Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundData suggest that there were disparities in H1N1 vaccine uptake, and these may inform COVID-19 vaccination efforts. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate disparities in H1N1 vaccine uptake, factors contributing to disparities, and interventions to reduce them.MethodsWe searched English-language articles in MEDLINE ALL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception through May 8, 2020. Observational studies examining H1N1 vaccine uptake by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, rurality, and disability status in US settings were included. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility. Single-reviewer data abstraction was confirmed by a second reviewer. We conducted independent dual quality assessment, and collective strength of evidence assessment.ResultsWe included 21 studies. African American/Black, Latino, and low-socioeconomic status participants had disproportionately lower H1N1 vaccination rates (low- to moderate-strength evidence). However, Latinos were more likely than Whites to intend to be vaccinated, and African American/Blacks and participants with lower-socioeconomic status were just as likely to intend to be vaccinated as their White and higher-socioeconomic status counterparts (low-strength evidence). Vaccine uptake for other groups has been insufficiently studied. Factors potentially contributing to disparities in vaccine uptake included barriers to vaccine access, inadequate information, and concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy. Studies were largely cross-sectional. Many of the studies are a decade old and were conducted in the context of a different pandemic. The categorization of racial and ethnic groups was not consistent across studies and not all groups were well-studied.DiscussionEfforts to avoid disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake should prioritize vaccine accessibility and convenience in African American/Black, Latino, and low-SES communities; engage trusted stakeholders to share vaccine information; and address concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy.Primary Funding SourceDepartment of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research & Development.Protocol RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42020187078

Systematic reviews are a necessary, but often insufficient, source of information to address the decision-making needs of health systems. In this paper, we address when and how the use of health system data might make systematic reviews more useful to decision-makers. We describe the different ways in which health system data can be used with systematic reviews, identify scenarios in which the addition of health system data may be most helpful (i.e., to improve the strength of evidence, to improve the applicability of evidence, and to inform the implementation of evidence), and discuss the importance of framing the limitations and considerations when using unpublished health system data in reviews. We developed a framework to guide the use of health system data alongside systematic reviews based on a narrative review of the literature and empirical experience. We also offer recommendations to improve the transparency of reporting when using health system data alongside systematic reviews including providing rationale for employing additional data, details on the data source, critical appraisal to understand study design biases as well as limitations in data and information quality, and how the unpublished data compares to the systematically reviewed data. Future methodological work on how best to handle internal and external validity concerns of health system data in the context of systematically reviewed data and work on developing infrastructure to do this type of work is needed.

Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are widely used to treat ocular conditions but the benefits and harms of these treatments are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to compare the effects of aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes, quality of life and ocular or systemic adverse events in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD), diabetic macular oedema (DME) and central or branch retinal vein occlusion (RVO). We searched published and unpublished literature sources to February 2017 for randomised controlled trials and cohort or modelling studies reporting comparative costs in the USA. Two reviewers extracted data and graded the strength of the evidence using established methods. Of 17 included trials, none reported a clinically important difference (≥ 5 letters) in visual acuity gains between agents. Nine trials provide high-strength evidence of no difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for NVAMD. Three trials provide moderate-strength evidence of no difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for DME. There was low-strength evidence of similar effects between aflibercept and ranibizumab for NVAMD, aflibercept and bevacizumab for RVO and all three agents for DME. There was insufficient evidence to compare bevacizumab and ranibizumab for RVO. Rates of ocular adverse events were low, and systemic harms were generally similar between groups, although 1 DME trial reported more arterial thrombotic events with ranibizumab versus aflibercept. Overall, no agent had a clear advantage over another for effectiveness or safety. Aflibercept and ranibizumab were significantly less cost-effective than repackaged bevacizumab in two trials. Systematic review registration number: CRD42016034076.

ABSTRACT With its focus on holistic approaches to patient care, caregiver support, and delivery system redesign, geriatrics has advanced our understanding of optimal care during transitions. This article provides a framework for incorporating geriatrics principles into care transition activities by discussing the following elements: (1) identifying factors that make transitions more complex, (2) engaging care “receivers” and tailoring home care to meet patient needs, (3) building “recovery plans” into transitional care, (4) predicting and avoiding preventable readmissions, and (5) adopting a palliative approach, when appropriate, that optimizes patient and family goals of care. The article concludes with a discussion of practical aspects of designing, implementing, and evaluating care transitions programs for those with complex care needs, as well as implications for public policy.

Cannabis use has become increasingly common in the U.S. in recent years, with legalization for medical and recreational purposes expanding to more states. With this increase in use and access, providers should be prepared to have more conversations with patients about use. This review provides an overview of cannabis terminology, pharmacology, benefits, harms, and risk mitigation strategies to help providers engage in these discussions with their patients. Current evidence for the medical use of cannabis, cannabis-related diagnoses including cannabis use disorder (CUD) and withdrawal syndromes, and the co-use of opioids and cannabis are discussed. It is crucial that providers have the tools and information they need to deliver consistent, evidence-based assessment, treatment, prevention and harm-reduction, and we offer practical guidance in these areas.

Background Despite demonstrated efficacy, medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) remain inaccessible to many patients, with barriers identified at the individual, clinic and system level. A wide array of implementation strategies have guided efforts to expand access to MOUD, with most centered around externally-facilitated approaches to practice change. While effective, such approaches may be inaccessible to those clinics and systems that lack the resources necessary to partner with an external team, suggesting a need to identify and describe change-processes that are internally developed and promoted. Methods Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we utilized qualitative interviews and ethnographic observation to investigate the planning, design and implementation of a locally-initiated process to expand access to MOUD within one health care system. All study documents were coded by a primary coder and secondary reviewer using a codebook designed for use with the CFIR. To analyze data, we reviewed text tagged by key codes, compared these textual excerpts both across and within documents, and organized findings into themes. Processes identified were mapped to established implementation science constructs and strategies. Results Interviews with clinicians and administrators (n = 9) and ethnographic observation of planning meetings (n = 3) revealed how a self-appointed local team developed, established broad support for, and successfully implemented a Primary Care-based Buprenorphine Clinic and E-Consult Service to expand access to MOUD to patients across the health care system. First, national and local policy changes—including altered clinical practice guidelines, performance pay incentives regarding opioid prescribing, and a directive from VA Central Office increased individual staff and administrators’ perception of the need for change and willingness to invest time and resources. Then, a self-appointed interdisciplinary team utilized cross-clinic meetings and information gathering to identify appropriate, and widely supported, models of care delivery and care consultation. Finally, the team increased staff investment in these change efforts by bringing them into the planning process and encouraging collaborative problem solving. Conclusions This study reveals how a local team developed and built widespread support for new processes of care that were tailored to local needs and well-positioned for sustainability over time.

IntroductionThe number of readmission risk prediction models available has increased rapidly, and these models are used extensively for health decision-making. Unfortunately, readmission models can be subject to flaws in their development and validation, as well as limitations in their clinical usefulness.ObjectiveTo critically appraise readmission models in the published literature using Delphi-based recommendations for their development and validation.MethodsWe used the modified Delphi process to create Critical Appraisal of Models that Predict Readmission (CAMPR), which lists expert recommendations focused on development and validation of readmission models. Guided by CAMPR, two researchers independently appraised published readmission models in two recent systematic reviews and concurrently extracted data to generate reference lists of eligibility criteria and risk factors.ResultsWe found that published models (n=81) followed 6.8 recommendations (45%) on average. Many models had weaknesses in their development, including failure to internally validate (12%), failure to account for readmission at other institutions (93%), failure to account for missing data (68%), failure to discuss data preprocessing (67%) and failure to state the model’s eligibility criteria (33%).ConclusionsThe high prevalence of weaknesses in model development identified in the published literature is concerning, as these weaknesses are known to compromise predictive validity. CAMPR may support researchers, clinicians and administrators to identify and prevent future weaknesses in model development.

Background Patients with complex health care needs may suffer adverse outcomes from fragmented and delayed care, reducing well-being and increasing health care costs. Health reform efforts, especially those in primary care, attempt to mitigate risk of adverse outcomes by better targeting resources to those most in need. However, predicting who is susceptible to adverse outcomes, such as unplanned hospitalizations, ED visits, or other potentially avoidable expenditures, can be difficult, and providing intensive levels of resources to all patients is neither wanted nor efficient. Our objective was to understand if primary care teams can predict patient risk better than standard risk scores. Methods Six primary care practices risk stratified their entire patient population over a 2-year period, and worked to mitigate risk for those at high risk through care management and coordination. Individual patient risk scores created by the practices were collected and compared to a common risk score (Hierarchical Condition Categories) in their ability to predict future expenditures, ED visits, and hospitalizations. Accuracy of predictions, sensitivity, positive predictive values (PPV), and c-statistics were calculated for each risk scoring type. Analyses were stratified by whether the practice used intuition alone, an algorithm alone, or adjudicated an algorithmic risk score. Results In all, 40,342 patients were risk stratified. Practice scores had 38.6% agreement with HCC scores on identification of high-risk patients. For the 3,381 patients with reliable outcomes data, accuracy was high (0.71–0.88) but sensitivity and PPV were low (0.16–0.40). Practice-created scores had 0.02–0.14 lower sensitivity, specificity and PPV compared to HCC in prediction of outcomes. Practices using adjudication had, on average, .16 higher sensitivity. Conclusions Practices using simple risk stratification techniques had slightly worse accuracy in predicting common outcomes than HCC, but adjudication improved prediction.

Hyperglycemia in patients with and without known diabetes is a common finding in patients hospitalized with cardiovascular disease, and is associated with poor outcomes. Investigators have been examining the role of insulin to treat patients with acute myocardial infarction since the 1960's. Until the 1990's most studies evaluated fixed doses of glucose-insulin-potassium (GIK) infusions. The Diabetes Mellitus Insulin-Glucose Infusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (DIGAMI) trial, published in 1995, evaluated the role of adjustable-dose insulin infusion to lower blood glucose. Its promising results spurred further interest and a number of trials evaluating the use of insulin to lower blood glucose in hospitalized patients - many of which included patients with cardiovascular disease - have been conducted over the last two decades with conflicting results. This manuscript reviews the epidemiology and pathophysiology of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients, summarizes the evidence for benefits and harms of using insulin to treat hyperglycemic patients hospitalized with cardiovascular disease, and offers some practical management considerations.