An open repository of real-time COVID-19 indicators.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented enormous data challenges in the United States. Policy makers, epidemiological modelers, and health researchers all require up-to-date data on the pandemic and relevant public behavior, ideally at fine spatial and temporal resolution. The COVIDcast API is our attempt to fill this need: Operational since April 2020, it provides open access to both traditional public health surveillance signals (cases, deaths, and hospitalizations) and many auxiliary indicators of COVID-19 activity, such as signals extracted from deidentified medical claims data, massive online surveys, cell phone mobility data, and internet search trends. These are available at a fine geographic resolution (mostly at the county level) and are updated daily. The COVIDcast API also tracks all revisions to historical data, allowing modelers to account for the frequent revisions and backfill that are common for many public health data sources. All of the data are available in a common format through the API and accompanying R and Python software packages. This paper describes the data sources and signals, and provides examples demonstrating that the auxiliary signals in the COVIDcast API present information relevant to tracking COVID activity, augmenting traditional public health reporting and empowering research and decision-making.

In-Hospital Outcomes of Urgent, Early, or Late Revascularization for Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Advancements in carotid revascularization have produced promising outcomes in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, the optimal timing of revascularization procedures after symptomatic presentation remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare in-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), transfemoral carotid stenting (TFCAS), or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed within different time intervals after most recent symptoms. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of United States patients in the vascular quality initiative. All carotid revascularizations performed for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis between September 2016 and November 2019 were included. Procedures were categorized as urgent (0-2 days after most recent symptom), early (3-14 days), or late (15-180 days). The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital stroke and death. Secondary outcomes include in-hospital stroke, death, and transient ischemic attacks. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 18 643 revascularizations were included: 2006 (10.8%) urgent, 7423 (39.8%) early, and 9214 (49.42%) late. Patients with TFCAS had the highest rates of stroke/death at all timing cohorts (urgent: 4.0% CEA, 6.9% TFCAS, 6.5% TCAR, P=0.018; early: 2.5% CEA, 3.8% TFCAS, 2.9% TCAR, P=0.054; late: 1.6% CEA, 2.8% TFCAS, 2.3% TCAR, P=0.003). TFCAS also had increased odds of in-hospital stroke/death compared with CEA in all 3 groups (urgent adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.7 [95% CI, 1.0-2.9] P=0.03; early aOR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1-2.4] P=0.01; and late aOR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.2-3.0] P=0.01). TCAR and CEA had comparable odds of in-hospital stroke/death in all 3 groups (urgent aOR, 1.9 [95% CI, 0.9-4], P=0.10), (early aOR, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.7-1.7], P=0.66), (late aOR, 1.5 [95% CI, 0.9-2.3], P=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: CEA remains the safest method of revascularization within the urgent period. Among revascularization performed outside of the 48 hours, TCAR and CEA have comparable outcomes.

Consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care and patient health in a German lung cancer center: results from a cross-sectional questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has caused a global COVID-19 pandemic, leading to worldwide changes in public health measures. In addition to changes in the public sector (lockdowns, contact restrictions), hospitals modified care to minimize risk of infection and to mobilize resources for COVID-19 patients. Our study aimed to assess the impact of these measures on access to care and behaviour of patients with thoracic malignancies. METHODS: Thoracic oncology patients were surveyed in October 2020 using paper-based questionnaires to assess access to ambulatory care services and tumor-directed therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, behaviour regarding social distancing and wearing of face masks were assessed, as well as COVID-19 exposure, testing and vaccination. Results are presented as absolute and relative frequencies for categorical variables and means with standard deviation for numerical variables. We used t-test, and ANOVA to compare differences in metric variables and Chi2-test to compare proportions between groups. RESULTS: 93 of 245 (38%) patients surveyed completed the questionnaire. Respiration therapy and physical therapy were unavailable for 57% to 70% of patients during March/April. Appointments for tumor-directed therapy, tumor imaging, and follow-up care were postponed or cancelled for 18.9%, 13.6%, and 14.8% of patients, respectively. Patients reported their general health as mostly unaffected. The majority of patients surveyed did not report reducing their contacts with family. The majority reduced contact with friends. Most patients wore community masks, although a significant proportion reported respiratory difficulties during prolonged mask-wearing. 74 patients (80%) reported willingness to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides insights into the patient experience during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Munich, Germany. Most patients reported no negative changes to cancer treatments or general health; however, allied health services were greatly impacted. Patients reported gaps in social distancing, but were prepared to wear community masks. The willingness to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 was high. This information is not only of high relevance to policy makers, but also to health care providers.

Trends in Outpatient Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Implications for Primary Care, 2000 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Despite the central role of primary care in improving health system performance, there are little recent data on how use of primary care and specialists has evolved over time and its implications for the range of care coordination needed in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in outpatient care delivery and the implications for primary care provider (PCP) care coordination. DESIGN: Descriptive, repeated, cross-sectional study using Medicare claims from 2000 to 2019, with direct standardization used to control for changes in beneficiary characteristics over time. SETTING: Traditional fee-for-service Medicare. PATIENTS: 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries. MEASUREMENTS: Annual counts of outpatient visits and procedures, the number of distinct physicians seen, and the number of other physicians seen by a PCP's assigned Medicare patients. RESULTS: The proportion of Medicare beneficiaries with any PCP visit annually only slightly increased from 61.2% in 2000 to 65.7% in 2019. The mean annual number of primary care office visits per beneficiary also changed little from 2000 to 2019 (2.99 to 3.00), although the mean number of PCPs seen increased from 0.89 to 1.21 (36.0% increase). In contrast, the mean annual number of visits to specialists increased 20% from 4.05 to 4.87, whereas the mean number of unique specialists seen increased 34.2% from 1.63 to 2.18. The proportion of beneficiaries seeing 5 or more physicians annually increased from 17.5% to 30.1%. In 2000, a PCP's Medicare patient panel saw a median of 52 other physicians (interquartile range, 23 to 87), increasing to 95 (interquartile range, 40 to 164) in 2019. LIMITATION: Data were limited to Medicare beneficiaries and, because of the use of a 20% sample, may underestimate the number of other physicians seen across a PCP's entire panel. CONCLUSION: Outpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries has shifted toward more specialist care received from more physicians without increased primary care contact. This represents a substantial expansion of the coordination burden faced by PCPs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Trends in US Ambulatory Care Patterns During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2019-2021.

Importance: Following reductions in US ambulatory care early in the pandemic, it remains unclear whether care consistently returned to expected rates across insurance types and services. Objective: To assess whether patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility had significantly lower than expected return to use of ambulatory care rates than patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study examining ambulatory care service patterns from January 1, 2019, through February 28, 2021, claims data from multiple US payers were combined using the Milliman MedInsight research database. Using a difference-in-differences design, the extent to which utilization during the pandemic differed from expected rates had the pandemic not occurred was estimated. Changes in utilization rates between January and February 2020 and each subsequent 2-month time frame during the pandemic were compared with the changes in the corresponding months from the year prior. Age- and sex-adjusted Poisson regression models of monthly utilization counts were used, offsetting for total patient-months and stratifying by service and insurance type. Exposures: Patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility compared with patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization rates per 100 people for 6 services: emergency department, office and urgent care, behavioral health, screening colonoscopies, screening mammograms, and contraception counseling or HIV screening. Results: More than 14.5 million US adults were included (mean age, 52.7 years; 54.9% women). In the March-April 2020 time frame, the combined use of 6 ambulatory services declined to 67.0% (95% CI, 66.9%-67.1%) of expected rates, but returned to 96.7% (95% CI, 96.6%-96.8%) of expected rates by the November-December 2020 time frame. During the second COVID-19 wave in the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization again declined to 86.2% (95% CI, 86.1%-86.3%) of expected rates, with colonoscopy remaining at 65.0% (95% CI, 64.1%-65.9%) and mammography at 79.2% (95% CI, 78.5%-79.8%) of expected rates. By the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization returned to expected rates as follows: patients with Medicaid at 78.4% (95% CI, 78.2%-78.7%), Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility at 73.3% (95% CI, 72.8%-73.8%), commercial at 90.7% (95% CI, 90.5%-90.9%), Medicare Advantage at 83.2% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%), and Medicare fee-for-service at 82.0% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%; P < .001; comparing return to expected utilization rates among patients with Medicaid and Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, respectively, with each of the other insurance types). Conclusions and Relevance: Between March 2020 and February 2021, aggregate use of 6 ambulatory care services increased after the preceding decrease in utilization that followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the rate of increase in use of these ambulatory care services was significantly lower for participants with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility than for those insured by commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service.

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care in India: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted health-care systems, leading to concerns about its subsequent impact on non-COVID disease conditions. The diagnosis and management of cancer is time sensitive and is likely to be substantially affected by these disruptions. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care in India. METHODS: We did an ambidirectional cohort study at 41 cancer centres across India that were members of the National Cancer Grid of India to compare provision of oncology services between March 1 and May 31, 2020, with the same time period in 2019. We collected data on new patient registrations, number of patients visiting outpatient clinics, hospital admissions, day care admissions for chemotherapy, minor and major surgeries, patients accessing radiotherapy, diagnostic tests done (pathology reports, CT scans, MRI scans), and palliative care referrals. We also obtained estimates from participating centres on cancer screening, research, and educational activities (teaching of postgraduate students and trainees). We calculated proportional reductions in the provision of oncology services in 2020, compared with 2019. FINDINGS: Between March 1 and May 31, 2020, the number of new patients registered decreased from 112 270 to 51 760 (54% reduction), patients who had follow-up visits decreased from 634 745 to 340 984 (46% reduction), hospital admissions decreased from 88 801 to 56 885 (36% reduction), outpatient chemotherapy decreased from 173634 to 109 107 (37% reduction), the number of major surgeries decreased from 17 120 to 8677 (49% reduction), minor surgeries from 18 004 to 8630 (52% reduction), patients accessing radiotherapy from 51 142 to 39 365 (23% reduction), pathological diagnostic tests from 398 373 to 246 616 (38% reduction), number of radiological diagnostic tests from 93 449 to 53 560 (43% reduction), and palliative care referrals from 19 474 to 13 890 (29% reduction). These reductions were even more marked between April and May, 2020. Cancer screening was stopped completely or was functioning at less than 25% of usual capacity at more than 70% of centres during these months. Reductions in the provision of oncology services were higher for centres in tier 1 cities (larger cities) than tier 2 and 3 cities (smaller cities). INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had considerable impact on the delivery of oncology services in India. The long-term impact of cessation of cancer screening and delayed hospital visits on cancer stage migration and outcomes are likely to be substantial. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATION: For the Hindi translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Sofosbuvir and daclatasvir for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Effective treatments are urgently needed to tackle the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This trial aims to evaluate sofosbuvir and daclatasvir versus standard care for outpatients with mild COVID-19 infection. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled clinical trial in outpatients with mild COVID-19. Patients were randomized into a treatment arm receiving sofosbuvir/daclatasvir plus hydroxychloroquine or a control arm receiving hydroxychloroquine alone. The primary endpoint of the trial was symptom alleviation after 7 days of follow-up. The secondary endpoint of the trial was hospital admission. Fatigue, dyspnoea and loss of appetite were investigated after 1 month of follow-up. This study is registered with the IRCT.ir under registration number IRCT20200403046926N1. RESULTS: Between 8 April 2020 and 19 May 2020, 55 patients were recruited and allocated to either the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir treatment arm (n = 27) or the control arm (n = 28). Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. There was no significant difference in symptoms at Day 7. One patient was admitted to hospital in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm and four in the control arm, but the difference was not significant. After 1 month of follow-up, two patients reported fatigue in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm and 16 in the control arm; P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, sofosbuvir/daclatasvir did not significantly alleviate symptoms after 7 days of treatment compared with control. Although fewer hospitalizations were observed in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm, this was not statistically significant. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir significantly reduced the number of patients with fatigue and dyspnoea after 1 month. Larger, well-designed trials are warranted.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Urological Care Delivery in the United States.

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.

Intermittent claudication treatment patterns in the commercially insured non-Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: Despite published guidelines and data for Medicare patients, it is uncertain how younger patients with intermittent claudication (IC) are treated. Additionally, the degree to which treatment patterns have changed over time with the expansion of endovascular interventions and outpatient centers is unclear. Our goal was to characterize IC treatment patterns in the commercially insured non-Medicare population. METHODS: The IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, which includes more than 8 billion US commercial insurance claims, was queried for patients newly diagnosed with IC from 2007 to 2016. Patient demographics, medication profiles, and open/endovascular interventions were evaluated. Time trends were modeled using simple linear regression and goodness-of-fit was assessed with coefficients of determination (R2). A patient-centered cohort sample and a procedure-focused dataset were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 152,935,013 unique patients in the database, there were 300,590 patients newly diagnosed with IC. The mean insurance coverage was 4.4 years. The median patients age was 58 years and 56% of patients were male. The prevalence of statin use was 48% among patients at the time of IC diagnosis and increased to 52% among patients after one year from diagnosis. Interventions were performed in 14.3%, of whom 20% and 6% underwent two or more and three or more interventions, respectively. The median time from diagnosis to intervention decreased from 230 days in 2008 days to 49 days in 2016 (R2 = 0.98). There were 16,406 inpatient and 102,925 ambulatory interventions for IC over the study period. Among ambulatory interventions, 7.9% were performed in office-based/surgical centers. The proportion of atherectomies performed in the ambulatory setting increased from 9.7% in 2007 to 29% in 2016 (R2 = 0.94). In office-based/surgical centers, 57.6% of interventions for IC used atherectomy in 2016. Atherectomy was used in ambulatory interventions by cardiologists in 22.6%, surgeons in 15.2%, and radiologists in 13.6% of interventions. Inpatient atherectomy rates remained stable over the study period. Open and endovascular tibial interventions were performed in 7.9% and 7.8% of ambulatory and inpatient IC interventions, respectively. Tibial bypasses were performed in 8.2% of all open IC interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There has been shorter time to intervention in the treatment of younger, commercially insured patients with IC, with many receiving multiple interventions. Statin use was low. Ambulatory procedures, especially in office-based/surgical centers, increasingly used atherectomy, which was not observed in inpatient settings.

Exploring the rapid expansion of office-based laboratories and peripheral vascular interventions across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relationship between office-based laboratory (OBL) use and Medicare payments for peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). METHODS: Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use Files from 2014 to 2017, we identified providers who performed percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, stent placement, and atherectomy. Procedures were aggregated at the provider and hospital referral region (HRR) level. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, 2641 providers performed 308,247 procedures. The mean payment for OBL stent placement in 2017 was $4383.39, and mean payment for OBL atherectomy was $13,079.63. The change in the mean payment amount varied significantly, from a decrease of $16.97 in HRR 146 to an increase of $43.77 per beneficiary over the study period in HRR 11. The change in the rate of PVI also varied substantially, and moderately correlated with change in payment across HRRs (R2 = 0.40; P < .001). The majority of HRRs experienced an increase in rate of PVI within OBLs, which strongly correlated with changes in payments (R2 = 0.85; P < .001). Furthermore, 85% of the variance in change in payment was explained by increases in OBL atherectomy (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A rapid shift into the office setting for PVIs occurred within some HRRs, which was highly geographically variable and was strongly correlated with payments. Policymakers should revisit the current payment structure for OBL use and, in particular atherectomy, to better align the policy with its intended goals.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Outpatient Providers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there is concern that social distancing, fear of contagion, quarantining of providers, cancellation of elective procedures, media coverage about the pandemic, and other factors drastically reduced physician visits, putting severe financial strain on outpatient providers, and having unknown ramifications for health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: We estimate the effect of the pandemic on utilization of outpatient services. RESEARCH DESIGN: Using 2010-2020 data from a national dataset, the Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network, we estimate the difference in outpatient care utilization during the time period of the COVID-19 pandemic versus the same weeks in prior years. RESULTS: Our findings indicate that the pandemic started to reduce visits during the week of March 15-21. The effect on visits grew until reaching a peak during the week of April 5-11, 2020, when the pandemic reduced the total number of outpatient visits per provider by 70% relative to the same week in prior years. We find negative effects of the pandemic on visits for non-flu symptoms as well as on visits for flu symptoms, but the magnitudes of these latter effects tended to be larger in magnitude. The pandemic's impact declined over time, and by the week of June 28 to July 4, 2020, there was no longer any difference in total visits per provider relative to the same week in prior years. Despite the resurgence of COVID-19 in June and July, we still find no effects on total visits when our data end in July 26 to August 1, 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that one by-product of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is a large decline in the use of outpatient care which peaked around the week of April 5-11. Total outpatient visits rebounded completely and remain stable as of July 26 to August 1, 2020.

Trends in Health Care Utilization and Expenditures in the United States Across 5 Decades: 1977-2017.

BACKGROUND: Health care expenditures in the United States are high and rising, with significant increases over the decades. The delivery, organization, and financing of the health care system has evolved over time due to technological innovation, policy changes, patient preferences, altering payment mechanisms, shifting demographics, and other factors. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine trends over time in health care utilization and expenditures in the United States. RESEARCH DESIGN: This analysis employs descriptive statistics to examine 5 decades of health care utilization and expenditure data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for 1977-2017. MEASURES: Measures include utilization and expenditures (not charges) for inpatient, emergency department, outpatient physician, outpatient nonphysician, office-based physician, dental, and out-of-pocket retail prescription drugs. RESULTS: We demonstrate that while health care expenditures have increased significantly overall and by type of care, utilization trends are less pronounced. The population of the United States grew 53% between 1977 and 2017, while annual total expenditures on health care increased by 208%. Amidst attention to out-of-pocket exposure for unexpected medical care bills, out-of-pocket payments for care have declined from 32% in 1977 to 12% in 2017 but increased in amount. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides the first extended snapshot of the dynamics of health care utilization and expenditures in the United States. Aspects of health care are much different today than in previous decades, yet the inpatient setting still dominates the expenditures.

Pre-existing Disparities and Potential Implications for the Rapid Expansion of Telemedicine in Response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Concerns exist regarding exacerbation of existing disparities in health care access with the rapid implementation of telemedicine during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, data on pre-existing disparities in telemedicine utilization is currently lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to study: (1) the prevalence of outpatient telemedicine visits before the COVID-19 pandemic by patient subgroups based on age, comorbidity burden, residence rurality, and median household income; and (2) associated diagnosis categories. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SUBJECT: Commercial claims data from the Truven MarketScan database (2014-2018) representing n=846,461,609 outpatient visits. MEASURES: We studied characteristics and utilization of outpatient telemedicine services before the COVID-19 pandemic by patient subgroups based on age, comorbidity burden, residence rurality, and median household income. Disparities were assessed in unadjusted and adjusted (regression) analyses. RESULTS: With overall telemedicine uptake of 0.12% (n=1,018,092/846,461,609 outpatient visits) we found that pre-COVID-19 disparities in telemedicine use became more pronounced over time with lower use in patients who were older, had more comorbidities, were in rural areas, and had lower median household incomes (all trends and effect estimates P<0.001). CONCLUSION: These results contextualize pre-existing disparities in telemedicine use and are crucial in the monitoring of potential disparities in telemedicine access and subsequent outcomes after the rapid expansion of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on routine oncology versus emergency care at a high volume cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the influence of population-wide COVID-19 lockdown measures implemented on 16, March 2020 on routine and emergency care of cancer outpatients at a tertiary care cancer centre in Vienna, Austria. METHODS: We compared the number/visits of cancer outpatients receiving oncological therapies at the oncologic day clinic (DC) and admissions at the emergency department (ED) of our institution in time periods before (pre-lockdown period: 1 January - 15 March 2020) and after (post-lockdown period: 16 March- 31 May 2020) lockdown implementation with the respective reference periods of 2018 and 2019. Additionally, we analysed Emergency Severity Index (ESI) score of unplanned cancer patient presentations to the ED in the same post-lockdown time periods. Patient outcome was described as 3-month mortality rate (3-MM). RESULTS: In total, 16 703 visits at the DC and 2664 patient visits for the respective time periods were recorded at the ED. No decrease in patient visits was observed at the DC after lockdown implementation (P = .351), whereas a substantial decrease in patient visits at the ED was seen (P < .001). This translates into a 26%-31% reduction of cancer-related patient visits per half month after the lockdown at the ED (P < .001 vs. 2018 + 2019). There was no difference in the distribution of ESI scores at ED presentation (P = .805), admission rates or 3-MM in association with lockdown implementation (P = .086). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the feasibility of maintaining antineoplastic therapy administration during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, our data underline the need for adapted management strategies for emergency presentations of cancer patients.

Ambulatory care for epilepsy via telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess feasibility, patient satisfaction, and financial advantages of telemedicine for epilepsy ambulatory care during the current COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The demographic and clinical characteristics of all consecutive patients evaluated via telemedicine at a level 4 epilepsy center between March 20 and April 20, 2020 were obtained retrospectively from electronic medical records. A telephone survey to assess patient satisfaction and preferences was conducted within one month following the initial visit. RESULTS: Among 223 telehealth patients, 85.7% used both synchronous audio and video technology. During the visits, 39% of patients had their anticonvulsants adjusted while 18.8% and 11.2% were referred to laboratory/diagnostic testing and specialty consults, respectively. In a post-visit survey, the highest degree of satisfaction with care was expressed by 76.9% of patients. The degree of satisfaction tended to increase the further a patient lived from the clinic (p = 0.05). Beyond the pandemic, 89% of patients reported a preference for continuing telemedicine if their epilepsy symptoms remained stable, while only 44.4% chose telemedicine should their symptoms worsen. Inclement weather and lack of transportation were factors favoring continued use of telemedicine. An estimated cost saving to patient attributed to telemedicine was $30.20 ±â€¯3.8 per visit. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings suggest that epilepsy care via telemedicine provided high satisfaction and economic benefit, without compromising patients' quality of care, thereby supporting the use of virtual care during current and future epidemiological fallouts. Beyond the current pandemic, patients with stable seizure symptoms may prefer to use telemedicine for their epilepsy care.

Evaluation of the prescribing practice of guideline-directed medical therapy among ambulatory chronic heart failure patients.

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated that heart failure (HF) patients who receive direct pharmacist input as part of multidisciplinary care have better clinical outcomes. This study evaluated/compared the difference in prescribing practices of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for chronic HF patients between two multidisciplinary clinics-with and without the direct involvement of a pharmacist. METHODS: A retrospective audit of chronic HF patients, presenting to two multidisciplinary outpatient clinics between March 2005 and January 2017, was performed; a Multidisciplinary Ambulatory Consulting Service (MACS) with an integrated pharmacist model of care and a General Cardiology Heart Failure Service (GCHFS) clinic, without the active involvement of a pharmacist. RESULTS: MACS clinic patients were significantly older (80 vs. 73 years, p < .001), more likely to be female (p < .001), and had significantly higher systolic (123 vs. 112 mmHg, p < .001) and diastolic (67 vs. 60 mmHg, p < .05) blood pressures compared to the GCHF clinic patients. Moreover, the MACS clinic patients showed more polypharmacy and higher prevalence of multiple comorbidities. Both clinics had similar prescribing rates of GDMT and achieved maximal tolerated doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in HFrEF. However, HFpEF patients in the MACS clinic were significantly more likely to be prescribed ACEIs/ARBs (70.5% vs. 56.2%, p = 0.0314) than the GCHFS patients. Patients with both HFrEF and HFpEF (MACS clinic) were significantly less likely to be prescribed ß-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Use of digoxin in chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) in MACS clinic was significantly higher in HFrEF patients (82.5% vs. 58.5%, p = 0.004), but the number of people anticoagulated in presence of AF (27.1% vs. 48.0%, p = 0.002) and prescribed diuretics (84.0% vs. 94.5%, p = 0.022) were significantly lower in HFpEF patients attending the MACS clinic. Age, heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), anemia, chronic renal failure, and other comorbidities were the main significant predictors of utilization of GDMT in a multivariate binary logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Lower prescription rates of some medications in the pharmacist-involved multidisciplinary team were found. Careful consideration of demographic and clinical characteristics, contraindications for use of medications, polypharmacy, and underlying comorbidities is necessary to achieve best practice.

A Stepwise Evaluation of Hepatitis B Virus-Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure to Optimize the Indication for Urgent Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure (HBV-ACLF) is a dynamic but reversible disease. AIM: We aimed to clarify whether the change in Chinese Group on the Study of Severe Hepatitis B-ACLF (COSSH-ACLF) grade in HBV-ACLF patients can be used to predict prognosis, and to explore the appropriate conditions for performing urgent liver transplantation. METHODS: We assessed the COSSH-ACLF grades of HBV-ACLF patients at different time points from June 2013 to May 2019 at Huashan Hospital in Shanghai, China, and analyzed the relationship between the change in grade and patient prognosis. RESULTS: A total of 207 HBV-ACLF patients were enrolled, of which 79 underwent urgent liver transplantation. Their COSSH-ACLF grades were calculated at diagnosis, 3-7 days after diagnosis, and on the final day. Most of the final ACLF grades were consistent with their corresponding grades at days 3-7 after diagnosis (62.5%), while only 44.5% were in accordance with the initial grades at diagnosis. In patients who had a poor prognosis (initial ACLF-3 and ACLF-2 or -3 at days 3-7), the 28-day survival rate was 93.3% in those who underwent transplantation and 6.8% in those who did not (P < 0.0001). However, in patients who had a good prognosis (ACLF-0 or ACLF-1 at days 3-7), the 28-day survival rate was 100% in transplanted patients and 91.5% in non-transplanted patients (P = 0.236). CONCLUSIONS: Reevaluation of the COSSH-ACLF grade 3-7 days after diagnosis could potentially show an indication for urgent liver transplantation.

Decreased Stroke Presentation Rates at a Comprehensive Stroke Center during COVID-19.

We reviewed stroke care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic at our stroke center and provincial telestroke system. We counted referrals to our prevention clinic, code strokes, thrombolysis, endovascular thrombectomies, and activations of a provincial telestroke system from February to April of 2017-2020. In April 2020, there was 28% reduction in prevention clinic referrals, 32% reduction in code strokes, and 26% reduction in telestroke activations compared to prior years. Thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy rates remained constant. Fewer patients received stroke services across the spectrum from prevention, acute care to telestroke care in Ontario, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Changes in patient visits and diagnoses in a large academic center during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To minimize the risk of viral transmission, ophthalmology practices limited face-to-face encounters to only patients with urgent and emergent ophthalmic conditions in the weeks after the start of the COVID-19 epidemic in the United States. The impact of this is unknown. METHODS: We did a retrospective analysis of the change in the frequency of ICD-10 code use and patient volumes in the 6 weeks before and after the changes in clinical practice associated with COVID-19. RESULTS: The total number of encounters decreased four-fold after the implementation of clinic changes associated with COVID-19. The low vision, pediatric ophthalmology, general ophthalmology, and cornea divisions had the largest total decrease of in-person visits. Conversely, the number of telemedicine visits increased sixty-fold. The number of diagnostic codes associated with ocular malignancies, most ocular inflammatory disorders, and retinal conditions requiring intravitreal injections increased. ICD-10 codes associated with ocular screening exams for systemic disorders decreased during the weeks post COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Ophthalmology practices need to be prepared to experience changes in practice patterns, implementation of telemedicine, and decreased patient volumes during a pandemic. Knowing the changes specific to each subspecialty clinic is vital to redistribute available resources correctly.

Trends in outpatient emergency department visits during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large, urban, academic hospital system.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has critically affected healthcare delivery in the United States. Little is known on its impact on the utilization of emergency department (ED) services, particularly for conditions that might be medically urgent. The objective of this study was to explore trends in the number of outpatient (treat and release) ED visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, retrospective study of outpatient emergency department visits from January 1, 2019 to August 31, 2020 using data from a large, urban, academic hospital system in Utah. Using weekly counts and trend analyses, we explored changes in overall ED visits, by patients' area of residence, by medical urgency, and by specific medical conditions. RESULTS: While outpatient ED visits were higher (+6.0%) in the first trimester of 2020 relative to the same period in 2019, the overall volume between January and August of 2020 was lower (-8.1%) than in 2019. The largest decrease occurred in April 2020 (-30.4%), followed by the May to August period (-12.8%). The largest declines were observed for visits by out-of-state residents, visits classified as non-emergent, primary care treatable or preventable, and for patients diagnosed with hypertension, diabetes, headaches and migraines, mood and personality disorders, fluid and electrolyte disorders, and abdominal pain. Outpatient ED visits for emergent conditions, such as palpitations and tachycardia, open wounds, syncope and collapse remained relatively unchanged, while lower respiratory disease-related visits were 67.5% higher in 2020 relative to 2019, particularly from March to April 2020. However, almost all types of outpatient ED visits bounced back after May 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Overall outpatient ED visits declined from mid-March to August 2020, particularly for non-medically urgent conditions which can be treated in other more appropriate care settings. Our findings also have implications for insurers, policymakers, and other stakeholders seeking to assist patients in choosing more appropriate setting for their care during and after the pandemic.