Abstract Background High continuity of care (COC) is associated with better clinical outcomes among older adults. The impact of amyloid-β PET scan on COC among adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia of uncertain etiology is unknown. Methods We linked data from the CARE-IDEAS study, which assessed the impact of amyloid-β PET scans on outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries with MCI or dementia of uncertain etiology and their care partners, to Medicare claims (2015–2018). We calculated a participant-level COC index using the Bice-Boxerman formula and claims from all ambulatory evaluation and management visits during the year prior to and following the amyloid-β PET scan. We compared baseline characteristics by scan result (elevated or non-elevated) using standardized differences. To evaluate changes in COC, we used multiple regression models adjusting for sociodemographics, cognitive function, general health status, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Results Among the 1171 cohort members included in our analytic population, the mean age (SD) was 75.2 (5.4) years, 61.5% were male and 93.9% were non-Hispanic white. Over two-thirds (68.1%) had an elevated amyloid-β PET scan. Mean COC for all patients was 0.154 (SD = 0.102; range = 0–0.73) prior to the scan and 0.158 (SD = 0.105; range = 0–1.0) in the year following the scan. Following the scan, the mean COC index score increased (95% CI) by 0.005 (−0.008, 0.019) points more for elevated relative to not elevated scan recipients, but this change was not statistically significant. There was no association between scan result (elevated vs. not elevated) or any other patient covariates and changes in COC score after the scan. Conclusion COC did not meaningfully change following receipt of amyloid-β PET scan in a population of Medicare beneficiaries with MCI or dementia of uncertain etiology. Future work examining how care continuity varies across marginalized populations with cognitive impairment is needed.
Beta amyloid PET scans are a minimally invasive biomarker that may inform Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis. The Caregiver's Reactions and Experience (CARE) study, an IDEAS supplement, aimed to understand experiences of PET scan recipients and their care partners regarding motivations for scans, reporting and interpreting results, and impact of results. Patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia who agreed to join the CARE-IDEAS study and their care partners participated in a baseline survey and follow-up survey approximately 18 months later, supplemented by in-depth qualitative interviews with subsets of participants. Patients who received scans and volunteered for follow-up research were more likely to be male, better educated, and have higher income than the general population. Survey information was merged with Medicare data. This article integrates findings from several CARE-IDEAS publications and provides implications for practice and research. Although most participants accurately reported scan results, they were often confused about their meaning for prognosis. Some participants reported distress with results, but there were no significant changes in measured depression, burden, or economic strain over time. Many respondents desired more information about prognosis and supportive resources. Scan results were not differentially associated with changes in service use over time. Findings suggest a need for carefully designed and tested tools for clinicians to discuss risks and benefits of scans and their results, and resources to support patients and care partners in subsequent planning. Learning of scan results provides a point-of-contact that should be leveraged to facilitate shared decision-making and person-centered longitudinal AD care.
Objective To examine the association between warfarin treatment and longitudinal outcomes after ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation in community practice. Design Observational study. Setting Hospitals (n=1487) participating in the Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-Stroke program in the United States, from 2009 to 2011. Participants 12 552 warfarin naive atrial fibrillation patients admitted to hospital for ischemic stroke and treated with warfarin compared with no oral anticoagulant at discharge, linked to Medicare claims for longitudinal outcomes. Main outcome measures Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and home time, a patient centered outcomes measure defined as the total number of days free from institutional care after discharge. A propensity score inverse probability weighting method was used to account for all differences in observed characteristics between treatment groups. Results Among 12 552 survivors of stroke, 11 039 (88%) were treated with warfarin at discharge. Warfarin treated patients were slightly younger and less likely to have a history of previous stroke or coronary artery disease but had similar severity of stroke as measured by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. Relative to those not treated, patients treated with warfarin had more days at home (as opposed to institutional care) during the two years after discharge (adjusted home time difference 47.6 days, 99% confidence interval 26.9 to 68.2). Patients discharged on warfarin treatment also had a reduced risk of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio 0.87, 99% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.98), all cause mortality (0.72, 0.63 to 0.84), and recurrent ischemic stroke (0.63, 0.48 to 0.83). These differences were consistent among clinically relevant subgroups by age, sex, stroke severity, and history of previous coronary artery disease and stroke. Conclusions Among ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation, warfarin treatment was associated with improved long term clinical outcomes and more days at home. Clinical trial registration Clinical trials NCT02146274.
Background: Stroke survivors have identified that home time is a high priority outcome, but there are limited data on factors associated with time at home following stroke as well as the degree to which home time varies among discharging hospitals. Methods: PROSPER is a PCORI-funded program designed with stroke survivors to evaluate post-stroke therapies and outcomes. We linked data for patients >65 years old who were enrolled in the GWTG-Stroke Registry to Medicare claims to ascertain home time, defined as time spent alive and out of a hospital or skilled nursing facility, at 90 days and 1 year after discharge for ischemic stroke. We used generalized mixed models with random effects to estimate adjusted mean home time for each hospital, accounting for patient characteristics. We then used linear regression to assess hospital factors associated with risk-adjusted home time. Results: From 2007-2011, 156,869 ischemic stroke patients at 1417 hospitals were linked to Medicare claims. Home time varied among hospitals, with overall unadjusted median home time (IQR) of 59.5 days (55.7-63.2) over the first 90 days and 270 days (256.0-281.1) over the first year. Hospital factors associated with more home time over 90 days included higher annual stroke volume; South, West, or Midwest geographic regions (vs. Northeast); and rural location (Table). Similar patterns were observed at 1 year. Compared with patients in the highest hospital home time quartile, patients in the lowest were older, more likely to be female, had more comorbidities, and had more severe strokes by NIHSS. Home time variation decreased after adjustment, with a median of 59.3 days (57.4-61.4) over 90 days and 270 days (266.3-274.2) over 1 year. Conclusions: In a population of older ischemic stroke survivors, home time after discharge varies by hospital stroke volume, severity case mix, and region. In adjusted analyses, hospital stroke volume and rural location were associated with more days at home following stroke.
ABSTRACT Objective To determine whether hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 infections among health care workers (HCW). Design Multicenter, 1:1 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, superiority trial. Setting 34 clinical centers in the United States. Participants 1360 HCW at risk for COVID-19 infection enrolled between April and November 2020. Interventions A loading dose of HCQ 600 mg twice on Day 1 followed by 400 mg daily for 29 days or matching placebo taken orally. Main Outcome Measure Composite of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 clinical infection by Day 30 defined as new onset fever, cough, or dyspnea and either a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test (confirmed) or a lack of confirmatory testing due to local restrictions (suspected). Results Enrollment for the study was closed before full accrual due to difficulties recruiting additional participants. The primary composite endpoint occurred in 41 (6.0%) participants receiving HCQ and 53 (7.8%) participants receiving placebo. No statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants experiencing clinical infection (estimated difference of -1.8%, 95% confidence interval -4.6% to 0.9%, p=0.20). We identified no significant safety issues. Conclusion Oral HCQ taken as prescribed appeared to be safe in a group of HCW. No significant clinical benefits were observed. The study was underpowered to rule out a small but potentially important reduction in COVID-19 infections. Trial Registration NCT04334148
Purpose Discrimination in healthcare settings significantly impacts population health, affecting individuals of racial and ethnic minoritized identities, sexual and gender minoritized identities, and individuals with disabilities. Most measures of discrimination are derived from instruments assessing everyday discrimination experiences and do not adequately capture the specific nuances of healthcare-related discrimination. This systematic review protocol outlines a planned study that will evaluate and synthesize tools designed to measure discrimination in healthcare settings in the United States (U.S.). By providing a detailed overview of these measurement tools and their psychometric properties, this review will enhance understanding of healthcare discrimination and guide policy and practice towards improving health equity. Methods A comprehensive search will be conducted across four databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) and supplemented by citation tracking of reviewed articles. The review will focus on studies involving measurements of perceived discrimination within healthcare settings in the United States. The primary outcomes include the reliability, validity, and specificity of discrimination measurement instruments. Quality assessment will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurment INstruments of outcome measurements 2024 guidelines (PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024). The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42024592267. Discussion This review will synthesize existing literature and offer a comprehensive evaluation of discrimination measurement tools to guide future health equity research. This review aims to contribute to the mitigation of healthcare inequities and the promotion of health equity by offering actionable insights into the measurement of discrimination in healthcare settings.
'/%3e%3c/defs%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0h10080v5040H0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='.6' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23b)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='.4' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23c)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='840' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='504' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cg fill='%23fff'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' x='2520' y='3780'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='4200'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='6300' y='2205'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='840'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='8680' y='1869'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23e' x='8064' y='2730'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)