Post-procedural Antibiotic Use and Associated Outcomes After Common Urologic Procedures Across a National Healthcare System.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the benefits and harms of post-procedural antibiotic use after common urologic procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent an endoscopic urologic procedure (transurethral resection of bladder tumor, transurethral resection of prostate, or ureteroscopy) within the Veterans Health Administration between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2021. A post-procedural antibiotic was any qualifying antibiotic prescribed for administration on the day after the procedure. Guidelines generally do not recommend post-procedural antibiotics for surgical prophylaxis. Outcomes included unplanned return visits and Clostridioides difficile infection within 30 days. Log-binomial models with risk-adjustment were used to measure the association between post-procedural antibiotic use and outcomes. Hospital-level observed-to-expected (O:E) ratios were constructed to compare post-procedural antibiotic use. RESULTS: There were 74,629 qualifying procedures across 105 hospitals; 27,422 (36.7%) received post-procedural antibiotics (median 3 days, IQR 3-6). An unplanned return visit occurred in 20.2% of patients who received post-procedural antibiotics vs 17.2% who did not (adjusted RR 1.032, 95% CI 0.999-1.066). C. difficile infection was diagnosed in 0.27% vs 0.10% in those who received and did not receive post-procedural antibiotics (adjusted RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13-2.45). The O:E ratio for post-procedural antibiotic use ranged from 0.46 among hospitals in the lowest-use quartile to 1.93 in the highest-use quartile. CONCLUSION: Post-procedural antibiotics were frequently prescribed after urologic procedures with large inter-facility variability even after adjusting for case-mix differences. Post-procedural antibiotic use was associated with increased risk for C. difficile infection but not fewer unplanned return visits. Efforts to reduce guideline-discordant use of post-procedural antibiotics are needed.

Evaluation of the HealthImpact Diabetes Risk Model in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: HealthImpact is a novel algorithm using administrative health care data to stratify patients according to risk for incident diabetes. OBJECTIVES: To (a) independently assess the predictive validity of HealthImpact and (b) explore its utility in diabetes screening within a nationally integrated health care system. METHODS: National Veterans Health Administration data were used to create 2 cohorts. The replication cohort included patients without diagnosed diabetes as of October 1, 2012, to determine if HealthImpact scores were significantly associated with diabetes (type 1 or 2) incidence within the subsequent 3 years. The utility cohort included patients without diagnosed diabetes as of August 1, 2015, and assessed diabetes screening rates in the 2 years surrounding this index date, stratified by HealthImpact scores. RESULTS: The 3-year incidence of diabetes in the replication cohort (n = 3,287,240) was 9.1%. Of 100,617 (3.1%) patients with HealthImpact scores > 90, 30,028 developed diabetes, yielding a positive predictive value of 29.8%. These patients accounted for 9.9% of all incident diabetes cases (sensitivity). Sensitivity and negative predictive value improved with descending HealthImpact threshold scores (e.g., > 75, > 50), whereas specificity and positive predictive value declined. Of 3,499,406 patients in the utility cohort, 85.3% received either a blood glucose or hemoglobin A1c test during the 2-year observation period. Among 101,355 patients with a HealthImpact score > 90, nearly all (98.3%) were screened, and 86.3% had an A1c test. CONCLUSIONS: Our independent analysis corroborates the validity of HealthImpact in stratifying patients according to diabetes risk. However, its practical utility to enhance diabetes screening in a real-world clinical environment will be strongly dependent on the pattern and frequency of existing screening practices. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by the Iowa City VA Health Care System and by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Service (Lund, CIN 13-412). The authors have no conflicts of interest. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. government.

Anabolic steroid use in weightlifters and bodybuilders: an internet survey of drug utilization.

PURPOSE: Dietary supplements and ergogenic agents, including anabolic steroids, are common components of present-day bodybuilder and weightlifter training regimens. Prior reports of anabolic steroid use suggest polypharmacy and high doses of injectable agents. HYPOTHESIS: To provide an updated description of anabolic steroid regimens employed by weightlifters and bodybuilders and to determine the extent to which anabolic steroid-associated behaviors are consistent with substance dependence. STUDY DESIGN: Web-based survey. METHODS: Links to the Web-based survey instrument were established from leading bodybuilding and fitness web pages. The questionnaire included demographic information, anabolic drug use history, adverse effects, information sources, and steroid use behavior consistent with criteria for a substance dependence disorder. RESULTS: A total of 207 subjects provided a detailed anabolic steroid drug history. Steroid regimens included a mean of 3.1 agents, involved cycles ranging from 5 to 10 weeks, and often included doses 5 to 29 times greater than physiologic replacement doses. Behavior consistent with a substance dependence disorder was endorsed by 33% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that anabolic steroid use among weightlifters and bodybuilders continues, generally involving multiple steroids and additional dietary supplementary agents. The adverse effects, polypharmacy, large dosages, and risk of substance abuse are all major health care concerns that require further study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The survey findings provide sports medicine practitioners a reasonable estimate of the expected drug history among bodybuilders and weightlifters for the use of performance-enhancing agents.