Dexamethasone in hospitalised coronavirus-19 patients not on intensive respiratory support.

INTRODUCTION: Dexamethasone decreases mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on intensive respiratory support (IRS) but is of uncertain benefit if less severely ill. We determined whether early (within 48 h) dexamethasone was associated with mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 not on IRS. METHODS: We included patients admitted to Veterans Affairs hospitals between June 7, 2020-May 31, 2021 within 14-days after SARS-CoV-2 positive test. Exclusions included recent prior corticosteroids and IRS within 48 h. We used inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) to balance exposed and unexposed groups, and Cox proportional hazards models to determine 90-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 19 973 total patients (95% men, median age 71, 27% black), 15 404 (77%) were without IRS within 48 h. Of these, 3514/9450 (34%) patients on no oxygen received dexamethasone and 1042 (11%) died; 4472/5954 (75%) patients on low-flow nasal cannula (NC) received dexamethasone and 857 (14%) died. In IPTW stratified models, patients on no oxygen who received dexamethasone experienced 76% increased risk for 90-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47 to 2.12); there was no association with mortality among patients on NC (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.36). CONCLUSION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, early initiation of dexamethasone was common and was associated with no mortality benefit among those on no oxygen or NC in the first 48 h; instead, we found evidence of potential harm. These real-world findings do not support the use of early dexamethasone in hospitalised COVID-19 patients without IRS

Patient-reported pain and physical health for acupuncture and chiropractic care delivered by Veterans Affairs versus community providers.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture and chiropractic care are evidence-based pain management alternatives to opioids. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) provides this care in some VA facilities, but also refers patients to community providers. We aimed to determine if patient-reported outcomes differ for acupuncture and chiropractic care from VA versus community providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational study using survey outcome data and electronic medical record utilization data for acupuncture and chiropractic care provided in 18 VA facilities or in community facilities reimbursed by VA. Study participants were users of VA primary care, mental health, pain clinic, complementary and integrative therapies, coaching or education services in 2018-2019. Patients received 1) 4+ acupuncture visits (N = 201) or 4+ chiropractic care visits (N = 178) from a VA or community provider from 60 days prior to baseline to six-months survey and 2) no acupuncture or chiropractic visits from 1 year to 60 days prior to baseline. Outcomes measured included patient-reported pain (PEG) and physical health (PROMIS) at baseline and six-month surveys. Multivariate analyses examined outcomes at six months, adjusting for baseline outcomes and demographics. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, pain and physical health improved for patients receiving community-based acupuncture, while VA-based acupuncture patients experienced no change. Unadjusted analyses also showed improvements in physical health, but not pain, for patients receiving VA-based chiropractic care, with no changes for community-based chiropractic care patients. Using multivariate models, VA-based acupuncture was no different from community-based acupuncture for pain (-0.258, p = 0.172) or physical health (0.539, p = 0.399). Similarly, there were no differences between VA- and community-based chiropractic care in pain (-0.273, p = 0.154) or physical health (0.793, p = 0.191). CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture and chiropractic care were associated with modest improvements at six months, with no meaningful differences between VA and community providers. The choice to receive care from VA or community providers could be based on factors other than quality, like cost or convenience

2015 Concerto Competition: Keyboard November 20, 2015

Concert Program2015 Concerto Competition: Keyboard November 20, 201

From patient outcomes to system change: Evaluating the impact of VHA's implementation of the Whole Health System of Care

ObjectiveTo describe how a partnered evaluation of the Whole Health (WH) system of care-comprised of the WH pathway, clinical care, and well-being programs-produced patient outcomes findings, which informed Veterans Health Administration (VA) policy and system change.Data sourcesElectronic health records (EHR)-based cohort of 1,368,413 patients and a longitudinal survey of Veterans receiving care at 18 WH pilot medical centers.Study designIn partnership with VA operations, we focused the evaluation on the impact of WH services utilization on Veterans' (1) use of opioids and (2) care experiences, care engagement, and well-being. Outcomes were compared between Veterans who did and did not use WH services identified from the EHR.Data collectionPharmacy records and WH service data were obtained from the VA EHR, including WH coaching, peer-led groups, personal health planning, and complementary, integrative health therapies. We surveyed veterans at baseline and 6 months to measure patient-reported outcomes.Principal findingsOpioid use decreased 23% (31.5-6.5) to 38% (60.3-14.4) among WH users depending on level of WH use compared to a secular 11% (12.0-9.9) decrease among Veterans using Conventional Care. Compared to Conventional Care users, WH users reported greater improvements in perceptions of care (SMD = 0.138), engagement in health care (SMD = 0.118) and self-care (SMD = 0.1), life meaning and purpose (SMD = 0.152), pain (SMD = 0.025), and perceived stress (SMD = 0.191).ConclusionsEvidence developed through this partnership yielded key VA policy changes to increase Veteran access to WH services. Findings formed the foundation of a congressionally mandated report in response to the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, highlighting the value of WH and complementary, integrative health and well-being programs for Veterans with pain. Findings subsequently informed issuance of an Executive Decision Memo mandating the integration of WH into mental health and primary care across VA, now one lane of modernization for VA

Design and methods of a randomized trial testing the novel Wellness Intervention for Smokers Living with HIV (WISH)

Smoking rates are disproportionately high among people living with HIV. Smokers living with HIV (SLWH) are also largely unaware of the HIV-specific deleterious effects of smoking and often lack motivation and confidence in their ability to quit tobacco. To address these issues, we developed the Wellness Intervention for Smokers Living with HIV (WISH). WISH is grounded in the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) Model and is designed for all SLWH, regardless of their initial motivation to quit. It follows evidence-based, best practice guidelines for nicotine dependence treatment, but is innovative in its use of a comprehensive wellness approach that addresses smoking within the context of HIV self-management including treatment adherence and engagement, stress management, substance use, and other personally relevant health behavior goals. The described randomized trial will enroll SLWH who are receiving care at Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers and compare WISH's impact on smoking behavior to standard care services offered through the National VA Quitline and SmokefreeVET texting program. It will also assess intervention impact on markers of immune status and mortality risk. If effective, WISH could be disseminated to Veterans nationwide and could serve as a model for designing quitline interventions for other smokers who are ambivalent about quitting. The current paper outlines the rationale and methodology of the WISH trial, one of a series of studies recently funded by the National Cancer Institute to advance understanding of how to better promote smoking cessation among SLWH

A retrospective survival analysis of Glioblastoma patients treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and aggressive form of malignant glioma in adults with a median overall survival (OS) time of 16–18 months and a median age of diagnosis at 64 years old. Recent work has suggested that depression and psychosocial distress are associated with worse outcomes in patients with GBM. We therefore hypothesized that the targeted neutralization of psychosocial distress with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant treatment would be associated with a longer OS among patients with GBM. To address this hypothesis, we retrospectively studied the association between adjuvant SSRI usage and OS in GBM patients treated by Northwestern Medicine-affiliated providers. The medical records of 497 GBM patients were analyzed after extraction from the Northwestern Medicine Enterprise Data Warehouse. Data were retrospectively studied using a multivariable Cox model with SSRI use defined as a time-dependent variable for estimating the association with OS. Of the 497 patients, 315 individuals died, while 182 were censored due to the loss of follow-up or were alive at the end of our study. Of the 497 patients, 151 had a recorded use of SSRI treatment during the disease course. Unexpectedly, SSRI usage was not associated with an OS effect in both naïve (HR ​= ​0.81, 95% CI ​= ​0.64–1.03) and adjusted time-dependent (HR ​= ​1.26, 95% CI ​= ​0.97–1.63) Cox models. Ultimately, we failed to find an association between SSRI treatment and an improved OS of patients with GBM. Additional work is necessary for understanding the potential therapeutic effects of SSRIs when combined with other treatment approaches, and immunotherapies in particular, for subjects with GBM

We Built it, But Did They Come: Veterans’ Use of VA Healthcare System-Provided Complementary and Integrative Health Approaches

BackgroundInterest in complementary and integrative health (CIH) approaches, such as meditation, yoga, and acupuncture, continues to grow. The evidence of effectiveness for some CIH approaches has increased in the last decade, especially for pain, with many being recommended in varying degrees in national guidelines. To offer nonpharmacological health management options and meet patient demand, the nation's largest integrated healthcare system, the Veterans Health Administration (VA), greatly expanded their provision of CIH approaches recently.ObjectiveThis paper addressed the questions of how many VA patients might use CIH approaches and chiropractic care if they were available at modest to no fee, and would patients with some health conditions or characteristics be more likely than others to use these therapies.DesignUsing electronic medical records, we conducted a national, three-year, retrospective analysis of VA patients' use of eleven VA-covered therapies: chiropractic care, acupuncture, Battlefield Acupuncture, biofeedback, clinical hypnosis, guided imagery, massage therapy, meditation, Tai Chi/Qigong, and yoga.ParticipantsWe created a national cohort of veterans using VA healthcare from October 2016-September 2019.Key resultsVeterans' use of these approaches increased 70% in three years. By 2019, use was 5.7% among all VA patients, but highest among patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (13.9%), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; 10.6%), depression (10.4%), anxiety (10.2%), or obesity (7.8%). The approach used varied by age and race/ethnicity, with women being uniformly more likely than men to use each approach. Patients having chronic musculoskeletal pain, obesity, anxiety, depression, or PTSD were more likely than others to use each of the approaches.ConclusionsVeterans' use of some approaches rapidly grew recently and was robust, especially among patients most in need. This information might help shape federal/state health policy on the provision of evidence-based CIH approaches and guide other healthcare institutions considering providing them

Dexamethasone in hospitalised COVID-19 patients not on intensive respiratory support.

BackgroundDexamethasone decreases mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on intensive respiratory support (IRS) but is of uncertain benefit if less severely ill. We determined whether early (within 48 h) dexamethasone was associated with mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 not on IRS.MethodsWe included patients admitted to US Veterans Affairs hospitals between 7 June 2020 and 31 May 2021 within 14 days after a positive test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Exclusions included recent prior corticosteroids and IRS within 48 h. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to balance exposed and unexposed groups, and Cox proportional hazards models to determine 90-day all-cause mortality.ResultsOf 19 973 total patients (95% men, median age 71 years, 27% black), 15 404 (77%) were without IRS within 48 h. Of these, 3514 out of 9450 (34%) patients on no oxygen received dexamethasone and 1042 (11%) died; 4472 out of 5954 (75%) patients on low-flow nasal cannula (NC) only received dexamethasone and 857 (14%) died. In IPTW stratified models, patients on no oxygen who received dexamethasone experienced 76% increased risk for 90-day mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.76, 95% CI 1.47-2.12); there was no association with mortality among patients on NC only (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86-1.36).ConclusionsIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, early initiation of dexamethasone was common and was associated with no mortality benefit among those on no oxygen or NC only in the first 48 h; instead, we found evidence of potential harm. These real-world findings do not support the use of early dexamethasone in hospitalised COVID-19 patients without IRS