RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is a growing literature base regarding menstrual changes following COVID-19 vaccination among premenopausal people. However, relatively little is known about uterine bleeding in postmenopausal people following COVID-19 vaccination. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine trends in incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnoses over time before and after COVID-19 vaccine introduction, and to describe cases of new-onset postmenopausal bleeding after COVID-19 vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: For postmenopausal bleeding incidence calculations, monthly population-level cohorts consisted of female Kaiser Permanente Northwest members aged ≥45 years. Those diagnosed with incident postmenopausal bleeding in the electronic medical record were included in monthly numerators. Members with preexisting postmenopausal bleeding or abnormal uterine bleeding, or who were at increased risk of bleeding due to other health conditions, were excluded from monthly calculations. We used segmented regression analysis to estimate changes in the incidence of postmenopausal bleeding diagnoses from 2018 through 2021 in Kaiser Permanente Northwest members meeting the inclusion criteria, stratified by COVID-19 vaccination status in 2021. In addition, we identified all members with ≥1 COVID-19 vaccination between December 14, 2020 and August 14, 2021, who had an incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnosis within 60 days of vaccination. COVID-19 vaccination, diagnostic procedures, and presumed bleeding etiology were assessed through chart review and described. A temporal scan statistic was run on all cases without clear bleeding etiology. RESULTS: In a population of 75,530 to 82,693 individuals per month, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnoses before and after COVID-19 vaccine introduction (P=.59). A total of 104 individuals had incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnosed within 60 days following COVID-19 vaccination; 76% of cases (79/104) were confirmed as postvaccination postmenopausal bleeding after chart review. Median time from vaccination to bleeding onset was 21 days (range: 2-54 days). Among the 56 postmenopausal bleeding cases with a provider-attributed etiology, the common causes of bleeding were uterine or cervical lesions (50% [28/56]), hormone replacement therapy (13% [7/56]), and proliferative endometrium (13% [7/56]). Among the 23 cases without a clear etiology, there was no statistically significant clustering of postmenopausal bleeding onset following vaccination. CONCLUSION: Within this integrated health system, introduction of COVID-19 vaccines was not associated with an increase in incident postmenopausal bleeding diagnoses. Diagnosis of postmenopausal bleeding in the 60 days following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination was rare.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Femenino , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Posmenopausia , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/complicaciones , Hemorragia Uterina/epidemiología , Hemorragia Uterina/etiología , Vacunación/efectos adversosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is evidence suggesting that COVID-19 vaccination may be associated with small, transitory effects on uterine bleeding, possibly including menstrual timing, flow, and duration, in some individuals. However, changes in health care seeking, diagnosis, and workup for abnormal uterine bleeding in the COVID-19 vaccine era are less clear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on incident abnormal uterine bleeding diagnosis and diagnostic evaluation in a large integrated health system. STUDY DESIGN: Using segmented regression, we assessed whether the availability of COVID-19 vaccines was associated with changes in monthly, population-based rates of incident abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses relative to the prepandemic period in health system members aged 16 to 44 years who were not menopausal. We also compared clinical and demographic characteristics of patients diagnosed with incident abnormal uterine bleeding between December 2020 and October 13, 2021 by vaccination status (never vaccinated, vaccinated in the 60 days before diagnosis, vaccinated >60 days before diagnosis). Furthermore, we conducted detailed chart review of patients diagnosed with abnormal uterine bleeding within 1 to 60 days of COVID-19 vaccination in the same time period. RESULTS: In monthly populations ranging from 79,000 to 85,000 female health system members, incidence of abnormal uterine bleeding diagnosis per 100,000 person-days ranged from 8.97 to 19.19. There was no significant change in the level or trend in the incidence of abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses between the prepandemic (January 2019-January 2020) and post-COVID-19 vaccine (December 2020-December 2021) periods. A comparison of clinical characteristics of 2717 abnormal uterine bleeding cases by vaccination status suggested that abnormal bleeding among recently vaccinated patients was similar or less severe than abnormal bleeding among patients who had never been vaccinated or those vaccinated >60 days before. There were also significant differences in age and race of patients with incident abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses by vaccination status (Ps<.02). Never-vaccinated patients were the youngest and those vaccinated >60 days before were the oldest. The proportion of patients who were Black/African American was highest among never-vaccinated patients, and the proportion of Asian patients was higher among vaccinated patients. Chart review of 114 confirmed postvaccination abnormal uterine bleeding cases diagnosed from December 2020 through October 13, 2021 found that the most common symptoms reported were changes in timing, duration, and volume of bleeding. Approximately one-third of cases received no diagnostic workup; 57% had no etiology for the bleeding documented in the electronic health record. In 12% of cases, the patient mentioned or asked about a possible link between their bleeding and their recent COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION: The availability of COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with a change in incidence of medically attended abnormal uterine bleeding in our population of over 79,000 female patients of reproductive age. In addition, among 2717 patients with abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses in the period following COVID-19 vaccine availability, receipt of the vaccine was not associated with greater bleeding severity.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Hemorragia Uterina , Humanos , Femenino , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Adulto , Hemorragia Uterina/etiología , Adulto Joven , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/complicaciones , Adolescente , Incidencia , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunación/efectos adversos , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To assess the occurrence of tinnitus following COVID-19 vaccination using data mining and descriptive analyses in two U.S. vaccine safety surveillance systems. METHODS: Reports of tinnitus after COVID-19 vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 2020 through 2024 were examined using empirical Bayesian data mining and by calculating reporting rates. In the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) population, ICD-10 coded post-vaccination medical visits were examined using tree-based data mining, and tinnitus visit incidence rates during post-vaccination days 1-140 were calculated by age group for COVID-19 vaccines and for comparison, influenza vaccine. RESULTS: VAERS data mining did not find disproportionate reporting of tinnitus for any COVID-19 vaccine. VAERS received up to 84.82 tinnitus reports per million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered. VSD tree-based data mining found no signals for tinnitus. VSD tinnitus visit incidence rates after COVID-19 vaccines were similar to those after influenza vaccine except for the group aged ≥65 years (Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, 165 per 10,000 person-years; Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, 154; influenza vaccine, 135). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings do not support an increased risk of tinnitus following COVID-19 vaccination but cannot definitively exclude the possibility. Descriptive comparisons between COVID-19 and influenza vaccines were limited by lack of adjustment for potential confounding factors.
RESUMEN
Importance: Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were recommended in the US for children and adolescents aged 12 years or older on September 1, 2022, and for children aged 5 to 11 years on October 12, 2022; however, data demonstrating the effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines are limited. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 among children and adolescents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data for the period September 4, 2022, to January 31, 2023, were combined from 3 prospective US cohort studies (6 sites total) and used to estimate COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. A total of 2959 participants completed periodic surveys (demographics, household characteristics, chronic medical conditions, and COVID-19 symptoms) and submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs (irrespective of symptoms); participants submitted additional nasal swabs at the onset of any symptoms. Exposure: Vaccination status was captured from the periodic surveys and supplemented with data from state immunization information systems and electronic medical records. Main Outcome and Measures: Respiratory swabs were tested for the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as a positive test regardless of symptoms. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as a positive test and 2 or more COVID-19 symptoms within 7 days of specimen collection. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 among participants who received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose vs participants who received no vaccine or monovalent vaccine doses only. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, underlying health conditions, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status, geographic site, proportion of circulating variants by site, and local virus prevalence. Results: Of the 2959 participants (47.8% were female; median age, 10.6 years [IQR, 8.0-13.2 years]; 64.6% were non-Hispanic White) included in this analysis, 25.4% received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose. During the study period, 426 participants (14.4%) had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among these 426 participants, 184 (43.2%) had symptomatic COVID-19, 383 (89.9%) were not vaccinated or had received only monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses (1.38 SARS-CoV-2 infections per 1000 person-days), and 43 (10.1%) had received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose (0.84 SARS-CoV-2 infections per 1000 person-days). Bivalent vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 54.0% (95% CI, 36.6%-69.1%) and vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 was 49.4% (95% CI, 22.2%-70.7%). The median observation time after vaccination was 276 days (IQR, 142-350 days) for participants who received only monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses vs 50 days (IQR, 27-74 days) for those who received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose. Conclusion and Relevance: The bivalent COVID-19 vaccines protected children and adolescents against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19. These data demonstrate the benefit of COVID-19 vaccine in children and adolescents. All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adolescente , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/uso terapéutico , Estudios Prospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunas de ARNm/uso terapéutico , Vacunas Combinadas/uso terapéutico , Preescolar , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
The purpose of this natural experiment study was to assess the effectiveness of a 12-month digital Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) for adults aged 65-75 years with prediabetes and obesity within a large, integrated health care system. Adjusting for propensity scores and covariates, patients who enrolled and participated in the digital DPP had a mean weight loss of 8.6 lb over 12 months and 5.7 lb by 24 months, compared with a steady, minimal weight loss of 1.3 lb over 12 months and 2.8 lb by 24 months among patients not enrolled. There was a significant difference in mean change in A1C between enrolled and nonenrolled patients over 12 months (-0.10%), but not by 24 months (-0.06%). Digital DPP appears to be an effective weight loss option and potential diabetes prevention intervention for older adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Women with elevated body mass index are encouraged to lose weight before pregnancy, but no trials have tested the effects of prepregnancy weight loss on health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether prepregnancy weight loss reduces gestational weight gain and improves pregnancy outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted between May 2015 and October 2019 at Kaiser Permanente Northwest, an integrated health system. Data collection was blind to condition assignment. Eligible participants were women aged 18 to 40 years with a body mass index of ≥27 kg/m2 who were planning pregnancy within 2 years. Recruitment contacts were sent to 27,665 health system members who met age and body mass index criteria; 329 women attended screening visits, and 326 were randomized. They were randomized to either a behavioral weight loss intervention or usual care control. The intervention consisted of health coaching phone sessions weekly for 6 months and then monthly for 18 months or until end of pregnancy. We used logistic regression to examine the a priori primary hypothesis that participants in the intervention would be less likely to exceed National Academy of Medicine guidelines for gestational weight gain during each trimester and overall. Secondary and exploratory outcomes included absolute weight gain before and during pregnancy and perinatal and newborn outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 326 participants, 169 had singleton pregnancies lasting ≥14 weeks (analytical cohort: intervention, 89; control, 80). At baseline, mean age was 31.3±3.5 years, and body mass index was 34.8±5.8 kg/m2. Participants in the intervention group lost more weight before pregnancy than those in the control group (-0.25±0.51 vs -0.03±0.21 kg/wk; P<.001). However, participants in the intervention group gained more weight than those in the control group in the second trimester (0.42±0.26 vs 0.33±0.28 kg/wk; P=.04) and third trimester (0.56±0.37 vs 0.43±0.33 kg/wk; P=.02) and overall (13.2±8.20 vs 10.3±7.41 kg; P=.03). Nevertheless, arms did not differ in rates of exceeding gestational weight gain guidelines at any time point. Spontaneous pregnancy loss was less common in the intervention arm than in the control arm (8 [4.9%] vs 19 [11.8%]; odds ratio, 0.39 [0.16-0.92]), but we found no other differences in the secondary or exploratory outcomes. CONCLUSION: Participation in the prepregnancy weight loss intervention had no effect on women's likelihood of exceeding gestational weight gain guidelines. Although the intervention group successfully lost weight before conception, the intervention group was associated with greater weight gain in late pregnancy. To effectively reduce weight throughout pregnancy and improve maternal and child outcomes, prepregnancy weight loss interventions may need to be combined with intensive weight management that continues throughout delivery.
Asunto(s)
Ganancia de Peso Gestacional , Atención Prenatal , Pérdida de Peso , Adolescente , Adulto , Terapia Cognitivo-Conductual , Estudios de Cohortes , Registros Electrónicos de Salud , Femenino , Humanos , Embarazo , Resultado del Embarazo , Trimestres del Embarazo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Population-based rates of infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and related health care utilization help determine estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and averted illnesses, especially since the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant began circulating in June 2021. Among members aged ≥12 years of a large integrated health care delivery system in Oregon and Washington, incidence of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations were calculated by COVID-19 vaccination status, vaccine product, age, race, and ethnicity. Infection after full vaccination was defined as a positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular test result ≥14 days after completion of an authorized COVID-19 vaccination series.* During the July-September 2021 surveillance period, SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred among 4,146 of 137,616 unvaccinated persons (30.1 per 1,000 persons) and 3,009 of 344,848 fully vaccinated persons (8.7 per 1,000). Incidence was higher among unvaccinated persons than among vaccinated persons across all demographic strata. Unvaccinated persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more than twice as likely to receive ED care (18.5%) or to be hospitalized (9.0%) than were vaccinated persons with COVID-19 (8.1% and 3.9%, respectively). The crude mortality rate was also higher among unvaccinated patients (0.43 per 1,000) than in fully vaccinated patients (0.06 per 1,000). These data support CDC recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination, including additional and booster doses, to protect individual persons and communities against COVID-19, including illness and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant (1).
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/terapia , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Incidencia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oregon/epidemiología , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Washingtón/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Prior research has identified factors associated with prescription opioid initiation, but little is known about the prevalence or predictors of dose escalation among patients already prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). OBJECTIVE: This was a 2-year prospective cohort study to examine patient and clinician factors associated with opioid dose escalation. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. Participants were seen at baseline and every 6 months for a total of 2 years. PARTICIPANTS: Patients prescribed a stable dose of LTOT for musculoskeletal pain were recruited from two integrated health systems (Kaiser Permanente and the Department of Veterans Affairs, respectively). MAIN MEASURES: The prescription opioid dose was based on pharmacy records and self-report. Administrative data were gathered on characteristics of the opioid-prescribing clinician and healthcare utilization. Participants completed measures of pain, functioning, and quality of life. KEY RESULTS: Of enrolled participants (n = 517), 19.5% had an opioid dose increase. In multivariate analyses, patient variables associated with dose escalation were lower opioid dose (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79-0.94, for every 10-mg increase in baseline dose) and greater pain catastrophizing (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.01-1.05). Other variables associated with dose escalation were as follows: receiving medications from a nurse practitioner primary care provider (HR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.12-3.96) or specialty physician (HR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.22-8.34), relative to a physician primary care provider, and having undergone surgery within the past 6 months (HR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.10-2.94). Other variables, including pain intensity, pain disability, or depression, were not associated with dose escalation. CONCLUSIONS: In this 2-year prospective cohort study, variables associated with opioid dose escalation were lower opioid dose, higher pain catastrophizing, receiving opioids from a medical specialist (rather than primary care clinician) or nurse practitioner, and having recently undergone surgery. Study findings highlight intervention points that may be helpful for reducing the likelihood of future prescription opioid dose escalation.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Crónico , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud , Analgésicos Opioides , Humanos , Prescripciones , Estudios Prospectivos , Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Studies in countries with high human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage have demonstrated marked reductions in anogenital wart (AGW) incidence. Our goal was to assess the impact of HPV vaccination in a population with suboptimal coverage by comparing AGW incidence trends in the years before and after vaccine introduction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of AGW incidence trends using an ecologic study design among 11- through 39-year-olds enrolled at Kaiser Permanente Northwest. We defined incidence as the proportion of persons who had a new AGW diagnosis for each calendar year in the prevaccine periods (2000 through 2006 for female individuals, 2000 through 2010 for male individuals) and the postvaccine periods (2007 through 2016 for female individuals, 2011 through 2016 for male individuals). We also described cumulative HPV vaccination coverage. RESULTS: The average annual AGW incidence rates in the prevaccine periods were 27.8 per 10,000 in female individuals and 26.9 per 10,000 in male individuals. In the postvaccine periods, AGW incidence rates decreased by 31% (P < 0.001) in female individuals and 10% (P = 0.006) in male individuals; the largest reductions were observed in 15- to 19-year-old female individuals (67%, P < 0.001) and male individuals (45%, P < 0.001). Three dose HPV coverage rates were less than 50% in all age groups and both sexes. CONCLUSIONS: In a population of young adults with moderate HPV vaccination coverage, we observed declines in AGW incidence among both female and male year after the introduction of HPV vaccination. The largest incidence reductions were observed in 15- to 19-year-olds who were most likely to have been vaccinated.
Asunto(s)
Condiloma Acuminado , Infecciones por Papillomavirus , Vacunas contra Papillomavirus , Vacunación , Adolescente , Adulto , Alphapapillomavirus , Niño , Condiloma Acuminado/epidemiología , Condiloma Acuminado/prevención & control , Femenino , Humanos , Incidencia , Masculino , Noroeste de Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Infecciones por Papillomavirus/epidemiología , Infecciones por Papillomavirus/prevención & control , Vacunas contra Papillomavirus/normas , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Tiempo , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To examine the correlates and odds of receiving overlapping benzodiazepine and opioid prescriptions and whether co-prescription was associated with greater odds of falling or visiting the emergency department. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large private integrated health system and a Veterans Health Administration integrated health system. SUBJECTS: Five hundred seventeen adults with musculoskeletal pain and current prescriptions for long-term opioid therapy. METHODS: A multivariate logistic regression model examined correlates of having overlapping benzodiazepine and opioid prescriptions in the year before enrollment in the cross-sectional study. Negative binomial models analyzed the number of falls in the past three months and past-year emergency department visits. In addition to propensity score adjustment, models controlled for demographic characteristics, psychiatric diagnoses, medications, overall comorbidity score, and opioid morphine equivalent dose. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent (N = 127) of participants had co-occurring benzodiazepine and opioid prescriptions in the prior year. Odds of receiving a benzodiazepine prescription were significantly higher among patients with the following psychiatric diagnoses: anxiety disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 4.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.67-8.32, P < 0.001), post-traumatic stress disorder (AOR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.14-4.38, P = 0.019), and bipolar disorder (AOR = 3.82, 95% CI = 1.49-9.81, P = 0.005). Past-year overlapping benzodiazepine and opioid prescriptions were associated with adverse outcomes, including a greater number of falls (risk ratio [RR] = 3.27, 95% CI = 1.77-6.02, P = 0.001) and emergency department visits (RR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.08-2.53, P = 0.0194). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with chronic pain prescribed long-term opioid therapy, one-quarter of patients had co-occurring prescriptions for benzodiazepines, and dual use was associated with increased odds of falls and emergency department visits.
Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides/administración & dosificación , Benzodiazepinas/administración & dosificación , Dolor Crónico/diagnóstico , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/diagnóstico , Accidentes por Caídas/prevención & control , Anciano , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Benzodiazepinas/efectos adversos , Dolor Crónico/epidemiología , Estudios Transversales , Esquema de Medicación , Prescripciones de Medicamentos/normas , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Non-pharmacologic treatments (NPTs) are recommended for chronic pain. Information is limited on patient use or perceptions of NPTs. We examined the frequency and correlates of use and self-rated helpfulness of NPTs for chronic pain among patients who are prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). METHODS: Participants (n = 517) with musculoskeletal pain who were prescribed LTOT were recruited from two integrated health systems. They rated the frequency and utility of six clinician-directed and five self-directed NPTs for chronic pain. We categorized NPT use at four levels based on number of interventions used and frequency of use (none, low, moderate, high). Analyses examined clinical and demographic factors that differed among groups for both clinician-directed and self-directed NPTs. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent of participants reported use of any NPT for pain within the prior 6 months. NPTs were rated as being helpful by more than 50% of users for all treatments assessed (range 51-79%). High users of clinician-directed NPTs were younger than non-users or low-frequency users and had the most depressive symptoms. In both clinician-directed and self-directed categories, high NPT users had significantly higher pain disability compared to non-NPT users. No significant group differences were detected on other demographic or clinical variables. In multivariable analyses, clinician-directed NPT use was modestly associated with younger age (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96-0.98) and higher pain disability (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.00-1.02). Variables associated with greater self-directed NPT use were some college education (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.13-2.84), college graduate or more (OR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.20-3.40), and higher pain disability (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.01-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: NPT use was associated with higher pain disability and younger age for both clinician-directed and self-directed NPTs and higher education for self-directed NPTs. These strategies were rated as helpful by those that used them. These results can inform intervention implementation and be used to increase engagement in NPTs for chronic pain.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Crónico/terapia , Dolor Musculoesquelético/terapia , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Participación del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente , Anciano , Analgésicos Opioides/administración & dosificación , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dimensión del Dolor/instrumentación , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
Importance: Incorporating nontraditional risk factors may improve the performance of traditional multivariable risk assessment for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Objective: To systematically review evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force on the benefits and harms of 3 nontraditional risk factors in cardiovascular risk assessment: the ankle-brachial index (ABI), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) level, and coronary artery calcium (CAC) score. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published through May 22, 2017. Surveillance continued through February 7, 2018. Study Selection: Studies of asymptomatic adults with no known cardiovascular disease. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cardiovascular events, mortality, risk assessment performance measures (calibration, discrimination, or risk reclassification), and serious adverse events. Results: Forty-three studies (N = 267â¯244) were included. No adequately powered trials have evaluated the clinical effect of risk assessment with nontraditional risk factors on patient health outcomes. The addition of the ABI (10 studies), hsCRP level (25 studies), or CAC score (19 studies) can improve both discrimination and reclassification; the magnitude and consistency of improvement varies by nontraditional risk factor. For the ABI, improvements in performance were the greatest for women, in whom traditional risk assessment has poor discrimination (C statistic change of 0.112 and net reclassification index [NRI] of 0.096). Results were inconsistent for hsCRP level, with the largest analysis (n = 166â¯596) showing a minimal effect on risk prediction (C statistic change of 0.0039, NRI of 0.0152). The largest improvements in discrimination (C statistic change ranging from 0.018 to 0.144) and reclassification (NRI ranging from 0.084 to 0.35) were seen for CAC score, although CAC score may inappropriately reclassify individuals not having cardiovascular events into higher-risk categories, as determined by negative nonevent NRI. Evidence for the harms of nontraditional risk factor assessment was limited to computed tomography imaging for CAC scoring (8 studies) and showed that radiation exposure is low but may result in additional testing. Conclusions and Relevance: There are insufficient adequately powered clinical trials evaluating the incremental effect of the ABI, hsCRP level, or CAC score in risk assessment and initiation of preventive therapy. Furthermore, the clinical meaning of improvements in measures of calibration, discrimination, and reclassification risk prediction studies is uncertain.
Asunto(s)
Índice Tobillo Braquial , Proteína C-Reactiva/análisis , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Calcificación Vascular/diagnóstico , Adulto , Biomarcadores/sangre , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Humanos , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
IMPORTANCE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC. DATA SOURCES: Searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, with surveillance through February 23, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting CRC or adenomas, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Four pragmatic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating 1-time or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 458,002) were associated with decreased CRC-specific mortality compared with no screening (incidence rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.82). Five RCTs with multiple rounds of biennial screening with guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (n = 419,966) showed reduced CRC-specific mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98, at 19.5 years to RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93, at 30 years). Seven studies of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) with bowel preparation demonstrated per-person sensitivity and specificity to detect adenomas 6 mm and larger comparable with colonoscopy (sensitivity from 73% [95% CI, 58%-84%] to 98% [95% CI, 91%-100%]; specificity from 89% [95% CI, 84%-93%] to 91% [95% CI, 88%-93%]); variability and imprecision may be due to differences in study designs or CTC protocols. Sensitivity of colonoscopy to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger ranged from 75% (95% CI, 63%-84%) to 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%). On the basis of a single stool specimen, the most commonly evaluated families of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) demonstrated good sensitivity (range, 73%-88%) and specificity (range, 90%-96%). One study (n = 9989) found that FIT plus stool DNA test had better sensitivity in detecting CRC than FIT alone (92%) but lower specificity (84%). Serious adverse events from colonoscopy in asymptomatic persons included perforations (4/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 2-5 in 10,000) and major bleeds (8/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 5-14 in 10,000). Computed tomographic colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation exposure or identification of extracolonic findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CTC, and stool tests have differing levels of evidence to support their use, ability to detect cancer and precursor lesions, and risk of serious adverse events in average-risk adults. Although CRC screening has a large body of supporting evidence, additional research is still needed.
Asunto(s)
Adenoma/diagnóstico , Comités Consultivos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Servicios Preventivos de Salud , Enfermedades Asintomáticas , Colonografía Tomográfica Computarizada/estadística & datos numéricos , Colonoscopía/efectos adversos , Colonoscopía/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/mortalidad , ADN/análisis , Exactitud de los Datos , Heces/química , Humanos , Inmunohistoquímica/estadística & datos numéricos , Hallazgos Incidentales , Sangre Oculta , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Sigmoidoscopía/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In the United States, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is recommended for 11- or 12-year-olds, and for young adults not previously vaccinated. Early vaccine impact can be measured by reductions in vaccine-type (VT) HPV prevalence. METHODS: Consecutive residual cervical specimens were retained from women aged 20-29 years at Kaiser Permanente Northwest in 2007, 2012, and 2013. HPV genotypes were determined using L1 consensus polymerase chain reaction with type-specific hybridization to detect 37 types, including VT HPV (HPV type 6, 11, 16, and 18). We compared HPV prevalence in 2007 and 2012-2013, and we evaluated predictors of VT HPV and any-HPV prevalence in 2012-2013. RESULTS: In 2012-2013, 31.9% of 4181 women had initiated HPV vaccination. VT HPV prevalence decreased from 10.6% in 2007 to 6.2% in 2012-2013 (P < .001). In 2012-2013, VT HPV prevalence was significantly lower among those who initiated vaccination <19 years (adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.1; 95% confidence interval, .1-.3) than among those who were not vaccinated, and higher among those who had chlamydia, human immunodeficiency virus, or pregnancy testing in the past year than among those who did not (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.8). CONCLUSIONS: Reduction in VT HPV was found in young women in an integrated healthcare delivery system within 6 years of vaccine introduction, indicating early HPV vaccine impact.
Asunto(s)
Papillomaviridae/clasificación , Papillomaviridae/aislamiento & purificación , Infecciones por Papillomavirus/epidemiología , Infecciones por Papillomavirus/prevención & control , Vacunas contra Papillomavirus/administración & dosificación , Adulto , Femenino , Genotipo , Técnicas de Genotipaje , Humanos , Papillomaviridae/genética , Infecciones por Papillomavirus/virología , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa , Prevalencia , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Purpose: The study was designed to evaluate whether an educational intervention to train the health center (HC) staff to optimize care for sexual and gender minority (SGM) patients could improve documentation of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and increase preventive screenings. Methods: Twelve HCs were matched and randomized to either receive a tailored, multicomponent educational intervention or a 1-hour prerecorded webinar. Documentation of SGM status and clinical testing was measured through analysis of data that HCs report annually. Nonparametric statistics were used to assess associations between baseline HC characteristics and outcome measures. Results: The HCs were geographically, racially, and ethnically diverse. In all but one HC, <10% of the patients were identified as SGM. Intervention HCs underwent between 3 and 10 trainings, which were highly acceptable. In 2018, 9 of 12 HCs documented SO and 11 of 12 documented GI for at least 50% of their patients. Five of 6 intervention HCs increased SO documentation by 2020, compared to 3 of 6 control HCs (nonsignificant, NS). Five intervention HCs increased GI documentation, although generally by less than 10%, compared to 2 of the controls (NS). Intervention HCs tended to increase documentation of preventive services more than control HCs, but the changes were NS. Conclusions: An educational intervention designed to train the HC staff to provide culturally responsive services for SGM patients was found to be acceptable, with favorable, but nonsignificant changes. Further refinement of the intervention using a larger sample of HCs might demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach. Clinical trial registration #: NCT03554785.
Asunto(s)
Identidad de Género , Minorías Sexuales y de Género , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Conducta SexualRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether sleep characteristics are associated with incidence of treated diabetes in postmenopausal individuals. METHODS: Postmenopausal participants ages 50-79 years reported sleep duration, sleep-disordered breathing, or insomnia at baseline and again in a subsample 3 years later. The primary outcome was self-reported new diagnosis of diabetes treated with oral drugs or insulin at any time after baseline. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used. RESULTS: In 135,964 participants followed for 18.1 (± 6.3) years, there was a nonlinear association between sleep duration and risk of treated diabetes. Participants sleeping ≤5 hours at baseline had a 21% increased risk of diabetes compared with those sleeping 7 hours (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.47). Those who slept for ≥9 hours had a nonsignificant 6% increased risk of diabetes compared with those sleeping 7 hours (aHR 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97-1.16). Participants whose sleep duration had decreased at 3 years had a 9% (aHR 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16) higher risk of diabetes than participants with unchanged sleep duration. Participants who reported increased sleep duration at 3 years had a risk of diabetes (HR 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95-1.08) similar to those with no sleep duration change. Participants at high risk of sleep-disordered breathing at baseline had a 31% higher risk of diabetes than those without (aHR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.26-1.37). No association was found between self-reported insomnia score and diabetes risk. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep-disordered breathing and short or long sleep duration were associated with higher diabetes risk in a postmenopausal population.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Síndromes de la Apnea del Sueño , Trastornos del Inicio y del Mantenimiento del Sueño , Humanos , Femenino , Trastornos del Inicio y del Mantenimiento del Sueño/epidemiología , Posmenopausia , Sueño , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiología , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although previous studies found no-increased mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination, residual confounding bias might have impacted the findings. Using a modified self-controlled case series (SCCS) design, we assessed the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes after primary series COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We analyzed all deaths between December 14, 2020, and August 11, 2021, among individuals from eight Vaccine Safety Datalink sites. Demographic characteristics of deaths in recipients of COVID-19 vaccines and unvaccinated individuals were reported. We conducted SCCS analyses by vaccine type and death outcomes and reported relative incidences (RI). The observation period for death spanned from the dates of emergency use authorization to the end of the study period (August 11, 2021) without censoring the observation period upon death. We pre-specified a primary risk interval of 28-day and a secondary risk interval of 14-day after each vaccination dose. Adjusting for seasonality in mortality analyses is crucial because death rates vary over time. Deaths among unvaccinated individuals were included in SCCS analyses to account for seasonality by incorporating calendar month in the models. RESULTS: For Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), RIs of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes were below 1 and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) excluded 1 across both doses and both risk intervals. For Moderna (mRNA-1273), RI point estimates of all outcomes were below 1, although the 95 % CIs of two RI estimates included 1: cardiac-related (RI = 0.78, 95 % CI, 0.58-1.04) and non-COVID-19 cardiac-related mortality (RI = 0.80, 95 % CI, 0.60-1.08) 14 days after the second dose in individuals without pre-existing cancer and heart disease. For Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S), RIs of four cardiac-related death outcomes ranged from 0.94 to 0.98 for the 14-day risk interval, and 0.68 to 0.72 for the 28-day risk interval and 95 % CIs included 1. CONCLUSION: Using a modified SCCS design and adjusting for temporal trends, no-increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes among recipients of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Ad26COVS1 , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Proyectos de Investigación , Vacunación/efectos adversosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the overall and age-specific associations between obesity and extremity musculoskeletal injuries and pain in children. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used information from electronic medical records of 913178 patients aged 2-19 years enrolled in an integrated health plan in the period 2007-2009. Children were classified as underweight, normal weight, overweight, or moderately/extremely obese and, using multivariable logistic regression methods, the associations between weight class and diagnosis of upper or lower extremity fractures, sprains, dislocations and pain were calculated. RESULTS: Overweight (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.20), moderately obese (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.27) and extremely obese (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.39) children had statistically significantly higher odds of lower extremity injuries/pain compared to normal weight, adjusted for sex, age, race/ethnicity and insurance status. Age-stratified analyses yielded similar results. No consistent association was observed between body mass index and injuries/pain of the upper extremities. CONCLUSIONS: Greater body mass index is associated with increased odds of lower extremity injuries and pain issues. Because the benefits of physical activity may still outweigh the risk of injury, attention should be paid to injury prevention strategies for these children at greater risk for lower extremity injuries.
Asunto(s)
Traumatismos del Brazo/epidemiología , Peso Corporal , Traumatismos de la Pierna/epidemiología , Dolor Musculoesquelético/epidemiología , Obesidad/epidemiología , Adolescente , Adulto , Índice de Masa Corporal , California/epidemiología , Niño , Preescolar , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Factores de Riesgo , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A number of studies have found an increased risk of lower extremity injuries in obese patients. Most studies, however, are unable to provide stable population-based estimates based on the degree of obesity and few assess the risk pertaining to more detailed fracture location in the lower extremities. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore investigated the relationship between obesity and lower extremity fractures in different age and fracture locations in a stable population. METHODS: This is a population-based, cross-sectional study from the electronic medical records of 913,178 patients aged 2 to 19 years. The body mass index (BMI) for each patient in the cohort was used to stratify patients into five weight classes (underweight, normal weight, overweight, moderate obesity, and extreme obesity) based on BMI for age. Records were assessed for the occurrence of lower extremity fractures for each cohort member. The associations among the five weight classes and specific lower extremity fractures were estimated using multiple logistic regression models and expressed with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using multivariate analysis to adjust for patient demographic variables. RESULTS: Overweight, moderately obese, and extremely obese patients all had an increased OR of fractures of the foot (OR, 1.14, 1.23, and 1.42, respectively, with 95% CI, 1.04-1.24, 1.12-1.35, and 1.26-1.61, respectively) along with the ankle, knee, and leg (OR, 1.27, 1.28, and 1.51, respectively, with 95% CI, 1.16-1.39, 1.15-1.42, and 1.33-1.72, respectively). The association was strongest in the 6- to 11-year-old age group. We found no association between increasing BMI and increased risk of fractures of the femur and hip. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing BMI is associated with increased odds of foot, ankle, leg, and knee fractures in children. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Asunto(s)
Fracturas Óseas/etiología , Fracturas Óseas/fisiopatología , Extremidad Inferior , Obesidad/complicaciones , Obesidad/fisiopatología , Adolescente , Antropometría , Índice de Masa Corporal , California/epidemiología , Niño , Preescolar , Estudios Transversales , Demografía , Femenino , Fracturas Óseas/epidemiología , Humanos , Lactante , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Obesidad/epidemiología , Prevalencia , Factores de Riesgo , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The benefit of vaccinating immunocompetent patients who have had shingles has not been examined. The study assessed the association between vaccination and the incidence of herpes zoster recurrence among persons with a recent episode of clinically diagnosed herpes zoster. METHODS: This is a matched cohort study in Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Study populations were immunocompetent elderly individuals ≥ 60 years old with a recent episode of herpes zoster. Incidence of recurrent herpes zoster was compared between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 1036 vaccinated and 5180 unvaccinated members were included. On the basis of clinically confirmed cases, the incidence of recurrent herpes zoster among persons aged <70 years was 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI], .02-5.54) and 2.20 (95% CI, 1.10-3.93) cases per 1000 person-years in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.39 (95% CI, .05-4.45) among persons aged <70 years and 1.05 (95% CI, .30-3.69) among persons aged ≥ 70 years. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of herpes zoster recurrence following a recent initial episode is fairly low among immunocompetent adults, regardless of vaccination status. Such a low risk suggests that one should evaluate the necessity of immediately vaccinating immunocompetent patients who had a recent herpes zoster episode.