Search

ImportanceAmong patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), Hispanic individuals are more likely than non-Hispanic White individuals to develop diabetes-related complications.ObjectiveTo examine the association of a pharmacist-led intervention (UCMyRx) with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) among Hispanic patients with T2D.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study used electronic health record data and a difference-in-differences study design to evaluate the association of UCMyRx exposure with changes in HbA1c concentration and SBP among Hispanic patients with T2D, relative to usual care, at University of California, Los Angeles primary care clinics between February and April of 2023. The study population included patients with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision/International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision diagnosis of T2D, self-reporting Hispanic ethnicity, age 18 years or older, with 1 or more visits with a UCMyRx pharmacist (treatment) or 2 or more visits, 2 or more years apart, during the study window (comparison). Additionally, patients had to have the following observations during the study window (March 2, 2013-December 31, 2018): (1) a HbA1c 8% or higher, anywhere between 365 days before and 14 days after the index date (date of the first UCMyRx visit or a randomly generated index date) and a follow-up HbA1c measure within 120 to 365 days after the index date (n = 396) and/or (2) a SBP 140 mm Hg or higher between 365 days before and 14 days after the index date, and a follow-up SBP measure within 120 to 450 days after the index date (n = 795).ExposurePharmacists review laboratory results/vital signs, perform medication reconciliation, and develop personally tailored interventions to address adherence barriers and increase guideline-concordant care.Main outcomes and measuresPre- to post-index date changes in HbA1c and SBP.ResultsOf the 931 unique

ObjectiveThe Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE) is an international collaboration addressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with federated analyses of electronic health record (EHR) data. We sought to develop and validate a computable phenotype for COVID-19 severity.Materials and methodsTwelve 4CE sites participated. First, we developed an EHR-based severity phenotype consisting of 6 code classes, and we validated it on patient hospitalization data from the 12 4CE clinical sites against the outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or death. We also piloted an alternative machine learning approach and compared selected predictors of severity with the 4CE phenotype at 1 site.ResultsThe full 4CE severity phenotype had pooled sensitivity of 0.73 and specificity 0.83 for the combined outcome of ICU admission and/or death. The sensitivity of individual code categories for acuity had high variability-up to 0.65 across sites. At one pilot site, the expert-derived phenotype had mean area under the curve of 0.903 (95% confidence interval, 0.886-0.921), compared with an area under the curve of 0.956 (95% confidence interval, 0.952-0.959) for the machine learning approach. Billing codes were poor proxies of ICU admission, with as low as 49% precision and recall compared with chart review.DiscussionWe developed a severity phenotype using 6 code classes that proved resilient to coding variability across international institutions. In contrast, machine learning approaches may overfit hospital-specific orders. Manual chart review revealed discrepancies even in the gold-standard outcomes, possibly owing to heterogeneous pandemic conditions.ConclusionsWe developed an EHR-based severity phenotype for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients and validated it at 12 international sites.

Background: The risks of osteoporosis and breast cancer are increasing in elderly women. Bisphosphonates and denosumab are recommended for treatment of osteoporosis. They have different and overlapping pharmacodynamics and previous studies have shown conflicting results regarding their risk association with breast cancer. We intend to further look into this issue through a comparative study. Methods: Electronic health records of 91,626 women older than 50 years with no previous history of malignancy and no nonbreast cancer during follow-up were retrieved from southern California and retrospectively analyzed using univariate, bivariate, and log-rank tests. Medication use, breast cancer risk, and associated demographic and clinical history were assessed. Results: Over an average of 3.6 years follow-up, the breast cancer relative risks (RRs) counted after 365 days of latency are 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-1.97) for denosumab ever users and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.21-0.66) for bisphosphonates ever users, when covariates are comparable. The significant difference is supported by the Log-rank test (p = 0.0004). Excluding statins coprescribers, the breast cancer RR is 1.31 (0.71, 2.43) in denosumab group and 0.26 (0.11, 0.62) in bisphosphonates group. There is a reduced RR in statins ever users (0.47, 95% CI: 0.38-0.58), and the breast cancer risk difference is not significant between concomitant denosumab/statins and bisphosphonates/statins ever users with RR 0.65 (0.16, 2.58) versus 0.55 (0.26, 1.16), p = 0.692. Conclusions: Our data support an association of lower breast cancer risk with bisphosphonates use in elderly women. We did not observe a lower breast cancer risk in denosumab group; however, our data revealed a potential lower breast cancer risk in denosumab users with concurrent statins use and this requires further study.

Background: The risks of osteoporosis and breast cancer are increasing in elderly women. Bisphosphonates and denosumab are recommended for treatment of osteoporosis. They have different and overlapping pharmacodynamics and previous studies have shown conflicting results regarding their risk association with breast cancer. We intend to further look into this issue through a comparative study. Methods: Electronic health records of 91,626 women older than 50 years with no previous history of malignancy and no nonbreast cancer during follow-up were retrieved from southern California and retrospectively analyzed using univariate, bivariate, and log-rank tests. Medication use, breast cancer risk, and associated demographic and clinical history were assessed. Results: Over an average of 3.6 years follow-up, the breast cancer relative risks (RRs) counted after 365 days of latency are 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-1.97) for denosumab ever users and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.21-0.66) for bisphosphonates ever users, when covariates are comparable. The significant difference is supported by the Log-rank test (p = 0.0004). Excluding statins coprescribers, the breast cancer RR is 1.31 (0.71, 2.43) in denosumab group and 0.26 (0.11, 0.62) in bisphosphonates group. There is a reduced RR in statins ever users (0.47, 95% CI: 0.38-0.58), and the breast cancer risk difference is not significant between concomitant denosumab/statins and bisphosphonates/statins ever users with RR 0.65 (0.16, 2.58) versus 0.55 (0.26, 1.16), p = 0.692. Conclusions: Our data support an association of lower breast cancer risk with bisphosphonates use in elderly women. We did not observe a lower breast cancer risk in denosumab group; however, our data revealed a potential lower breast cancer risk in denosumab users with concurrent statins use and this requires further study.

Background: The risks of osteoporosis and breast cancer are increasing in elderly women. Bisphosphonates and denosumab are recommended for treatment of osteoporosis. They have different and overlapping pharmacodynamics and previous studies have shown conflicting results regarding their risk association with breast cancer. We intend to further look into this issue through a comparative study. Methods: Electronic health records of 91,626 women older than 50 years with no previous history of malignancy and no nonbreast cancer during follow-up were retrieved from southern California and retrospectively analyzed using univariate, bivariate, and log-rank tests. Medication use, breast cancer risk, and associated demographic and clinical history were assessed. Results: Over an average of 3.6 years follow-up, the breast cancer relative risks (RRs) counted after 365 days of latency are 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-1.97) for denosumab ever users and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.21-0.66) for bisphosphonates ever users, when covariates are comparable. The significant difference is supported by the Log-rank test (p = 0.0004). Excluding statins coprescribers, the breast cancer RR is 1.31 (0.71, 2.43) in denosumab group and 0.26 (0.11, 0.62) in bisphosphonates group. There is a reduced RR in statins ever users (0.47, 95% CI: 0.38-0.58), and the breast cancer risk difference is not significant between concomitant denosumab/statins and bisphosphonates/statins ever users with RR 0.65 (0.16, 2.58) versus 0.55 (0.26, 1.16), p = 0.692. Conclusions: Our data support an association of lower breast cancer risk with bisphosphonates use in elderly women. We did not observe a lower breast cancer risk in denosumab group; however, our data revealed a potential lower breast cancer risk in denosumab users with concurrent statins use and this requires further study.

ObjectiveThe Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE) is an international collaboration addressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with federated analyses of electronic health record (EHR) data. We sought to develop and validate a computable phenotype for COVID-19 severity.Materials and methodsTwelve 4CE sites participated. First, we developed an EHR-based severity phenotype consisting of 6 code classes, and we validated it on patient hospitalization data from the 12 4CE clinical sites against the outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or death. We also piloted an alternative machine learning approach and compared selected predictors of severity with the 4CE phenotype at 1 site.ResultsThe full 4CE severity phenotype had pooled sensitivity of 0.73 and specificity 0.83 for the combined outcome of ICU admission and/or death. The sensitivity of individual code categories for acuity had high variability-up to 0.65 across sites. At one pilot site, the expert-derived phenotype had mean area under the curve of 0.903 (95% confidence interval, 0.886-0.921), compared with an area under the curve of 0.956 (95% confidence interval, 0.952-0.959) for the machine learning approach. Billing codes were poor proxies of ICU admission, with as low as 49% precision and recall compared with chart review.DiscussionWe developed a severity phenotype using 6 code classes that proved resilient to coding variability across international institutions. In contrast, machine learning approaches may overfit hospital-specific orders. Manual chart review revealed discrepancies even in the gold-standard outcomes, possibly owing to heterogeneous pandemic conditions.ConclusionsWe developed an EHR-based severity phenotype for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients and validated it at 12 international sites.

BackgroundUniversity of California at Los Angeles Health implemented a Best Practice Advisory (BPA) alert for the initiation of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) for individuals with diabetes. The BPA alert was configured with a "chart closure" hard stop, which demanded a response before closing the chart.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate whether the implementation of the BPA was associated with changes in ACEI and ARB prescribing during primary care encounters for patients with diabetes.MethodsWe defined ACEI and ARB prescribing opportunities as primary care encounters in which the patient had a diabetes diagnosis, elevated blood pressure in recent encounters, no active ACEI or ARB prescription, and no contraindications. We used a multivariate logistic regression model to compare the change in the probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription during opportunity encounters before and after BPA implementation in primary care sites that did (n=30) and did not (n=31) implement the BPA. In an additional subgroup analysis, we compared ACEI and ARB prescribing in BPA implementation sites that had also implemented a pharmacist-led medication management program.ResultsWe identified a total of 2438 opportunity encounters across 61 primary care sites. The predicted probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription increased significantly from 11.46% to 22.17% during opportunity encounters in BPA implementation sites after BPA implementation. However, in the subgroup analysis, we only observed a significant improvement in ACEI and ARB prescribing in BPA implementation sites that had also implemented the pharmacist-led program. Overall, the change in the predicted probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription from before to after BPA implementation was significantly greater in BPA implementation sites compared with nonimplementation sites (difference-in-differences of 11.82; P<.001).ConclusionsA BPA with a "chart closure"

We leveraged the largely untapped resource of electronic health record data to address critical clinical and epidemiological questions about Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). To do this, we formed an international consortium (4CE) of 96 hospitals across five countries (www.covidclinical.net). Contributors utilized the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) or Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) platforms to map to a common data model. The group focused on temporal changes in key laboratory test values. Harmonized data were analyzed locally and converted to a shared aggregate form for rapid analysis and visualization of regional differences and global commonalities. Data covered 27,584 COVID-19 cases with 187,802 laboratory tests. Case counts and laboratory trajectories were concordant with existing literature. Laboratory tests at the time of diagnosis showed hospital-level differences equivalent to country-level variation across the consortium partners. Despite the limitations of decentralized data generation, we established a framework to capture the trajectory of COVID-19 disease in patients and their response to interventions.

BackgroundBlack individuals with type 2 diabetes suffer disproportionate morbidity and mortality relative to whites with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of health insurance coverage.ObjectiveExamine the impact of a primary care-embedded clinical pharmacist-led intervention (UCMyRx) on cardiovascular risk factor control among blacks with type 2 diabetes in a large healthcare system.DesignWe used data extracted from the electronic health records (EHR) system and a difference-in-differences study design with a propensity-matched comparison group to evaluate the impact of UCMyRx on HbA1c and systolic blood pressure (SBP) among black patients with type 2 diabetes, relative to usual care.ParticipantsIndividuals with type 2 diabetes identified as either black or African American in the EHR that were ≥ 18 years of age that had the following observations during the study window (03/02/2013-12/31/18: (1) HbA1C ≥ 8%, at least once, anywhere between 365 days before and 14 days after the UCMyRx visit and a follow-up HbA1c measure within 120 to 365 days after the visit and/or (2) SBP ≥ 140 mmHg at least once between 365 days before and 14 days after the UCMyRx visit that had a follow-up SBP measure within 120 to 450 days after the visit.InterventionUCMyRx pharmacists review labs and vital signs, perform medication reconciliation, use a standardized survey to assess barriers to medication adherence, and develop tailored interventions to improve medication adherence.Main measuresChange in HbA1c and change in SBP from before to after the first UCMyRx visit.Key resultsHaving at least one visit with a UCMyRx clinical pharmacist was associated with a significant reduction in HbA1c (- 0.4%, p value = .01); however, there was no significant impact on SBP (- .051 mmHg, p value = 0.74).ConclusionsThe UCMyRx intervention is a useful strategy for improving HbA1c control among blacks with type 2 diabetes.

BackgroundBlack individuals with type 2 diabetes suffer disproportionate morbidity and mortality relative to whites with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of health insurance coverage.ObjectiveExamine the impact of a primary care-embedded clinical pharmacist-led intervention (UCMyRx) on cardiovascular risk factor control among blacks with type 2 diabetes in a large healthcare system.DesignWe used data extracted from the electronic health records (EHR) system and a difference-in-differences study design with a propensity-matched comparison group to evaluate the impact of UCMyRx on HbA1c and systolic blood pressure (SBP) among black patients with type 2 diabetes, relative to usual care.ParticipantsIndividuals with type 2 diabetes identified as either black or African American in the EHR that were ≥ 18 years of age that had the following observations during the study window (03/02/2013-12/31/18: (1) HbA1C ≥ 8%, at least once, anywhere between 365 days before and 14 days after the UCMyRx visit and a follow-up HbA1c measure within 120 to 365 days after the visit and/or (2) SBP ≥ 140 mmHg at least once between 365 days before and 14 days after the UCMyRx visit that had a follow-up SBP measure within 120 to 450 days after the visit.InterventionUCMyRx pharmacists review labs and vital signs, perform medication reconciliation, use a standardized survey to assess barriers to medication adherence, and develop tailored interventions to improve medication adherence.Main measuresChange in HbA1c and change in SBP from before to after the first UCMyRx visit.Key resultsHaving at least one visit with a UCMyRx clinical pharmacist was associated with a significant reduction in HbA1c (- 0.4%, p value = .01); however, there was no significant impact on SBP (- .051 mmHg, p value = 0.74).ConclusionsThe UCMyRx intervention is a useful strategy for improving HbA1c control among blacks with type 2 diabetes.

We leveraged the largely untapped resource of electronic health record data to address critical clinical and epidemiological questions about Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). To do this, we formed an international consortium (4CE) of 96 hospitals across five countries (www.covidclinical.net). Contributors utilized the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) or Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) platforms to map to a common data model. The group focused on temporal changes in key laboratory test values. Harmonized data were analyzed locally and converted to a shared aggregate form for rapid analysis and visualization of regional differences and global commonalities. Data covered 27,584 COVID-19 cases with 187,802 laboratory tests. Case counts and laboratory trajectories were concordant with existing literature. Laboratory tests at the time of diagnosis showed hospital-level differences equivalent to country-level variation across the consortium partners. Despite the limitations of decentralized data generation, we established a framework to capture the trajectory of COVID-19 disease in patients and their response to interventions.

University of California at Los Angeles Health implemented a Best Practice Advisory (BPA) alert for the initiation of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) for individuals with diabetes. The BPA alert was configured with a "chart closure" hard stop, which demanded a response before closing the chart.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate whether the implementation of the BPA was associated with changes in ACEI and ARB prescribing during primary care encounters for patients with diabetes.MethodsWe defined ACEI and ARB prescribing opportunities as primary care encounters in which the patient had a diabetes diagnosis, elevated blood pressure in recent encounters, no active ACEI or ARB prescription, and no contraindications. We used a multivariate logistic regression model to compare the change in the probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription during opportunity encounters before and after BPA implementation in primary care sites that did (n=30) and did not (n=31) implement the BPA. In an additional subgroup analysis, we compared ACEI and ARB prescribing in BPA implementation sites that had also implemented a pharmacist-led medication management program.ResultsWe identified a total of 2438 opportunity encounters across 61 primary care sites. The predicted probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription increased significantly from 11.46% to 22.17% during opportunity encounters in BPA implementation sites after BPA implementation. However, in the subgroup analysis, we only observed a significant improvement in ACEI and ARB prescribing in BPA implementation sites that had also implemented the pharmacist-led program. Overall, the change in the predicted probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription from before to after BPA implementation was significantly greater in BPA implementation sites compared with nonimplementation sites (difference-in-differences of 11.82; P<.001).ConclusionsA BPA with a "chart closure"

BackgroundBlack individuals with type 2 diabetes suffer disproportionate morbidity and mortality relative to whites with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of health insurance coverage.ObjectiveExamine the impact of a primary care-embedded clinical pharmacist-led intervention (UCMyRx) on cardiovascular risk factor control among blacks with type 2 diabetes in a large healthcare system.DesignWe used data extracted from the electronic health records (EHR) system and a difference-in-differences study design with a propensity-matched comparison group to evaluate the impact of UCMyRx on HbA1c and systolic blood pressure (SBP) among black patients with type 2 diabetes, relative to usual care.ParticipantsIndividuals with type 2 diabetes identified as either black or African American in the EHR that were ≥ 18 years of age that had the following observations during the study window (03/02/2013-12/31/18: (1) HbA1C ≥ 8%, at least once, anywhere between 365 days before and 14 days after the UCMyRx visit and a follow-up HbA1c measure within 120 to 365 days after the visit and/or (2) SBP ≥ 140 mmHg at least once between 365 days before and 14 days after the UCMyRx visit that had a follow-up SBP measure within 120 to 450 days after the visit.InterventionUCMyRx pharmacists review labs and vital signs, perform medication reconciliation, use a standardized survey to assess barriers to medication adherence, and develop tailored interventions to improve medication adherence.Main measuresChange in HbA1c and change in SBP from before to after the first UCMyRx visit.Key resultsHaving at least one visit with a UCMyRx clinical pharmacist was associated with a significant reduction in HbA1c (- 0.4%, p value = .01); however, there was no significant impact on SBP (- .051 mmHg, p value = 0.74).ConclusionsThe UCMyRx intervention is a useful strategy for improving HbA1c control among blacks with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND University of California at Los Angeles Health implemented a Best Practice Advisory (BPA) alert for the initiation of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) for individuals with diabetes. The BPA alert was configured with a “chart closure” hard stop, which demanded a response before closing the chart. OBJECTIVE The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the implementation of the BPA was associated with changes in ACEI and ARB prescribing during primary care encounters for patients with diabetes. METHODS We defined ACEI and ARB prescribing opportunities as primary care encounters in which the patient had a diabetes diagnosis, elevated blood pressure in recent encounters, no active ACEI or ARB prescription, and no contraindications. We used a multivariate logistic regression model to compare the change in the probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription during opportunity encounters before and after BPA implementation in primary care sites that did (n=30) and did not (n=31) implement the BPA. In an additional subgroup analysis, we compared ACEI and ARB prescribing in BPA implementation sites that had also implemented a pharmacist-led medication management program. RESULTS We identified a total of 2438 opportunity encounters across 61 primary care sites. The predicted probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription increased significantly from 11.46% to 22.17% during opportunity encounters in BPA implementation sites after BPA implementation. However, in the subgroup analysis, we only observed a significant improvement in ACEI and ARB prescribing in BPA implementation sites that had also implemented the pharmacist-led program. Overall, the change in the predicted probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription from before to after BPA implementation was significantly greater in BPA implementation sites compared with nonimplementation sites (difference-in-differences of 11.82; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS A BPA with a “chart

BACKGROUND University of California at Los Angeles Health implemented a Best Practice Advisory (BPA) alert for the initiation of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) for individuals with diabetes. The BPA alert was configured with a "chart closure" hard stop, which demanded a response before closing the chart. OBJECTIVE The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the implementation of the BPA was associated with changes in ACEI and ARB prescribing during primary care encounters for patients with diabetes. METHODS We defined ACEI and ARB prescribing opportunities as primary care encounters in which the patient had a diabetes diagnosis, elevated blood pressure in recent encounters, no active ACEI or ARB prescription, and no contraindications. We used a multivariate logistic regression model to compare the change in the probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription during opportunity encounters before and after BPA implementation in primary care sites that did (n=30) and did not (n=31) implement the BPA. In an additional subgroup analysis, we compared ACEI and ARB prescribing in BPA implementation sites that had also implemented a pharmacist-led medication management program. RESULTS We identified a total of 2438 opportunity encounters across 61 primary care sites. The predicted probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription increased significantly from 11.46% to 22.17% during opportunity encounters in BPA implementation sites after BPA implementation. However, in the subgroup analysis, we only observed a significant improvement in ACEI and ARB prescribing in BPA implementation sites that had also implemented the pharmacist-led program. Overall, the change in the predicted probability of an ACEI or ARB prescription from before to after BPA implementation was significantly greater in BPA implementation sites compared with nonimplementation sites (difference-in-differences of 11.82; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS A BPA with a "chart