Search

To compare the outcomes of real-world patients who would have been eligible for asthma biologics to those who would not have been eligible. We used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (OLDW) to categorize patients into eligible and ineligible groups based on clinical trials (n = 19 trials) used for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. We then compared the change in the number of asthma exacerbations before and after biological initiation between the two groups. The percentage of people who would have been eligible for asthma biologic clinical trials ranged from 0–10.2%. The eligible group had a greater reduction in number of asthma exacerbations compared to the ineligible group based on eligibility criteria from 1 omalizumab trial (1.52, 95% CI 1.25, 1.8 in eligible vs. 0.47, 95% CI 0.43, 0.52 in ineligible) and from 1 dupilumab trial (1.6, 95% CI 0.92, 2.28 in eligible vs. 0.52, 95% CI 0.38, 0.65 ineligible). Notably, 15 of the 19 trials had fewer than 11 eligible people, limiting additional comparisons. Fewer than 1 in 10 people in the United States treated with asthma biologics would have been eligible to participate in the trial for the biologic they used. Where comparisons could be made, trial eligible people have a greater reduction in exacerbations. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.2010749. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective was to derive a risk score that uses variables available early during the emergency department (ED) encounter to identify high‐risk geriatric patients who may benefit from delirium screening. Methods: This was an observational study of older adults age ≥ 75 years who presented to an academic ED and who were screened for delirium during their ED visit. Variable selection from candidate predictors was performed through a LASSO‐penalized logistic regression. A risk score was derived from the final prediction model, and predictive accuracy characteristics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: From the 967 eligible ED visits, delirium was detected in 107 (11.1%). The area under the curve for the REcognizing DElirium in Emergency Medicine (REDEEM) score was 0.901 (95% CI = 0.864–0.938). The REEDEM risk score included 10 different variables (seven based on triage information and three obtained during early history taking) with a score ranging from –3 to 66. Using an optimal cutoff of ≥11, we found a sensitivity of 84.1% (90 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 75.5%–90.2%) and a specificity of 86.6% (745 of 860 non‐ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.1%–88.8%). A lower cutoff of ≥5 was found to minimize false negatives with an improved sensitivity at 91.6% (98 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.2%–95.8%). Conclusion: A risk stratification score was derived with the potential to augment delirium recognition in geriatric ED patients. This has the potential to assist on delirium‐targeted screening of high‐risk patients in the ED. Validation of REDEEM, however, is needed prior to implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While medically induced end-stage renal disease (m-ESRD) has been well-studied, outcomes in patients with surgically induced ESRD (s-ESRD) are unknown. We sought to quantitatively compare the non-oncological outcomes for s-ESRD and m-ESRD in a large, population-based cohort. Methods: Medicare patients >65 years old initiating hemodialysis were identified using the U.S. Renal Data System database (2000-2012). Metastatic cancer, prior transplant history, and nephrectomy for polycystic kidney disease were exclusion criteria. Patients were classified as having s-ESRD or m-ESRD based on hospital and physician claims for nephrectomy within a year preceding the onset of maintenance hemodialysis. Outcomes included non-cancer mortality (NCM), overall survival (OS), cardiovascular event (CVE), and renal transplantation. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier and cumulative incidence curves, and multivariable Cox and Fine-and-Crey regression models. Results: The cohort included 312 612 patients, of whom 1648 (0.53%) had s-ESRD. Compared to m-ESRD patients, s-ESRD patients had a significantly lower five-year cumulative incidence of NCM (68% vs. 80%; p<0.001) and CVE (62% vs. 68%; p<0.001), with a correspondingly higher probability of OS (22% vs. 17%; pcO.OOl) and rate of renal transplantation (3.6% vs. 2.0%; p<0.001). On multivariable analyses, s-ESRD remained associated with lower risks of NCM (p<0.001) and CVE (pcO.OOl), improved OS (pcO.001), and higher chance of renal transplantation (pcO.001). Conclusions: While outcomes for s-ESRD appear more favorable than m-ESRD, s-ESRD is still associated with a substantial risk of NCM and CVE, and a low incidence of renal transplantation in Medicare patients >65 years old. These non-oncological outcomes are worth considering in patients potentially facing postoperative ESRD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Epidemiologic studies of anaphylaxis commonly rely on International Classification of Diseases ( ICD ) codes to identify anaphylaxis cases, which may lead to suboptimal epidemiologic classification., Objective: We sought to develop and assess the accuracy of a machine learning algorithm using ICD codes and other administrative data compared with ICD code-only algorithms to identify emergency department (ED) anaphylaxis visits., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of ED visits from January 2013 to September 2017. Potential ED anaphylaxis visits were identified using 3 methods: anaphylaxis ICD diagnostic codes (method 1), ICD symptom-based codes with or without a code indicating an allergic trigger (method 2), and ICD codes indicating a potential allergic reaction only (method 3). A machine learning algorithm was developed from administrative data, and test characteristics were compared with ICD code-only algorithms., Results: A total of 699 of 2191 (31.9%) potential ED anaphylaxis visits were classified as anaphylaxis. The sensitivity and specificity of method 1 were 49.1% and 87.5%, respectively. Method 1 used in combination with method 2 resulted in a sensitivity of 53.9% and a specificity of 68.7%. Method 1 used in combination with method 3 resulted in a sensitivity of 98.4% and a specificity of 15.1%. The sensitivity and specificity of the machine learning algorithm were 87.3% and 79.1%, respectively., Conclusions: ICD coding alone demonstrated poor sensitivity in identifying cases of anaphylaxis, with venom-related anaphylaxis missing 96% of cases. The machine learning algorithm resulted in a better balance of sensitivity and specificity and improves upon previous strategies to identify ED anaphylaxis visits., (© 2022 The Authors.)

BACKGROUND: Due to the US opioid epidemic, in March of 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published new guidelines for primary care providers on opioid prescribing for chronic pain. Payer coverage changes were also implemented to help modify opioid prescribing behavior. Whether these initiatives were associated with changes in opioid initiation patterns is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between 3 of the 2016 CDC guidelines and 2 subsequent payer pharmacy coverage changes with changes in opioid initiation behavior across different provider specialties. METHODS: We conducted a real-world evidence study using claims data from OptumLabs Data Warehouse between January of 2014 and December of 2018. Subjects were continuously enrolled opioid naive patients, aged at least 18 years, who had at least 1 chronic pain diagnosis within 2 weeks before their first (first-time) opioid prescription. The study used multiple treatment period segmented regression analysis to evaluate the association, across different provider specialties, between the CDC guideline release and the payer pharmacy coverage changes with immediate change in level and overall change in the rate of first-time extended-release opioid prescriptions, firsttime opioid prescriptions at doses of at least 50 MME (morphine milligram equivalent) per day, and first-time opioid prescriptions with overlapping benzodiazepine prescription. RESULTS: The CDC guidelines were not associated with any change in the rate of first-time prescriptions of extended-release opioids. However, a January 2017 payer pharmacy coverage change was associated with a reduction over time in first-time extended-release opioid prescription rates by 22.15 in every 100,000 prescriptions (CI = -40.04 to -2.92, P = 0.013). The CDC guidelines were associated with an immediate decline in level of first-time opioid prescription at doses of at least 50 MME per day by 74.00 in every 10,000 prescriptions (CI = -124.86 to -23.13, P = 0.004) and an increased rate of decline over time by 13.64 in every 10,000 prescriptions (CI = -17.07 to -10.21, P < 0.001). These associations varied across provider types and specialties. The March 2018, payer coverage change was associated with an immediate reduction in level of first-time opioid prescriptions at doses of at least 50 MME per day across all specialties and an increased reduction over time among surgeons. The CDC guidelines were associated, respectively, with a reduction in the rate of overlapping first-time opioid prescriptions with benzodiazepines among family medicine, internal medicine, surgeons, emergency medicine providers, and providers with unknown specialty by 6.11, 5.10, 2.89, 11.43, and 9.11 in every 10,000 prescriptions monthly (CI = -9.48 to -2.73, -9.86 to -0.35, -5.40 to -0.38, -17.26 to -5.61 and -11.96 to -6.25, respectively, P < 0.001, P = 0.035, P = 0.024, P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Some specialist providers also adopted the CDC guidelines, and the response to the guidelines differed across various provider specialties. Some CDC guidelines were associated with a reduction in high-risk first-time opioid prescriptions. Payer pharmacy coverage changes reinforced the guidelines both in situations where the CDC guidelines did and did not show any association. DISCLOSURE: This research was funded by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS025164; PI: Karaca-Mandic). Karaca-Mandic reports grants from the American Cancer Society and Sempre Health, along with fees from Tactile Medical and Precision Health Economics, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Buprenorphine (BUP) can safely and effectively reduce craving, overdose, and mortality rates in people with opioid use disorder (OUD). However, adoption of ED-initiation of BUP has been slow partly due to physician perception this practice is too complex and disruptive. We report progress of the ongoing EMBED ( EMergency department-initiated BuprenorphinE for opioid use Disorder) project. This project is a five-year collaboration across five healthcare systems with the goal to develop, integrate, study, and disseminate user-centered Clinical Decision Support (CDS) to promote the adoption of Emergency Department (ED)-initiation of buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP) into routine emergency care. Soon to enter its third year, the project has already completed multiple milestones to achieve its goals including (1) user-centered design of the CDS prototype, (2) integration of the CDS into an automated electronic health record (EHR) workflow, (3) data coordination including derivation and validation of an EHR-based computable phenotype, (4) meeting all ethical and regulatory requirements to achieve a waiver of informed consent, (5) pilot testing of the intervention at a single site, and (6) launching a parallel group-randomized 18-month pragmatic trial in 20 EDs across 5 healthcare systems. Pilot testing of the intervention in a single ED was associated with increased rates of ED-initiated BUP and naloxone prescribing and a doubling of the number of unique physicians adopting the practice. The ongoing multi-center pragmatic trial will assess the intervention's effectiveness, scalability, and generalizability with a goal to shift the emergency care paradigm for OUD towards early identification and treatment., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov # NCT03658642., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The authors have no financial conflicts or competing interests to disclose.