck A/S.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dijk reported receiving research support from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, GlaxoSmithKline, H. Lundbeck A/S, Merck, Pfizer, Philips Lighting, sanofi-aventis, and Takeda.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_309"
                     title="Increasing Copays: Penny-Wise but Pound-Foolish? (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.004"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Geriatrics/GeneralGeriatrics/tb/18173?impressionId=1265802988950"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Raising seniors&apos; copayments for ambulatory care to offset increasing healthcare costs may backfire on insurers, researchers asserted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Seniors enrolled in Medicare plans that increased copayments had significantly fewer outpatient visits but spent more time in the hospital than patients in plans that left copayments untouched, according to Amal Trivedi, MD, MPH, of Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming an average reimbursement of $60 for an outpatient visit, seven annual visits per enrollee, and an average copay increase of $8.50 per visit, a plan should save $7,150 for every 100 enrollees, they noted in the Jan. 28 &lt;em&gt;New England Journal of Medicine&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But, assuming an average cost of $11,065 per hospitalization of a person 65 to 84, the researchers estimated that the costs for inpatient care would actually increase by $24,000 for every 100 enrollees in the year after copays are increased.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even using more conservative criteria, the increased costs for inpatient care would nearly double any savings from increasing copays, they argued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Cost-sharing has generally been thought to reduce total healthcare spending without harming health for the average person,&quot; the researchers wrote, but these results suggest increasing copays in Medicare beneficiaries &quot;may be a particularly ill-advised cost-containment strategy.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Increasing copayments may be particularly harmful to older patients, they said, because they have lower incomes and are more likely to have poor health and greater out-of-pocket healthcare expenses than younger patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To explore the issue in a Medicare population, Trivedi and colleagues compared the use of outpatient and inpatient care between enrollees in 18 plans that increased copays for ambulatory care and 18 that did not. The study included 899,060 patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to data from the Medicare Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, mean copays increased during the study period for both primary care ($7.38 to $14.38) and specialty care ($12.66 to $22.05) in the case plans.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean copays remained stable at $8.33 and $11.38 for primary and specialty care, respectively, in the control plans.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In both groups, there were increases in the number of ambulatory visits over time, but the increase was smaller in the plans that raised copays.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There was also a rise in the number of hospitalizations, the proportion of patients who were hospitalized, and the length of time spent in the hospital in both groups, but there were larger increases in the plans that increased copays.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with the control plans, in the year after the increase in copays, case plans had: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;19.8 fewer annual outpatient visits per 100 enrollees (95% CI 16.6 to 23.1)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;2.2 additional annual hospital admissions per 100 enrollees (95% CI 1.8 to 2.6)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;13.4 more annual inpatient days per 100 enrollees (95% CI 10.2 to 16.6)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;A 0.7% increase in the proportion of enrollees who were hospitalized (95% CI 0.51% to 0.95%)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The findings were amplified among enrollees living in areas of lower income and education, black patients, and those who had hypertension, diabetes, or a history of myocardial infarction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Trivedi and colleagues noted some limitations of the analysis: it was not randomized, and unmeasured differences could have influenced the results.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, the case and control plans could not be matched in a geographic area smaller than census region because of the small number of Medicare plans, and data were lacking on diagnoses, procedures, and costs associated with hospital admissions and outpatient visits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Trivedi is the recipient of a Pfizer Health Policy Scholars Award and a career development award from the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Services.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_304"
                     title="&apos;Virtual&apos; Colon Scans Effective in Seniors (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.003"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/ColonCancer/tb/18164?impressionId=1265802988950"
                     
      Patients 65 and older are as suitable as younger individuals for CT colonography, said researchers conducting a large retrospective study.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Advanced neoplasias were detected with CT colonography  --  often called &quot;virtual colonoscopy&quot;  --  in older patients at more than double the rate in the general screening population, reported David H. Kim, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wis., and colleagues in the February issue of &lt;em&gt;Radiology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;They found that 7.6% of older patients had advanced neoplasias, compared with 3.2% of all patients screened in the university&apos;s clinic (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the basis of this and other findings in 577 individuals 65 and older versus the entire group of 3,120 patients undergoing the procedure, Kim and colleagues concluded that &quot;CT colonography performance is maintained in an older cohort.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Overall, the observations from this clinical experience confirm that CT colonography may be a valuable screening modality in the older population,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the study did not address several objections raised by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in its decision last year to deny Medicare coverage for the procedure. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Medicare/14186&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Medicare/14186&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Medicare Finalizes Denial of Virtual Colonoscopy Coverage&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CMS had pointed to relatively low sensitivity of CT colonography compared with optical colonoscopy in prospective trials, especially for small lesions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The agency also determined that CT colonography increased the costs of positive findings, since abnormalities in the CT scans must be confirmed with optical colonoscopy. In addition, CMS said there was no evidence to support claims that the less invasive imaging procedure would be more acceptable to patients and therefore would raise screening rates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data analyzed by Kim and colleagues did not allow for calculations of false-negative rates or predictive values of positive or negative findings. Nor did the researchers report cost information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean age of their older cohort was 69.2 (SD 3.8). The oldest was 79.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers reported that 15.3% of the older patients were referred for optical colonoscopy on the basis of the CT results, compared with 7.9% of the overall screening group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Less than 4% of positive findings were determined to be false with the optical procedure (3.6% for polyps 6 to 10 mm in diameter, 2.1% for larger lesions).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of the 59 advanced neoplasias identified in the older patients, all but three were at least 10 mm in size.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The scans also suggested abnormalities outside the colon in 89 (15.4%) patients. Of these, 45 received a full workup, which revealed substantial and previously unsuspected diagnoses in 21 cases  -- 18 were vascular aneurysms. The other three included one lung tumor, a femoral hernia, and a malrotation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kim and colleagues reported that no &quot;substantial complications&quot; such as perforations or major hemorrhage occurred in the older patients, either with the CT scan or follow-up colonoscopy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They also indicated that the ratio of large to small neoplasias was similar in the older patients compared with their CT screening group as a whole. Histologic and morphologic findings were similar as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cited the observational nature of the study, in which negative findings were not corroborated with optical colonoscopy, and its restriction to a single center as its main limitations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;No external funding for the study was reported.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kim and one co-author reported relationships with Viatronix and Medicsight and are co-founders of a company called VirtuoCTC, which produces educational materials on CT colonography.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20090101_1_719"
                     title="IDSA: First Reported Hospital Outbreak of Zyvox (linezolid)-Resistant Infections"
                     score="-0.006"
                     href="