Abstract Introduction The massive-transfusion concept was introduced to recognize the dilutional complications resulting from large volumes of packed red blood cells (PRBCs). Definitions of massive transfusion vary and lack supporting clinical evidence. Damage-control resuscitation regimens of modern trauma care are targeted to the early correction of acute traumatic coagulopathy. The aim of this study was to identify a clinically relevant definition of trauma massive transfusion based on clinical outcomes. We also examined whether the concept was useful in that early prediction of massive transfusion requirements could allow early activation of blood bank protocols. Methods Datasets on trauma admissions over a 1 or 2-year period were obtained from the trauma registries of five large trauma research networks. A fractional polynomial was used to model the transfusion-associated probability of death. A logistic regression model for the prediction of massive transfusion, defined as 10 or more units of red cell transfusions, was developed. Results In total, 5,693 patient records were available for analysis. Mortality increased as transfusion requirements increased, but the model indicated no threshold effect. Mortality was 9% in patients who received none to five PRBC units, 22% in patients receiving six to nine PRBC units, and 42% in patients receiving 10 or more units. A logistic model for prediction of massive transfusion was developed and validated at multiple sites but achieved only moderate performance. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81, with specificity of only 50% at a sensitivity of 90% for the prediction of 10 or more PRBC units. Performance varied widely at different trauma centers, with specificity varying from 48% to 91%. Conclusions No threshold for definition exists at which a massive transfusion specifically results in worse outcomes. Even with a large sample size across multiple trauma datasets, it was not possible to develop a transportable and clinically useful prediction model based on available admission parameters. Massive transfusion as a concept in trauma has limited utility, and emphasis should be placed on identifying patients with massive hemorrhage and acute traumatic coagulopathy.

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, concerns were raised about the potential impact of pandemic-related social distancing measures on existing health disparities among sexual and gender minority (SGM) young adults, including HIV transmission risk and intimate partner violence (IPV). Another concern was the potential for increased methamphetamine use during the pandemic, which is a known risk factor for HIV transmission and IPV.

Methods

The present analysis examines the impact of COVID-19 social distancing (social distancing and quarantining) and methamphetamine use on HIV risk and IPV in a combined dataset from 3 cohort studies of SGM young adults (two in Los Angeles and one in Chicago) from May 2020 to April 2021 (n = 1142). Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regressions were estimated.

Results

The median age was 26. All participants were assigned male at birth and most participants were men (93.8%). The largest racial groups were Hispanic/Latinx (44.6%) and Black (29.0%). In adjusted models methamphetamine use was consistently associated with having a new sex partner, higher numbers of sex partners, and experience of IPV, during the pandemic. Reporting no social distancing and reporting one social distancing behavior, were associated with experience of IPV relative to reporting 2 social distancing behaviors. Social distancing was not associated with sexual risk behavior or Pre-exposure Prophylaxis use.

Conclusions

SGM young adults live at the intersection of multiple vulnerabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Addiction services, HIV prevention services, and violence support services should be prepared to support young adult SGM needs, particularly those who use methamphetamine.

Objective

Most investigations of pharmacotherapy for treating Alzheimer's disease focus on patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms, with little evidence to guide clinical decisions when symptoms become severe. We examined whether continuing donepezil, or commencing memantine, is cost-effective for community-dwelling, moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease patients.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness analysis was based on a 52-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, factorial clinical trial. A total of 295 community-dwelling patients with moderate/severe Alzheimer's disease, already treated with donepezil, were randomised to: (i) continue donepezil; (ii) discontinue donepezil; (iii) discontinue donepezil and start memantine; or (iv) continue donepezil and start memantine.

Results

Continuing donepezil for 52 weeks was more cost-effective than discontinuation, considering cognition, activities of daily living and health-related quality of life. Starting memantine was more cost-effective than donepezil discontinuation. Donepezil-memantine combined is not more cost-effective than donepezil alone.

Conclusions

Robust evidence is now available to inform clinical decisions and commissioning strategies so as to improve patients' lives whilst making efficient use of available resources. Clinical guidelines for treating moderate/severe Alzheimer's disease, such as those issued by NICE in England and Wales, should be revisited. © 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.