Burden of Medically Attended Diarrhea and Outpatient Clostridioides difficile Infection Among Persons in 2 Large Integrated Healthcare Settings, 2016-2021.

Background: Identification of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in the community setting is increasing. We describe testing for CDI among patients with medically attended diarrhea (MAD) in the outpatient setting, and the incidence of outpatient CDI. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study among members ≥18 years of age from Kaiser Permanente Southern California and Kaiser Permanente Northwest from 1 January 2016 through 31 December 2021. MAD was identified by outpatient diarrheal International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision diagnosis codes, and CDI through positive laboratory results. Outpatient CDI was defined by no hospitalization ≤7 days after specimen collection. Incidence rates (IRs) of outpatient CDI were stratified by select demographic and clinical variables. Outpatient CDI burden 12 months following index date was measured by CDI-associated healthcare visits, and CDI testing and treatment. Results: We identified 777 533 MAD episodes; 12.1% (93 964/777 533) were tested for CDI. Of those tested, 10.8% (10 110/93 964) were positive. Outpatient CDI IR was 51.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.8-52.2) per 100 000 person-years, decreasing from 58.2 (95% CI, 55.7-60.7) in 2016 to 45.7 (95% CI, 43.7-47.8) in 2021. Approximately 44% (n = 4200) received an antibiotic 30 days prior to index date and 84.1% (n = 8006) CDIs were "community-associated" (no hospitalizations 12 weeks prior to index date). Of outpatient CDIs, 6.7% (n = 526) had a CDI-associated hospitalization ≤12 months. Conclusions: There was a high incidence of outpatient CDI despite infrequent CDI testing among patients with MAD. The majority of those with outpatient CDI had no recent antibiotic use and no recent hospitalization. Further studies are needed to understand the source and management of medically attended outpatient CDI.

Risk of admission to hospital with arterial or venous thromboembolism among patients diagnosed in the ambulatory setting with covid-19 compared with influenza: retrospective cohort study.

Objective: To measure the 90 day risk of arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism among patients diagnosed with covid-19 in the ambulatory (ie, outpatient, emergency department, or institutional) setting during periods before and during covid-19 vaccine availability and compare results to patients with ambulatory diagnosed influenza. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Four integrated health systems and two national health insurers in the US Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System. Participants: Patients with ambulatory diagnosed covid-19 when vaccines were unavailable in the US (period 1, 1 April-30 November 2020; n=272 065) and when vaccines were available in the US (period 2, 1 December 2020-31 May 2021; n=342 103), and patients with ambulatory diagnosed influenza (1 October 2018-30 April 2019; n=118 618). Main outcome measures: Arterial thromboembolism (hospital diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke) and venous thromboembolism (hospital diagnosis of acute deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) within 90 days after ambulatory covid-19 or influenza diagnosis. We developed propensity scores to account for differences between the cohorts and used weighted Cox regression to estimate adjusted hazard ratios of outcomes with 95% confidence intervals for covid-19 during periods 1 and 2 versus influenza. Results: 90 day absolute risk of arterial thromboembolism with covid-19 was 1.01% (95% confidence interval 0.97% to 1.05%) during period 1, 1.06% (1.03% to 1.10%) during period 2, and with influenza was 0.45% (0.41% to 0.49%). The risk of arterial thromboembolism was higher for patients with covid-19 during period 1 (adjusted hazard ratio 1.53 (95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.69)) and period 2 (1.69 (1.53 to 1.86)) than for patients with influenza. 90 day absolute risk of venous thromboembolism with covid-19 was 0.73% (0.70% to 0.77%) during period 1, 0.88% (0.84 to 0.91%) during period 2, and with influenza was 0.18% (0.16% to 0.21%). Risk of venous thromboembolism was higher with covid-19 during period 1 (adjusted hazard ratio 2.86 (2.46 to 3.32)) and period 2 (3.56 (3.08 to 4.12)) than with influenza. Conclusions: Patients diagnosed with covid-19 in the ambulatory setting had a higher 90 day risk of admission to hospital with arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism both before and after covid-19 vaccine availability compared with patients with influenza.

Association Between Diabetes Severity and Risks of COVID-19 Infection and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about whether diabetes increases the risk of COVID-19 infection and whether measures of diabetes severity are related to COVID-19 outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Investigate diabetes severity measures as potential risk factors for COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 outcomes. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, MEASURES: In integrated healthcare systems in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, we identified a cohort of adults on February 29, 2020 (n = 1,086,918) and conducted follow-up through February 28, 2021. Electronic health data and death certificates were used to identify markers of diabetes severity, covariates, and outcomes. Outcomes were COVID-19 infection (positive nucleic acid antigen test, COVID-19 hospitalization, or COVID-19 death) and severe COVID-19 (invasive mechanical ventilation or COVID-19 death). Individuals with diabetes (n = 142,340) and categories of diabetes severity measures were compared with a referent group with no diabetes (n = 944,578), adjusting for demographic variables, neighborhood deprivation index, body mass index, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Of 30,935 patients with COVID-19 infection, 996 met the criteria for severe COVID-19. Type 1 (odds ratio [OR] 1.41, 95% CI 1.27-1.57) and type 2 diabetes (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.23-1.31) were associated with increased risk of COVID-19 infection. Insulin treatment was associated with greater COVID-19 infection risk (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.34-1.52) than treatment with non-insulin drugs (OR 1.26, 95% 1.20-1.33) or no treatment (OR 1.24; 1.18-1.29). The relationship between glycemic control and COVID-19 infection risk was dose-dependent: from an OR of 1.21 (95% CI 1.15-1.26) for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 7% to an OR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.51-1.75) for HbA1c ≥ 9%. Risk factors for severe COVID-19 were type 1 diabetes (OR 2.87; 95% CI 1.99-4.15), type 2 diabetes (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.55-2.09), insulin treatment (OR 2.65; 95% CI 2.13-3.28), and HbA1c ≥ 9% (OR 2.61; 95% CI 1.94-3.52). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes and greater diabetes severity were associated with increased risks of COVID-19 infection and worse COVID-19 outcomes.

"I really had somebody in my corner." Patient experiences with a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program.

BACKGROUND: Opioid tapering has been identified as an effective strategy to prevent the dangers associated with long-term opioid therapy for patients with chronic pain. However, many patients are resistant to tapering, and conversations about tapering can be challenging for health care providers. Pharmacists can play a role in supporting both providers and patients with the process of opioid tapering. OBJECTIVE: Qualitatively describe patient experiences with a unique phone-based and pharmacy-led opioid tapering program implemented within an integrated health care system. METHODS: In-depth telephone interviews with patients who completed the program were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Themes were identified through a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: We completed 25 interviews; 80% of patients were women (20), with a mean age of 58 years, and 72% (18) had been using opioids for pain management for 10 or more years. Most (60%) described a positive and satisfying experience with the tapering program. Strengths of the program reported by patients included a patient-centered and compassionate taper approach, flexible taper pace, easy access to knowledgeable pharmacist advocates, and resultant improvements in quality of life (e.g., increased energy). Challenges reported included: unhelpful or difficult-to-access nonpharmacological pain management options, negative quality of life impacts (e.g., inability to exercise), and lack of choice in the taper process. At the end of tapering, most patients (72%) described their pain as reduced or manageable rather than worse and expressed willingness to use the program in the future if a need should arise. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program appreciated the program's individualized approach to care and access to pharmacist' expertise. Most interviewed patients successfully reduced their opioid use and recommended that the program should continue as an offered service. To improve the program, patients suggested increased personalization of the taper process and additional support for withdrawal symptoms and nonpharmacological pain management.

Association of COVID-19 vs Influenza With Risk of Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Events Among Hospitalized Patients.

Importance: The incidence of arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism in persons with COVID-19 remains unclear. Objective: To measure the 90-day risk of arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 before or during COVID-19 vaccine availability vs patients hospitalized with influenza. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of 41 443 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (April-November 2020), 44 194 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (December 2020-May 2021), and 8269 patients hospitalized with influenza (October 2018-April 2019) in the US Food and Drug Administration Sentinel System (data from 2 national health insurers and 4 regional integrated health systems). Exposures: COVID-19 or influenza (identified by hospital diagnosis or nucleic acid test). Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital diagnosis of arterial thromboembolism (acute myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke) and venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) within 90 days. Outcomes were ascertained through July 2019 for patients with influenza and through August 2021 for patients with COVID-19. Propensity scores with fine stratification were developed to account for differences between the influenza and COVID-19 cohorts. Weighted Cox regression was used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes during each COVID-19 vaccine availability period vs the influenza period. Results: A total of 85 637 patients with COVID-19 (mean age, 72 [SD, 13.0] years; 50.5% were male) and 8269 with influenza (mean age, 72 [SD, 13.3] years; 45.0% were male) were included. The 90-day absolute risk of arterial thromboembolism was 14.4% (95% CI, 13.6%-15.2%) in patients with influenza vs 15.8% (95% CI, 15.5%-16.2%) in patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (risk difference, 1.4% [95% CI, 1.0%-2.3%]) and 16.3% (95% CI, 16.0%-16.6%) in patients with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (risk difference, 1.9% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.7%]). Compared with patients with influenza, the risk of arterial thromboembolism was not significantly higher among patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.97-1.11]) or during vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.00-1.14]). The 90-day absolute risk of venous thromboembolism was 5.3% (95% CI, 4.9%-5.8%) in patients with influenza vs 9.5% (95% CI, 9.2%-9.7%) in patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (risk difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 3.6%-4.7%]) and 10.9% (95% CI, 10.6%-11.1%) in patients with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (risk difference, 5.5% [95% CI, 5.0%-6.1%]). Compared with patients with influenza, the risk of venous thromboembolism was significantly higher among patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.43-1.79]) and during vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.68-2.12]). Conclusions and Relevance: Based on data from a US public health surveillance system, hospitalization with COVID-19 before and during vaccine availability, vs hospitalization with influenza in 2018-2019, was significantly associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism within 90 days, but there was no significant difference in the risk of arterial thromboembolism within 90 days.

"We Need to Taper." Interviews with Clinicians and Pharmacists About Use of a Pharmacy-Led Opioid Tapering Program.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influence or interfere with referrals by primary care providers (PCPs) to a pharmacist-led telephone-based program to assist patients undergoing opioid tapering. The Support Team Onsite Resource for Management of Pain (STORM) program provides individualized patient care and supports PCPs in managing opioid tapers. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews were conducted with referring PCPs and STORM staff. Interview guides addressed concepts from the RE-AIM framework, focusing on issues affecting referral to the STORM program. SETTING: An integrated healthcare system (HCS) in the Northwest United States. SUBJECTS: Thirty-five interviews were conducted with 20 PCPs and 15 STORM staff. METHODS: Constant comparative analysis was used to identify key themes from interviews. A codebook was developed based on interview data and a qualitative software program was used for coding, iterative review, and content analysis. Representative quotes illustrate identified themes. RESULTS: Use of the STORM opioid tapering program was influenced by PCP, patient, and HCS considerations. Factors motivating use of STORM included lack of PCP time to support chronic pain patients requiring opioid tapering and the perception that STORM is a valued partner in patient care. Impediments to referral included PCP confidence in managing opioid tapering, patient resistance to tapering, forgetting about program availability, and PCP resistance to evolving guidelines regarding opioid tapering goals. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs recognized that STORM supported patient safety and reduced clinician burden. Utilization of the program could be improved through ongoing PCP education about the service and consistent co-location of STORM pharmacists within primary care clinics.

Development of an Intervention to Reduce Pain and Prevent Syncope Related to Adolescent Vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of research into the perspectives of patients, parents, and clinicians regarding strategies for vaccine-related pain and syncope prevention that may improve the adolescent vaccination experience and encourage future vaccination. OBJECTIVE: To develop an intervention on the basis of preference for strategies to reduce pain and prevent syncope associated with adolescent vaccination. METHODS: We conducted focus groups and interviews with 8 recently vaccinated Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) members aged 11 to 17 years and their parents to explore perceptions of pain and syncope after vaccination as well as receptivity to potential interventions. Additionally, we interviewed 7 clinical staff who routinely vaccinate children. We conducted content analysis to identify promising interventions and conducted a data synthesis workshop to select a final intervention for piloting. RESULTS: All participants expressed willingness to use previsit education, breathing exercises, social support or distraction, and water consumption. Patients and parents expressed a need for verbal education and messaging about potential vaccine-related outcomes, and clinicians noted a need to identify patients who are anxious before a vaccination visit. Most participants suggested a "comfort menu" intervention, to include comfort and distraction items that medical staff offer adolescents before and during vaccination. CONCLUSION: Patients, parents, and clinicians acknowledged the value of interventions to reduce pain and syncope after adolescent vaccination. Stakeholders identified a comfort menu as the intervention to be piloted at 2 KPNW pediatric clinics. Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of the "Vaccination Comfort Menu" intervention in improving vaccination experiences and continued receipt of vaccinations.

Bisphosphonate Drug Holiday and Fracture Risk: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

Holidays from bisphosphonates (BPs) may help to prevent rare adverse events such as atypical femoral fractures, but may be appropriate only if risk of osteoporosis-related fractures does not increase. Our objective was to compare the incidence of osteoporosis-related fractures among women who had a BP holiday to those who continued to use BPs. This retrospective cohort study, conducted within four Kaiser Permanente integrated health system regions, included 39,502 women aged ≥45 years with ≥3 years exposure to BP. Participants with a BP holiday (≥12 months with no use) were compared to persistent (use with ≥50% adherence) and nonpersistent (use with <50% adherence) users for incident osteoporosis-related fractures. The BP holiday (n = 11,497), nonpersistent user (n = 10,882), and persistent user groups (n = 17,123) were observed for 156,657 person-years. A total of 5199 osteoporosis-related fractures (including 1515 hip fractures and 2147 vertebral fractures) were observed. Compared to the persistent use group, there was a slight difference in overall osteoporosis-related fracture risk (HR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99)and no difference in hip fracture risk (HR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.10) for the BP holiday group. A slight reduction in risk of vertebral fracture was observed (HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95). Compared to the nonpersistent user group, the BP holiday group was at decreased risk for osteoporosis-related fractures (HR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.79), vertebral fractures (HR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.78), and hip fractures (HR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.70). Women who undertake a BP holiday from BP of ≥12 months duration for any reason after ≥3 years of BP use do not appear to be at greater risk of osteoporosis-related fragility fracture, hip, or vertebral fractures compared to ongoing BP users. In our cohort, BP holiday remains a viable strategy for balancing the benefits and potential harms associated with long-term BP use. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Patient-centered interventions to improve medication management and adherence: a qualitative review of research findings.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-centered approaches to improving medication adherence hold promise, but evidence of their effectiveness is unclear. This review reports the current state of scientific research around interventions to improve medication management through four patient-centered domains: shared decision-making, methods to enhance effective prescribing, systems for eliciting and acting on patient feedback about medication use and treatment goals, and medication-taking behavior. METHODS: We reviewed literature on interventions that fell into these domains and were published between January 2007 and May 2013. Two reviewers abstracted information and categorized studies by intervention type. RESULTS: We identified 60 studies, of which 40% focused on patient education. Other intervention types included augmented pharmacy services, decision aids, shared decision-making, and clinical review of patient adherence. Medication adherence was an outcome in most (70%) of the studies, although 50% also examined patient-centered outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a large number of medication management interventions that incorporated patient-centered care and improved patient outcomes. We were unable to determine whether these interventions are more effective than traditional medication adherence interventions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Additional research is needed to identify effective and feasible approaches to incorporate patient-centeredness into the medication management processes of the current health care system, if appropriate.