RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The FDA issued a "black box" warning regarding risks of fluoroquinolones in 2008 with updates in 2011, 2013, and 2016. OBJECTIVE: To examine antimicrobial use in hospital-treated UTIs from 2000 to 2020. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with interrupted time series analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Patient encounters with a diagnosis of UTI from January 2000 to March 2020, excluding diagnoses of renal abscess, chronic cystitis, and infection of the gastrointestinal tract, lungs, or prostate. MAIN MEASURES: Monthly use of fluoroquinolone and non-fluoroquinolone antibiotics were assessed. Fluoroquinolone resistance was assessed in available cultures. Interrupted time series analysis examined level and trend changes of antimicrobial use with each FDA label change. KEY RESULTS: A total of 9,950,790 patient encounters were included. From July 2008 to March 2020, fluoroquinolone use declined from 61.7% to 11.7%, with similar negative trends observed in inpatients and outpatients, age ≥ 60 and < 60 years, males and females, patients with and without pyelonephritis, and across physician specialties. Ceftriaxone use increased from 26.4% encounters in July 2008 to 63.6% of encounters in March 2020. Among encounters with available culture data, fluoroquinolone resistance declined by 28.9% from 2009 to 2020. On interrupted time series analysis, the July 2008 FDA warning was associated with a trend change (-0.32%, < 0.001) and level change (-5.02%, p < 0.001) in monthly fluoroquinolone use. CONCLUSIONS: During this era of "black box" warnings, there was a decline in fluoroquinolone use for hospital-treated UTI with a concomitant decline in fluoroquinolone resistance and rise in ceftriaxone use. Efforts to restrict use of a medication class may lead to compensatory increases in use of a single alternative agent with changes in antimicrobial resistance profiles.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , United States Food and Drug Administration , Infecciones Urinarias , Humanos , Infecciones Urinarias/tratamiento farmacológico , Masculino , Femenino , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Estudios Transversales , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/efectos adversos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Adulto , Fluoroquinolonas/uso terapéutico , Análisis de Series de Tiempo Interrumpido , Infección Hospitalaria/tratamiento farmacológico , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess trends in hospital price disclosures after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Final Rule went into effect. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: The Turquoise Health Price Transparency Dataset was used to identify all US hospitals that publicly displayed pricing from 2021 to 2023. STUDY DESIGN: Price-disclosing versus nondisclosing hospitals were compared using Pearson's Chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Bayesian structural time-series modeling was used to determine if enforcement of increased penalties for nondisclosure was associated with a change in the trend of hospital disclosures. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Not applicable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: As of January 2023, 5162 of 6692 (77.1%) US hospitals disclosed pricing of their services, with the majority (2794 of 5162 [54.1%]) reporting their pricing within the first 6 months of the final rule going into effect in January 2021. An increase in hospital disclosures was observed after penalties for nondisclosure were enforced in January 2022 (relative effect size 20%, p = 0.002). Compared with nondisclosing hospitals, disclosing hospitals had higher annual revenue, bed number, and were more likely to be have nonprofit ownership, academic affiliation, provide emergency services, and be in highly concentrated markets (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital pricing disclosures are continuously in flux and influenced by regulatory and market factors.
Asunto(s)
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. , Revelación , Estados Unidos , Humanos , Revelación/estadística & datos numéricos , Precios de Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Precios de Hospital/tendencias , Teorema de Bayes , Costos de Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Costos de Hospital/tendenciasRESUMEN
CONTEXT: In the United States (US) men who undergo vasectomy and/or vasectomy reversal (vasovasotomy) are likely to pay out-of-pocket for these procedures. We characterized the publicly disclosed pricing of both procedures with a focus on variability in self-pay prices. METHODS: We queried all US hospitals for publicly disclosed prices of vasectomy and vasovasotomy. We assessed interhospital variability in self-pay pricing and compared hospitals charging high (≥75th percentile) and low (≤25th percentile) self-pay prices for either procedure. We also examined trends in pricing after the 2022 US Supreme Court decision that allowed individual states to ban abortion. RESULTS: Of 6692 hospitals, 1375 (20.5%) and 281 (4.2%) disclosed self-pay prices for vasectomy and vasovasotomy, respectively. There was a 17-fold difference between the 10th and 90th percentile self-pay prices for vasectomy ($421-$7147) and a 39-fold difference for vasovasotomy ($446-$17,249). Compared with hospitals charging low (≤25th percentile) self-pay prices for vasectomy or vasovasotomy, hospitals charging high (≥75th percentile) prices were larger (median 150 vs. 59 beds, p < 0.001) and more likely to be for-profit (31.2% vs. 7.8%, p < 0.001), academic-affiliated (52.7% vs. 23.1%, p < 0.001), and located in an urban zip code (70.1% vs. 41.3%, p < 0.001). From October 2022 to April 2023, the median self-pay price of vasectomy increased by 10% (from $1667 to $1832) while the median self-pay price of vasovasotomy decreased by 16% (from $3309 to $2786). CONCLUSION: We found large variability in self-pay pricing for vasectomy and vasectomy reversal, which may serve as a barrier to the accessibility of male reproductive care.
Asunto(s)
Vasectomía , Vasovasostomía , Humanos , Vasectomía/economía , Vasectomía/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados Unidos , Masculino , Vasovasostomía/economía , Financiación Personal/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
Nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) is among the most common causes of male infertility. For men with NOA seeking fertility treatment, microdissection testicular sperm extraction (microTESE) is the best option for retrieving sperm, which can be used with in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection to achieve pregnancy in their partner. With the aid of the operating microscope, microTESE allows for thorough evaluation of the testis tissue and selection of seminiferous tubules that appear most capable of sperm production. Rates of success with microTESE vary depending on the underlying cause of NOA and the center at which the procedure is performed. Not all patients are candidates for microTESE, and those who are candidates should be counseled on the likelihood of sperm retrieval and the potential for changes in postoperative testis function.