Access, knowledge and experience with fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in infection management: a survey of Australia and New Zealand infectious diseases physicians and microbiologists

BACKGROUND

Despite fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) being funded only for staging and restaging of some malignancies in Australia, there is evidence of benefit of FDG-PET/CT for infection indications such as pyrexia of unknown origin (PUO), prolonged neutropenic fever (NF) and prosthetic device infection.

AIM

To evaluate the current knowledge, utilisation of and gaps in access to FDG-PET/CT for infectious indications by Australasian infectious diseases (ID) physicians and microbiologists.

METHODS

An online survey was administered to ID and microbiology doctors practising in adult medicine in Australia and New Zealand through two established email networks. Using targeted questions and case-based examples, multiple themes were explored, including access to FDG-PET/CT, use and perceived benefit of FDG-PET/CT in diagnosis and monitoring of non-malignant conditions such as NF and PUO, and barriers to clinical use of FDG-PET/CT.

RESULTS

A response was received from 120 participants across all states and territories. Onsite and offsite FDG-PET/CT access was 63% and 31% respectively. Eighty-six percent reported using FDG-PET/CT for one or more infection indications and all had found it clinically useful, with common indications being PUO, prosthetic device infections and use in the immunocompromised host for prolonged NF and invasive fungal infection. Thirty-eight percent reported barriers in accessing FDG-PET/CT for infection indications and 76% would utilise FDG-PET/CT more frequently if funding existed for infection indications.

CONCLUSION

Access to FDG-PET/CT in Australia and New Zealand is modest and is limited by lack of reimbursement for infection indications. There is discrepancy between recognised ID indications for FDG-PET/CT and funded indications.

Future-proofing global health: Governance of priorities

The year 2015 was a significant anniversary for global health: 15 years since the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals and the creation of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, followed two years later by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. 2015 was also the 10-year anniversary of the adoption of the International Health Regulations (May 2005) and the formal entering into force of the Framework Convention on the Tobacco Control (February 2005). The anniversary of these frameworks and institutions illustrates the growth and contribution of 'global' health diplomacy. Each initiative has also revealed on-going issues with compliance, sustainable funding and equitable attention in global health governance. In this paper, we present four thematic challenges that will continue to challenge prioritisation within global health governance into the future unless addressed: framing and prioritising within global health governance; identifying stakeholders of the global health community; understanding the relationship between health and behaviour; and the role of governance and regulation in supporting global health.

The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds

BACKGROUND

Little is known about who the main public and philanthropic funders of health research are globally, what they fund and how they decide what gets funded. This study aims to identify the 10 largest public and philanthropic health research funding organizations in the world, to report on what they fund, and on how they distribute their funds.

METHODS

The world's key health research funding organizations were identified through a search strategy aimed at identifying different types of funding organizations. Organizations were ranked by their reported total annual health research expenditures. For the 10 largest funding organizations, data were collected on (1) funding amounts allocated towards 20 health areas, and (2) schemes employed for distributing funding (intramural/extramural, project/'people'/organizational and targeted/untargeted funding). Data collection consisted of a review of reports and websites and interviews with representatives of funding organizations. Data collection was challenging; data were often not reported or reported using different classification systems.

RESULTS

Overall, 55 key health research funding organizations were identified. The 10 largest funding organizations together funded research for $37.1 billion, constituting 40% of all public and philanthropic health research spending globally. The largest funder was the United States National Institutes of Health ($26.1 billion), followed by the European Commission ($3.7 billion), and the United Kingdom Medical Research Council ($1.3 billion). The largest philanthropic funder was the Wellcome Trust ($909.1 million), the largest funder of health research through official development assistance was USAID ($186.4 million), and the largest multilateral funder was the World Health Organization ($135.0 million). Funding distribution mechanisms and funding patterns varied substantially between the 10 largest funders.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for increased transparency about who the main funders of health research are globally, what they fund and how they decide on what gets funded, and for improving the evidence base for various funding models. Data on organizations' funding patterns and funding distribution mechanisms are often not available, and when they are, they are reported using different classification systems. To start increasing transparency in health research funding, we have established www.healthresearchfunders.org that lists health research funding organizations worldwide and their health research expenditures.

Bone graft substitutes for the treatment of traumatic fractures of the extremities

HEALTH POLITICAL AND SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND: Bone graft substitutes are increasingly being used as supplements to standard care or as alternative to bone grafts in the treatment of traumatic fractures.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of bone graft substitutes for the treatment of traumatic fractures as well as the ethical, social and legal implications of their use are the main research questions addressed.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in electronic medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE etc.) in December 2009. Randomised controlled trials (RCT), where applicable also containing relevant health economic evaluations and publications addressing the ethical, social and legal aspects of using bone graft substitutes for fracture treatment were included in the analysis. After assessment of study quality the information synthesis of the medical data was performed using metaanalysis, the synthesis of the health economic data was performed descriptively.

RESULTS

14 RCT were included in the medical analysis, and two in the heath economic evaluation. No relevant publications on the ethical, social and legal implications of the bone graft substitute use were found. In the RCT on fracture treatment with bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) versus standard care without bone grafting (RCT with an elevated high risk of bias) there was a significant difference in favour of BMP-2 for several outcome measures. The RCT of calcium phosphate (CaP) cement and bone marrow-based composite materials versus autogenous bone grafts (RCT with a high risk of bias) revealed significant differences in favour of bone graft substitutes for some outcome measures. Regarding the other bone graft substitutes, almost all comparisons demonstrated no significant difference. The use of BMP-2 in addition to standard care without bone grafting led in the study to increased treatment costs considering all patients with traumatic open fractures. However, cost savings through the additional use of BMP-2 were calculated in a patient subgroup with high-grade open fractures (Gustilo-Anderson grade IIIB). Cost-effectiveness for BMP-2 versus standard care with autologous bone grafts as well as for other bone graft substitutes in fracture treatment has not been determined yet.

DISCUSSION

Although there were some significant differences in favour of BMP-2, due to the overall poor quality of the studies the evidence can only be interpreted as suggestive for efficacy. In the case of CaP cements and bone marrow-based bone substitute materials, the evidence is only weakly suggestive for efficacy. From an overall economic perspective, the transferability of the results of the health economic evaluations to the current situation in Germany is limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence is insufficient to evaluate entirely the use of different bone graft substitutes for fracture treatment. From a medical point of view, BMP-2 is a viable alternative for treatment of open fractures of the tibia, especially in cases where bone grafting is not possible. Autologous bone grafting is preferable comparing to the use of OP-1. Possible advantages of CaP cements and composites containing bone marrow over autogenous bone grafting should be taken into account in clinical decision making. The use of the hydroxyapatite material and allograft bone chips compared to autologous bone grafts cannot be recommended. From a health economic perspective, the use of BMP-2 in addition to standard care without bone grafting is recommended as cost-saving in patients with high-grade open fractures (Gustilo-Anderson grade IIIB). Based on the current evidence no further recommendations can be made regarding the use of bone graft substitutes for the treatment of fractures. To avoid legal implications, use of bone graft substitutes outside their approved indications should be avoided.