Suchergebnisse

PURPOSE: We examined changes in urological care delivery due to COVID-19 in the U.S. based on patient, practice, and local/regional demographic and pandemic response features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed real-world data from the American Urological Association Quality (AQUA) Registry collected from electronic health record systems. Data represented 157 outpatient urological practices and 3,165 providers across 48 U.S. states and territories, including 3,297,721 unique patients, 12,488,831 total outpatient visits and 2,194,456 procedures. The primary outcome measure was the number of outpatient visits and procedures performed (inpatient or outpatient) per practice per week, measured from January 2019 to February 2021. RESULTS: We found large (>50%) declines in outpatient visits from March 2020 to April 2020 across patient demographic groups and states, regardless of timing of state stay-at-home orders. Nonurgent outpatient visits decreased more across various nonurgent procedures (49%-59%) than for procedures performed for potentially urgent diagnoses (38%-52%); surgical procedures for nonurgent conditions also decreased more (43%-79%) than those for potentially urgent conditions (43%-53%). African American patients had similar decreases in outpatient visits compared with Asians and Caucasians, but also slower recoveries back to baseline. Medicare-insured patients had the steepest declines (55%), while those on Medicaid and government insurance had the lowest percentage of recovery to baseline (73% and 69%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence on the decline in urological care across demographic groups and practice settings, and demonstrates a differential impact on the utilization of urological health services by demographics and procedure type.

PurposeWe examined changes in urological care delivery due to COVID-19 in the U.S. based on patient, practice, and local/regional demographic and pandemic response features.Materials and methodsWe analyzed real-world data from the American Urological Association Quality (AQUA) Registry collected from electronic health record systems. Data represented 157 outpatient urological practices and 3,165 providers across 48 U.S. states and territories, including 3,297,721 unique patients, 12,488,831 total outpatient visits and 2,194,456 procedures. The primary outcome measure was the number of outpatient visits and procedures performed (inpatient or outpatient) per practice per week, measured from January 2019 to February 2021.ResultsWe found large (>50%) declines in outpatient visits from March 2020 to April 2020 across patient demographic groups and states, regardless of timing of state stay-at-home orders. Nonurgent outpatient visits decreased more across various nonurgent procedures (49%-59%) than for procedures performed for potentially urgent diagnoses (38%-52%); surgical procedures for nonurgent conditions also decreased more (43%-79%) than those for potentially urgent conditions (43%-53%). African American patients had similar decreases in outpatient visits compared with Asians and Caucasians, but also slower recoveries back to baseline. Medicare-insured patients had the steepest declines (55%), while those on Medicaid and government insurance had the lowest percentage of recovery to baseline (73% and 69%, respectively).ConclusionsThis study provides real-world evidence on the decline in urological care across demographic groups and practice settings, and demonstrates a differential impact on the utilization of urological health services by demographics and procedure type.

Background-Little is known regarding use of cardiac therapies and clinical outcomes among older myocardial infarction (MI) patients with cognitive impairment. Methods and Results-Patients >= 65 years old with MI in the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) Chest Pain-MI Registry between January 2015 and December 2016 were categorized by presence and degree of chart-documented cognitive impairment. We evaluated whether cognitive impairment was associated with all-cause in-hospital mortality after adjusting for known prognosticators. Among 43 812 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, 3.9% had mild and 2.0% had moderate/severe cognitive impairment; among 90 904 non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI patients, 5.7% had mild and 2.6% had moderate/severe cognitive impairment. A statistically significant but numerically small difference in the use of primary percutaneous coronary intervention was observed between patients with STEMI with and without cognitive impairment (none, 92.1% versus mild, 92.8% versus moderate/severe, 90.4%; P=0.03); use of fibrinolysis was lower among patients with cognitive impairment (none, 40.9% versus mild, 27.4% versus moderate/severe, 24.2%; P<0.001). Compared with NSTEMI patients without cognitive impairment, rates of angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass grafting were significantly lower among patients with NSTEMI with mild (41%, 45%, and 70% lower, respectively) and moderate/severe cognitive impairment (71%, 74%, and 93% lower, respectively). After adjustment, compared with no cognitive impairment, presence of moderate/severe (STEW: odds ratio, 2.2, 95% CI, 1.8-2.7; NSTEMI: odds ratio, 1.7, 95% CI, 1.4-2.0) and mild cognitive impairment (STEMI: OR, 1.3, 95% CI, 1.1-1.5; NSTEMI: odds ratio, 1.3, 95% CI, 1.2-1.5) was associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Conclusions-Patients with NSTEMI with cognitive impairment are substantially less likely to receive invasive cardiac care, while patients with STEMI with cognitive impairment receive similar primary percutaneous coronary intervention but less fibrinolysis. Presence and degree of cognitive impairment was independently associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Approaching clinical decision making for older patients with MI with cognitive impairment requires further study. ; American College of Cardiology Foundation's National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR); National Institute on AgingUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Institute on Aging (NIA) [K23 AG052463]; National Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Heart Lung & Blood Institute (NHLBI) [R01HL126911, R01HL137734, R01HL137794, R01HL136660, U54HL143541]; National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Heart and Stroke National New Investigator/Ontario Clinician Scientist Award; Government of Ontario Early Researcher AwardMinistry of Research and Innovation, Ontario; Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network; Heart and Stroke Richard Lewar Centre of Excellence in Cardiovascular Research, University of TorontoUniversity of Toronto; Women's College Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto; Department of Medicine, Women's College Hospital; Department of Medicine ; Open access journal ; This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.

Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) are responsible for safeguarding the interests of study participants and assuring the integrity and credibility of clinical trials. The independence of DMCs from sponsors and investigators is essential to achieving this mission. Creative approaches are needed to address ongoing and emerging challenges that potentially threaten DMCs' independence and effectiveness. An expert panel of representatives from academia, industry and government sponsors, and regulatory agencies discussed these challenges and proposed best practices and operating principles for effective functioning of contemporary DMCs.