Publications

BACKGROUND: Patients with dementia are frequently hospitalized and may face barriers in post-discharge care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with dementia have an increased risk of adverse outcomes following discharge.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS: Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized in 2016.

MAIN MEASURES: Co-primary outcomes were mortality and readmission within 30 days of discharge. Multivariable logistic regression models were estimated to assess the risk of each outcome for patients with and without dementia accounting for demographics, comorbidities, frailty, hospitalization factors, and disposition.

KEY RESULTS: The cohort included 1,089,109 hospitalizations of which 211,698 (19.3%) were of patients with diagnosed dementia (median (IQR) age 83 (76-89); 61.5% female) and 886,411 were of patients without dementia (median (IQR) age 76 (79-83); 55.0% female). At 30 days following discharge, 5.7% of patients with dementia had died compared to 3.1% of patients without dementia (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.21; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.24). At 30 days following discharge, 17.7% of patients with dementia had been readmitted compared to 13.1% of patients without dementia (aOR 1.02; CI 1.002 to 1.04). Dementia was associated with an increased odds of readmission among patients discharged to the community (aOR 1.07, CI 1.05 to 1.09) but a decreased odds of readmission among patients discharge to nursing facilities (aOR 0.93, CI 0.90 to 0.95). Patients with dementia who were discharged to the community were more likely to be readmitted than those discharged to nursing facilities (18.9% vs 16.0%), and, when readmitted, were more likely to die during the readmission (20.7% vs 4.4%).

CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosed dementia was associated with a substantially increased risk of mortality and a modestly increased risk of readmission within 30 days of discharge. Patients with dementia discharged to the community had particularly elevated risk of adverse outcomes indicating possible gaps in post-discharge services and caregiver support.

IMPORTANCE: Medicare Advantage health plans covered 37% of beneficiaries in 2018, and coverage increased to 48% in 2022. Whether Medicare Advantage plans provide similar care for patients presenting with specific clinical conditions is unknown.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 30-day mortality and treatment for Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) from 2009 to 2018.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study that included 557 309 participants with ST-segment elevation [acute] MI (STEMI) and 1 670 193 with non-ST-segment elevation [acute] MI (NSTEMI) presenting to US hospitals from 2009-2018 (date of final follow up, December 31, 2019).

EXPOSURES: Enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was adjusted 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included age- and sex-adjusted rates of procedure use (catheterization, revascularization), postdischarge medication prescriptions and adherence, and measures of health system performance (intensive care unit [ICU] admission and 30-day readmissions).

RESULTS: The study included a total of 2 227 502 participants, and the mean age in 2018 ranged from 76.9 years (Medicare Advantage STEMI) to 79.3 years (traditional Medicare NSTEMI), with similar proportions of female patients in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare (41.4% vs 41.9% for STEMI in 2018). Enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare was associated with significantly lower adjusted 30-day mortality rates in 2009 (19.1% vs 20.6% for STEMI; difference, -1.5 percentage points [95% CI, -2.2 to -0.7] and 12.0% vs 12.5% for NSTEMI; difference, -0.5 percentage points [95% CI, -0.9% to -0.1%]). By 2018, mortality had declined in all groups, and there were no longer statically significant differences between Medicare Advantage (17.7%) and traditional Medicare (17.8%) for STEMI (difference, 0.0 percentage points [95% CI, -0.7 to 0.6]) or between Medicare Advantage (10.9%) and traditional Medicare (11.1%) for NSTEMI (difference, -0.2 percentage points [95% CI, -0.4 to 0.1]). By 2018, there was no statistically significant difference in standardized 90-day revascularization rates between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Rates of guideline-recommended medication prescriptions were significantly higher in Medicare Advantage (91.7%) vs traditional Medicare patients (89.0%) who received a statin prescription (difference, 2.7 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 4.2] for 2018 STEMI). Medicare Advantage patients were significantly less likely to be admitted to an ICU than traditional Medicare patients (for 2018 STEMI, 50.3% vs 51.2%; difference, -0.9 percentage points [95% CI, -1.8 to 0.0]) and significantly more likely to be discharged to home rather than to a postacute facility (for 2018 STEMI, 71.5% vs 70.2%; difference, 1.3 percentage points [95% CI, 0.5 to 2.1]). Adjusted 30-day readmission rates were consistently lower in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare (for 2009 STEMI, 13.8% vs 15.2%; difference, -1.3 percentage points [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.6]; and for 2018 STEMI, 11.2% vs 11.9%; difference, 0.6 percentage points [95% CI, -1.5 to 0.0]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among Medicare beneficiaries with acute MI, enrollment in Medicare Advantage, compared with traditional Medicare, was significantly associated with modestly lower rates of 30-day mortality in 2009, and the difference was no longer statistically significant by 2018. These findings, considered with other outcomes, may provide insight into differences in treatment and outcomes by Medicare insurance type.

PURPOSE: We examined the prevalence of, and factors associated with, serious opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) that led to an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization among patients with chronic gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and disorders dually enrolled in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare Part D.

METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used linked national patient-level data (April 1, 2011, to October 31, 2014) from the VA and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to identify serious ORADEs among dually enrolled veterans with a chronic GI symptom or disorder. Outcome measures included serious ORADEs, defined as an ED visit attributed to an ORADE or a hospitalization where the principal or secondary reason for admission involved an opioid. We used multiple logistic regression models to determine factors independently associated with a serious ORADE.

RESULTS: We identified 3,430 veterans who had a chronic GI symptom or disorder; were dually enrolled in the VA and Medicare Part D; and had a serious ORADE that led to an ED visit, hospitalization, or both. The period prevalence of having a serious ORADE was 2.4% overall and 4.4% among veterans with chronic opioid use (≥90 consecutive days). Veterans with serious ORADEs were more likely to be less than 40 years old, male, white, and to have chronic abdominal pain, functional GI disorders, chronic pancreatitis, or Crohn's disease. They were also more likely to have used opioids chronically and at higher daily doses.

CONCLUSION: There may be a considerable burden of serious ORADEs among patients with chronic GI symptoms and disorders. Future quality improvement efforts should target this vulnerable population.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is strongly associated with clinical adversity, including increased hospitalization and bleeding and stroke events. We examined the effect of the SARS-2 Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on such events in individuals with AF receiving oral anticoagulation.

METHODS: We employed medical and pharmacy claims spanning 2018-2020 from a nationally representative U.S. database (IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription, Medical Claims, and Institutional Claims). We selected individuals receiving oral anticoagulation in 2018 for AF and followed them from 1/1/2019-7/8/2020 for clinical events. We constructed interrupted time-series analyses across 30-day intervals with Poisson regression models to determine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical events.

RESULTS: The dataset included 1,439,145 individuals (half with age ≥75 years; 47.6% women) receiving oral anticoagulation. We determined a 19% decrease in emergency room visits following the pandemic declaration and 8% decrease in inpatient admissions. In contrast admissions for stroke and bleeding were not affected by the declaration of the pandemic.

DISCUSSION: These results describe the temporal effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical adversity - hospitalizations, strokes, and bleeding events - in individuals receiving oral anticoagulation for AF. Our analysis quantifies the decrease in clinical adversity accompanying COVID-19 in a large, highly representative U.S. health claims database.

Insulin prices have been a hot topic in the United States, where there is a lack of price regulation on drugs, and there have been reports of Americans crossing the border to purchase insulin in Canada at much lower prices. We conducted a cross-sectional time-series analysis comparing insulin spending using IQVIA (Durham, North Carolina, USA) data on aggregate insulin prescription volumes dispensed in the United States and Canada from January 2016 to April 2019 to quantify insulin spending and pricing differences between the countries. We obtained data on diabetes rates from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Statistics Canada. The primary outcome of this study was the difference in total annual insulin spending and spending per insulin user between the United States and Canada. We also examined spending on the top 5 most used insulins per year in the United States and the percentage change of spending on insulin products from January 2016 to April 2019. In 2018, the US spent $28 billion (USD) on insulin compared with $484 million in Canada. The average American insulin user spent $3490 on insulin in 2018 compared with $725 among Canadians. Over the study period, the average cost per unit of insulin in the United States increased by 10.3% compared with only 0.01% in Canada. These findings demonstrate that the United States spent considerably more on insulin than Canada, and prices continue to increase. Implementing national legislation for drug pricing regulations using reference pricing could stabilize and potentially decrease insulin prices in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although automated urine cultures (UCs) following urinalysis (UA) are often used in emergency departments (EDs) to identify urinary tract infections (UTIs), results are often reported as no organism growth or the growth of clinically insignificant organisms, leading to the overdetection and overtreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB).

METHODS: A process change was implemented at a US Department of Veterans Affairs medical center ED that automatically cancelled UCs if UAs had < 5 white blood cells per high-power field (WBC/HPF). An option for do not cancel (DNC) UC was available. Data were prospectively collected for 3 months postimplementation and included UA/UC results, presence of UTI symptoms, antibiotics prescribed, and health care utilization.

RESULTS: Postintervention, 684 UAs (37.2%) were evaluated from ED visits. Postintervention, of 255 UAs, 95 (37.3%) were negative with UC cancelled, 95 (37.3%) were positive with UC processed, 43 (16.9%) were ordered as DNC, and 22 (8.6%) were ordered without a UC. UC processing despite a negative UA significantly decreased from 100% preintervention to 38.6% postintervention (P < .001). Inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics for ASB was reduced from 10.2% preintervention to 1.9% postintervention (odds ratio = 0.17; P = .01). In patients with negative UA specimens, antibiotic prescribing decreased by 25.3% postintervention. No reports of outpatient, ED, or hospital visits for symptomatic UTI were found within 7 days of the initial UA postintervention.

CONCLUSIONS: The UA to reflex culture process change resulted in a significant reduction in processing of inappropriate UCs and unnecessary antibiotic use for ASB. There were no missed UTIs or other adverse patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare patterns of dental antibiotic prescribing in Australia, England, and North America (United States and British Columbia, Canada).

DESIGN: Population-level analysis of antibiotic prescription.

SETTING: Outpatient prescribing by dentists in 2017.

PARTICIPANTS: Patients receiving an antibiotic dispensed by an outpatient pharmacy.

METHODS: Prescription-based rates adjusted by population were compared overall and by antibiotic class. Contingency tables assessed differences in the proportion of antibiotic class by country.

RESULTS: In 2017, dentists in the United States had the highest antibiotic prescribing rate per 1,000 population and Australia had the lowest rate. The penicillin class, particularly amoxicillin, was the most frequently prescribed for all countries. The second most common agents prescribed were clindamycin in the United States and British Columbia (Canada) and metronidazole in Australia and England. Broad-spectrum agents, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, and azithromycin were the highest in Australia and the United States, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Extreme differences exist in antibiotics prescribed by dentists in Australia, England, the United States, and British Columbia. The United States had twice the antibiotic prescription rate of Australia and the most frequently prescribed antibiotic in the US was clindamycin. Significant opportunities exist for the global dental community to update their prescribing behavior relating to second-line agents for penicillin allergic patients and to contribute to international efforts addressing antibiotic resistance. Patient safety improvements will result from optimizing dental antibiotic prescribing, especially for antibiotics associated with resistance (broad-spectrum agents) or C. difficile (clindamycin). Dental antibiotic stewardship programs are urgently needed worldwide.

This SHEA white paper identifies knowledge gaps and challenges in healthcare epidemiology research related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a focus on core principles of healthcare epidemiology. These gaps, revealed during the worst phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, are described in 10 sections: epidemiology, outbreak investigation, surveillance, isolation precaution practices, personal protective equipment (PPE), environmental contamination and disinfection, drug and supply shortages, antimicrobial stewardship, healthcare personnel (HCP) occupational safety, and return to work policies. Each section highlights three critical healthcare epidemiology research questions with detailed description provided in supplementary materials. This research agenda calls for translational studies from laboratory-based basic science research to well-designed, large-scale studies and health outcomes research. Research gaps and challenges related to nursing homes and social disparities are included. Collaborations across various disciplines, expertise and across diverse geographic locations will be critical.