Understanding Hispanic Patient Satisfaction with Telehealth During COVID-19

BackgroundRecent studies have described the use of telehealth for pediatric surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate equity in telehealth use by comparing rates of utilization and satisfaction with pediatric surgical telemedicine among Hispanic patients.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients seen by a surgical subspecialty provider in the outpatient setting at a quaternary pediatric hospital between April 1 and June 30, 2020. Patients evaluated in the same three-month period in 2019 were analyzed as a historic control. Differences in Family Experience Survey (FES) responses based on race and ethnicity and preferred language of care were assessed using univariable and multivariable generalized linear modeling.ResultsThe pandemic cohort included fewer patients of Hispanic ethnicity and fewer Spanish-speakers. After controlling for visit type, comparison of Spanish-speaking and English-speaking patients revealed that Spanish-speaking families had significantly lower scores for FES items that evaluated healthcare provider explaining (IRR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.61–0.90), listening (IRR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.63–0.92), and time spent with the family (IRR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.60–0.89). There were no differences in FES responses based on insurance status or degree of medical complexity.ConclusionsTelehealth services were less commonly used among Hispanic and Spanish-speaking patients. Language may differentially affect family satisfaction with healthcare and telehealth solutions. Strategies to mitigate these inequities are needed and may include strengthening interpreter services and providing language-concordant care.Level of evidenceLevel IV.     

Comparison between standard Vs. Escalated dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A two centers,observational study

IntroductionThe risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19.MethodsA two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the “standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under ”escalated VTE prophylaxis dose“. The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications.ResultsA total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52–2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16–3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08–10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79–1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76–1.53; P = 0.83, respectively).ConclusionEscalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.     

Alzheimer's Disease THErapy With NEuroaid (ATHENE): A Randomized Double-Blind Delayed-Start Trial

ObjectivesPreclinical and clinical studies indicate a role for MLC901 (NeuroAiD II) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). The primary aim was to investigate its safety as add-on therapy to standard treatment and the secondary aims its effect on cognition and slowing disease progression.DesignRandomized double-blind placebo-controlled delayed-start study.Setting and ParticipantPatients with mild to moderate probable AD by NINCDS-ADRDA criteria, stable on acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or memantine (n = 125), were randomized to receive MLC901 (early starters) or placebo (delayed starters) for 6 months, followed by a further 6 months when all patients received MLC901, in a delayed-start design (clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03038035).MethodsThe primary outcome measure was occurrence of serious adverse events (SAEs) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and other assessment scales.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the risk of SAEs between early and delayed starters at month (M) 6 (22.6% vs 27.0%, risk difference ?4.4%, 90% CI –16.9% to 8.3%). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the risk of adverse events and the occurrence of stroke or vascular events between early and delayed starters throughout the 12-month study period. Early starters did not differ significantly on ADAS-Cog from delayed starters at M6 [mean difference (MD) ?1.0, 95% CI –3.3 to 1.3] and M12 (MD –2.35, 95% CI –5.45 to 0.74) on intention-to-treat analysis. Other cognitive assessment scales did not show significant differences.Conclusions and ImplicationsThis study of 125 persons with dementia found no evidence of a significant increase in adverse events between MLC901 and placebo, thus providing support for further studies on both efficacy and safety. Analyses suggest the potential of MLC901 in slowing down AD progression, but this requires further confirmation in larger and longer studies using biomarkers for AD.     

The Risk of Alzheimer's Disease After Acute Appendicitis With or Without Appendectomy

ObjectivePrevious epidemiologic studies have suggested an association between appendectomy and Parkinson's disease. The aim of the current study was to examine the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other types of dementia following appendicitis or appendectomy for appendicitis.DesignPopulation-based cohort study.Setting and participantsWe used claims data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Participants aged ≥45 years with acute appendicitis or who received appendectomy for appendicitis were enrolled and followed up for more than 15 years. Cases and controls underwent 1:1 matching by age, sex, index date, and dementia-related comorbidities.MethodsThe primary outcome was AD, and secondary outcomes included other dementia types. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were calculated, and a competing risk regression model was created. The E value for causality of evidence was calculated.ResultsPatients developing appendicitis (0.6% vs 0.1%, P = .005) and those receiving appendectomy for appendicitis (0.4% vs 0.1%, P = .003) had higher incidences of AD than the controls during the follow-up period. A Cox regression analysis with adjustment for potential confounders showed that patients with appendicitis [aHR 6.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.84-24.48] and those receiving appendectomy for appendicitis (aHR 5.01, 95% CI 1.33-18.85) were more likely to develop AD than the controls. These 2 groups also had higher risks for unspecified dementia and all types of dementia but not for vascular dementia than the controls. The age at dementia diagnosis was 88.51 years in the controls; however, among people who developed dementia following appendicitis, the mean age at diagnosis was 70.18 years, and dementia occurred 5.84 years after appendicitis. The competing risk regression models and the E values support the study findings.Conclusions and implicationsAfter recovery from appendicitis, these patients should be followed up for signs of AD.     

A cross-sectional study on coronary artery disease diagnosis in patients with peripheral artery disease

PurposeCompared with healthy individuals, patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) generally have a very high risk of subclinical Coronary artery disease (CAD) and cardiovascular events. To determine the correlation between CAD in PAD patients, thereby promoting the lifetime of PAD patients and reducing the serious impacts of CAD.MethodsThis clinical-based cross-sectional study comprised 100 consecutive patients in India from 2014 to 2016. In this research, PAD patients were screened for CAD by treadmill stress test and cardiac colour Doppler examination. In addition, this study performed coronary angiography followed by peripheral angiography for patients who could not perform the treadmill test.ResultsWith the statistical results, the study observed a high prevalence of CAD in PAD patients that can be detected only with angiography. Further, 30.93% of asymptomatic CAD prevalence was observed in PAD patients. The study strengthens the need for coronary angiography in all symptomatic lower limb PAD cases to detect early CAD, particularly in patients with diabetes and dyslipidemia.ConclusionThere exists a strong correlation between PAD and CAD. Hence, precise diagnosis followed by supervision of PAD patients is significant for avoiding local progression of cardiovascular risk.