RESUMO
Background: Urinary stone disease (USD) historically has affected older men, but studies suggest recent increases in women, leading to a near identical sex incidence ratio. USD incidence has doubled every 10 years, with disproportionate increases amongst children, adolescent, and young adult (AYA) women. USD stone composition in women is frequently apatite (calcium phosphate), which forms in a higher urine pH, low urinary citrate, and an abundance of urinary uric acid, while men produce more calcium oxalate stones. The reasons for this epidemiological trend are unknown. Methods: This perspective presents the extent of USD with data from a Canadian Province and a North American institution, explanations for these findings and offers potential solutions to decrease this trend. We describe the economic impact of USD. Findings: There was a significant increase of 46% in overall surgical interventions for USD in Ontario. The incidence rose from 47.0/100,000 in 2002 to 68.7/100,000 population in 2016. In a single United States institution, the overall USD annual unique patient count rose from 10,612 to 17,706 from 2015 to 2019, and the proportion of women with USD was much higher than expected. In the 10-17-year-old patients, 50.1% were girls; with 57.5% in the 18-34 age group and 53.6% in the 35-44 age group. The roles of obesity, diet, hormones, environmental factors, infections, and antibiotics, as well as the economic impact, are discussed. Interpretation: We confirm the significant increase in USD among women. We offer potential explanations for this sex disparity, including microbiological and pathophysiological aspects. We also outline innovative solutions - that may require steps beyond typical preventive and treatment recommendations.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners are advanced practicing pharmacists in North Carolina that provide disease-specific management. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the efficacy and charges from referrals to a Clinical Pharmacist Practitioner by the primary care provider, to those managed by a primary care provider alone. METHODS: Patients were separated into cohorts depending if they had at least two appointments with a Clinical Pharmacist Practitioner from November 2008 to November 2011. A primary care provider saw all patients at least twice during the study period. Cohorts were then matched by age, gender, and disease states. Medicare billed data was evaluated from outpatient visits related to hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and peripheral neuropathy, as well as emergency department visits and inpatient admissions. Cost of medications was estimated using 2009 AWP data corresponding to medication histories within the electronic medical record. Efficacy was defined as ability to reach disease state goal determined using national guidelines and reduction in pain score. Efficacy was analyzed by difference-in-differences test and all other numerical data tested by paired t-tests. RESULTS: The Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners cohort experienced more outpatient visits (1338 vs. 858, p < 0.001), fewer emergency department visits (115 vs. 190, p < 0.05), and similar inpatient admissions (88 vs. 117, p > 0.05) than the primary care providers cohort, respectively. The Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners cohort showed changes in charges of +22.6 % for outpatient visits, -45.5 % emergency department visits, and -13.2 % inpatient admissions relative to the primary care provider cohort. There was no difference in average daily medication cost (Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners $38.52 vs. primary care providers $38.23, p = 0.97) or achievement of disease state goals. CONCLUSION: APPLE-NC demonstrated that through referrals, Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners provide services comparable in charges and efficacy to primary care providers. Consequently, the current increased need for primary care practitioners can be met in part by increasing the utilization of advanced practice pharmacists for chronic disease management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This does not apply for this retrospective cohort study.
