Electronic Health Record (EHR) Data Quality and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Care

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)Due to frequent utilization, high costs, high prevalence, and negative health outcomes, the care of patients managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains an important focus for providers, payers, and policymakers. The challenges of care delivery, including care fragmentation, reliance on patient self-management behaviors, adherence to care management plans, and frequent medical visits are well-documented in the literature. T2DM management produces numerous clinical data points in the electronic health record (EHR) including laboratory test values and self-reported behaviors. Recency or absence of these data may limit providers’ ability to make effective treatment decisions for care management. Increasingly, the context in which these data are being generated is changing. Specifically, telehealth usage is increasing. Adoption and use of telehealth for outpatient care is part of a broader trend to provide care at-a-distance, which was further accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite unknown implications for patients managing T2DM, providers are increasingly using telehealth tools to complement traditional disease management programs and have adapted documentation practices for virtual care settings. Evidence suggests the quality of data documented during telehealth visits differs from that which is documented during traditional in-person visits. EHR data of differential quality could have cascading negative effects on patient healthcare outcomes. The purpose of this dissertation is to examine whether and to what extent levels of EHR data quality are associated with healthcare outcomes and if EHR data quality is improved by using health information technologies. This dissertation includes three studies: 1) a cross-sectional analysis that quantifies the extent to which EHR data are timely, complete, and uniform among patients managing T2DM with and without a history of telehealth use; 2) a panel analysis to examine associations between primary care laboratory test ages (timeliness) and subsequent inpatient hospitalizations and emergency department admissions; and 3) a panel analysis to examine associations between patient portal use and EHR data timeliness

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

International audienc