Publications

2024

Wilson, Linnea M, Kaleab Z Abebe, and Timothy S Anderson. (2024) 2024. “How Should Elevated Blood Pressure Be Managed in Hospital?”. NEJM Evidence 3 (12): EVIDtt2400202. https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDtt2400202.

AbstractDuring hospitalization, patients' blood pressure often varies substantially from their outpatient steady state and many patients experience marked fluctuations. Given a lack of guidelines for inpatient blood pressure management, treatment patterns vary and recent observational studies demonstrate intensive inpatient blood pressure treatment may be been associated with harm. This article reviews current knowledge in inpatient blood pressure management and proposes a randomized trial to compare clinical outcomes of more versus less restrictive blood pressure goals.

Devine, Joshua W, Mina Tadrous, Inmaculada Hernandez, Katherine Callaway Kim, Scott D Rothenberger, Nandita Mukhopadhyay, Walid F Gellad, and Katie J Suda. (2024) 2024. “A Retrospective Cohort Study of the 2018 Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Recalls and Subsequent Drug Shortages in Patients With Hypertension.”. Journal of the American Heart Association 13 (1): e032266. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.123.032266.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan was recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2018 for carcinogenic impurities, resulting in a drug shortage and management challenges for valsartan users. The influence of the valsartan recall on clinical outcomes is unknown. We compared the risk of adverse events between hypertensive patients using valsartan and a propensity score-matched group using nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

METHODS AND RESULTS: We used Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Hypertensive patients who received valsartan or nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for 1 year before and on the recall date were compared. Primary outcomes were measured in the 6 months following the recall and included: (1) a composite measure of all-cause hospitalization, all-cause emergency department visit, and all-cause urgent care visit, and (2) a composite cardiac event measure of hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/emergency department visits/urgent care visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure, or hypertension. We compared the risk of outcomes between treatment groups using Cox proportional hazard models. Of the hypertensive patients, 76 934 received valsartan, and 509 472 received a nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. Valsartan use at the time of recall was associated with a higher risk of all-cause hospitalization, emergency department use, or urgent care use (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.00-1.04]) and the composite of cardiac events (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.15-1.29]) within 6 months after the recall.

CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall and shortage affected hypertensive patients. Local- and national-level systems need to be enhanced to protect patients from drug shortages by providing safe and reliable medication alternatives.

Khouja, Tumader, Nilesh H Shah, Katie J Suda, and Deborah E Polk. (2024) 2024. “Trajectories of Opioid Prescribing by General Dentists, Specialists, and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons in the United States, 2015-2019.”. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) 155 (1): 7-16.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2023.10.002.

BACKGROUND: Despite decreases in opioid prescribing from 2016 through 2019, some dentists (general, specialists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons) in the United States continue to prescribe opioids at high rates. The authors' objective was to define dentists' trajectories of opioid prescribing.

METHODS: The authors identified actively prescribing dentists from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription data set, from 2015 through 2019. Group-based trajectory modeling identified opioid prescribing trajectories on the basis of dentists' annual prescribing rates for the overall sample (model 1) and for high prescribers (model 2). The authors used χ2 or Mann-Whitney U tests to characterize the model 2 trajectory groups.

RESULTS: In model 1 (n = 199,145 prescribers), group-based trajectory modeling identified 8 trajectories that were grouped into 5 categories. A total of 14.8% were nonprescribers who composed less than 1% of all prescriptions, low prescribers (3 groups; 46.0%) prescribed at low rates (2015: 5.5%-16.9%; 2019: 1.5%-11.9%), decliners (7.3%) decreased prescribing rapidly (2015: 29.4%; 2019: 5.1%), moderately high prescribers (2 groups; 28.5%) prescribed moderately (2015: 28.7% and 39.2%; 2019: 18.1% and 28.8%), and consistently high prescribers (3.4%) prescribed at high rates (2015: 54.6%; 2019: 44.7%). In model 2, from consistently high prescribers (n = 6,845), 4 trajectories were identified. Of these 4 groups, 1 group (7.5%) declined prescribing rapidly. The groups did not differ meaningfully; however, the rapid decliners included fewer oral and maxillofacial surgeons (13.0% vs 18.4%), saw more Medicaid patients (2.5% vs 1.0%), and had higher opioid prescribing rates in 2015 (95.5% vs 91.6%) (P < .001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified variations in dentists' opioid prescribing rates. Although 60% of dentists decreased prescribing rates by 30% through 83%, 3.4% of dentists consistently prescribed at high rates.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Some dentists continue to prescribe opioids at high levels, indicating that additional information is needed to better inform policy and clinical decision making.

Fitzpatrick, Margaret A, Marissa Wirth, Stephen P Burns, Katie J Suda, Frances M Weaver, Eileen Collins, Nasia Safdar, and Charlesnika T Evans. (2024) 2024. “Management of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria and Urinary Tract Infections in Patients With Neurogenic Bladder and Factors Associated With Inappropriate Diagnosis and Treatment.”. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 105 (1): 112-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2023.09.023.

OBJECTIVE: Inappropriate diagnosis and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) and urinary tract infection (UTI) are leading causes of antibiotic overuse but have not been well-studied in patients with risks for complicated UTI such as neurogenic bladder (NB). Our aim was to describe ASB and UTI management in patients with NB and assess factors associated with inappropriate management.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING: Four Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) medical centers.

PARTICIPANTS: Adults with NB due to spinal cord injury/disorder (SCI/D), multiple sclerosis (MS), or Parkinson disease (PD) and encounters with an ASB or UTI diagnosis between 2017 and 2018. Clinical and encounter data were extracted from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and medical record reviews for a stratified sample of 300 encounters from N=291 patients.

INTERVENTIONS: None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of appropriate and inappropriate ASB and UTI diagnosis and treatment was summarized. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed factors associated with inappropriate management.

RESULTS: N=200 UTI and N=100 ASB encounters were included for the 291 unique patients (SCI/D, 39.9%; MS, 36.4%; PD, 23.7%). Most patients were men (83.3%), >65 years (62%), and used indwelling or intermittent catheterization (68.3%). Nearly all ASB encounters had appropriate diagnosis (98%). 70 (35%) UTI encounters had inappropriate diagnosis, including 55 (27.5%) with true ASB, all with inappropriate treatment. Among the remaining 145 UTI encounters, 54 (27%) had inappropriate treatment. Peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and cerebrovascular disease were associated with increased odds of inappropriate management; indwelling catheter (aOR 0.35, P=.01) and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation provider (aOR 0.29, P<.01) were associated with decreased odds.

CONCLUSION: Up to half of UTI encounters for patients with NB had inappropriate management, largely due to inappropriate UTI diagnosis in patients with true ASB. Interventions to improve ASB and UTI management in patients with NB should target complex patients with comorbidities being seen by non-rehabilitation providers.

Ramanathan, Swetha, Charlesnika T Evans, Ronald C Hershow, Gregory S Calip, Susan Rowan, Colin Hubbard, and Katie J Suda. (2024) 2024. “Guideline Concordance and Antibiotic-Associated Adverse Events Between Veterans Administration and Non-Veterans Administration Dental Settings: A Retrospective Cohort Study.”. Frontiers in Pharmacology 15: 1249531. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1249531.

Background: Antibiotics prescribed as infection prophylaxis prior to dental procedures have the potential for serious adverse drug events (ADEs). However, the extent to which guideline concordance and different dental settings are associated with ADEs from antibiotic prophylaxis is unknown. Aim: The purpose was to assess guideline concordance and antibiotic-associated ADEs and whether it differs by VA and non-VA settings. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of antibiotic prophylaxis prescribed to adults with cardiac conditions or prosthetic joints from 2015 to 2017. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to assess the impact of ADEs, guideline concordance and dental setting. An interaction term of concordance and dental setting evaluated whether the relationship between ADEs and concordance differed by setting. Results: From 2015 to 2017, 61,124 patients with antibiotic prophylaxis were identified with 62 (0.1%) having an ADE. Of those with guideline concordance, 18 (0.09%) had an ADE while 44 (0.1%) of those with a discordant antibiotic had an ADE (unadjusted OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.49-1.45). Adjusted analyses showed that guideline concordance was not associated with ADEs (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.25-2.46), and this relationship did not differ by dental setting (Wald χ^2 p-value for interaction = 0.601). Conclusion: Antibiotic-associated ADEs did not differ by setting or guideline concordance.

Wilson, Geneva M, Margaret Fitzpatrick, Katie J Suda, Linda Poggensee, Makoto Jones, Martin E Evans, and Charlesnika T Evans. (2024) 2024. “Facility- and Patient-Level Factors Associated With Implementation of Contact Precautions in Hospitalized VA Patients With Positive CRE Cultures.”. Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology : ASHE 4 (1): e76. https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2024.36.

Decreasing the time to contact precautions (CP) is critical to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) prevention. Identifying factors associated with delayed CP can decrease the spread from patients with CRE. In this study, a shorter length of stay was associated with being placed in CP within 3 days.

Fitzpatrick, Margaret A, Pooja Solanki, Marissa Wirth, Frances M Weaver, Katie J Suda, Stephen P Burns, Nasia Safdar, Eileen Collins, and Charlesnika T Evans. (2024) 2024. “Knowledge, Perceptions, and Beliefs about Urinary Tract Infections in Persons With Neurogenic Bladder and Impacts on Interventions to Promote Person-Centered Care.”. Spinal Cord 62 (5): 221-27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-024-00972-z.

STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how knowledge, perceptions, and beliefs about urinary tract infections (UTIs) among persons with neurogenic bladder (NB) may impact health behaviors and provider management and enhance person-centeredness of interventions to improve UTI management.

SETTING: Three Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers.

METHODS: Adults with NB due to spinal cord injury/disorder (SCI/D) or multiple sclerosis (MS) with UTI diagnoses in the prior year participated in focus groups. Transcripts were coded using deductive codes linked to the Health Belief Model and inductive codes informed by grounded theory.

RESULTS: Twenty-three Veterans (SCI/D, 78%; MS: 18.5%) participated in discussions. Three themes emerged: (1) UTI knowledge; (2) factors affecting the intervention environment; and (3) factors affecting modes of delivery. Knowledge gaps included UTI prevention, specific symptoms most indicative of UTI, and antibiotic side effects. Poor perceptions of providers lacking knowledge about NB and ineffective patient-provider communication were common in the Emergency Department and non-VA facilities, whereas participants had positive perceptions of home-based care. Participants perceived lower severity and frequency of antibiotic risks compared to UTI risks. Participant preferences for education included caregiver involvement, verbal and written materials, and diverse settings like peer groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Identifying patient perspectives enhances person-centeredness and allows for novel interventions improving patient knowledge and behaviors about UTIs. Partnering with trusted providers and home-based caregivers and improving NB knowledge and communication in certain care settings were important. Patient education should address mental risk representations and incorporate preferences for content delivery to optimize self-efficacy and strengthen cues to action.