Using Big Data for Cardiovascular Health Surveillance: Insights From 10.3 Million Individuals in the CANHEART Cohort

BackgroundThe increasing availability of large electronic population-based databases offers unique opportunities to conduct cardiovascular health surveillance traditionally done using surveys. We aimed to examine cardiovascular risk-factor burden, preventive care, and disease incidence among adults in Ontario, Canada—using routinely collected data—and compare estimates with health survey data.MethodsIn the Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team (CANHEART) initiative, multiple health administrative databases were linked to create a population-based cohort of 10.3 million adults without histories of cardiovascular disease. We examined cardiovascular risk-factor burden and screening and outcomes between 2016 and 2020. Risk- factor burden was also compared with cycles 3 to 5 (2012 to 2017) of the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CMHS), which included 9473 participants across Canada.ResultsMean age of our study cohort was 47.9 ± 17.0 years, and 52.0% were women. Lipid and diabetes assessment rates among individuals 40 to 79 years were 76.6% and 78.2%, respectively, and lowest among men 40 to 49 years of age. Total cholesterol levels and diabetes and hypertension rates among men and women 20 to 79 years were similar to Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) findings (total cholesterol: 4.80/4.98 vs 4.94/5.25 mmol/L; diabetes: 8.2%/7.1% vs 8.1%/6.0%; hypertension: 21.4%/21.6% vs 23.9%/23.1%, respectively); however, patients in the CANHEART study had slightly higher mean glucose (men: 5.79 vs 5.44; women: 5.39 vs 5.09 mmol/L) and systolic blood pressures (men: 126.2 vs 118.3; women: 120.6 vs 115.7 mm Hg).ConclusionsCardiovascular health surveillance is possible through linkage of routinely collected electronic population-based datasets. However, further investigation is needed to understand differences between health administrative and survey measures cross-sectionally and over time.     

Prognosis Comparison Between Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Receiving a Finite Course of Tenofovir and Entecavir Treatment: A Nationwide Cohort Study in Taiwan

PurposeEntecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are both recommended as first-line treatments for patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (CHB) infection according to international HBV treatment guidelines. However, recent studies reported conflicting results regarding the preferred antiviral in the prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This cohort study aimed to investigate this issue by using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, wherein a “finite” but not life-long treatment policy was applied.MethodsFrom January 2008 to December 2013, a total of 12,388 consecutive adult patients with CHB who received a finite course of TDF treatment (n = 1250) or ETV treatment (n = 11,138) were analyzed through screening for study eligibility followed by the 1:4 propensity score matching method.FindingsIn the entire cohort, the annual incidence and survival between the ETV and TDF groups were not significantly different regarding HCC occurrence (2.05 vs 2.74 per 100 patient-years [PY]; P = 0.055; hazard ratio [HR], 0.975; log-rank, P = 0.966), cirrhosis-related complications (1.9 vs 2.4 per 100 PY; P = 0.149; HR, 0.869; log-rank, P = 0.388), or all-cause mortality (2.16 vs 1.6 per 100 PY; P = 0.119; HR, 0.831; log-rank, P = 0.342), respectively. Propensity score matching analyses yielded similar results regarding HCC occurrence, cirrhosis-related complications, and all-cause mortality. In addition, these findings were consistently reproduced in the subgroups of patients with chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis that developed before antiviral treatment.ImplicationsETV and TDF did not significantly differ in prevention of HCC occurrence or reduction of cirrhosis-related complications and all-cause mortality in patients with CHB receiving a finite period of treatment.     

Novel pathogenic variants in an Indian cohort with epidermolysis bullosa: Expanding the genotypic spectrum

BackgroundEpidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a genodermatosis characterized by skin fragility and blisters with variable severity. Patients with Dystrophic EB (DEB) or Junctional EB (JEB) mainly present to clinic due to greater functional impairment. Pathogenic sequence variations in COL7A1 are implicated in DEB.ObjectiveWe have tried to decipher the molecular spectrum and genotype phenotype correlation of 21 Indian patients with EB.MethodsNext generation sequencing (NGS) was performed to determine the pathogenic variants. Sanger sequencing was also done for validation of the variants in eleven individuals.ResultsPathogenic variants were detected in 20 individuals (diagnostic yield of 95%). Majority of them (90%) had sequence variation in COL7A1 while two had pathogenic variants in ITGB4 and KRT14 respectively. Out of the 18 patients confirmed to have DEB, 3 had Dominant DEB (DDEB) whereas 15 patients had Recessive DEB (RDEB). Amongst 23 sequence variations identified, 12 were found to be novel (3 were missense, 5 were premature termination codon variants while 4 were splice-site changes).ConclusionGenotype phenotype correlation was noted with milder manifestations in those with dominant inheritance types. Exact molecular diagnosis can be ascertained by NGS in majority of cases.     

Part 4: Value-informed nursing practice depends on nursing innovation

With the adoption of value-based payments which tie reimbursement to patient outcomes and costs, days when nursing is viewed primarily as a cost to hospitals will soon be over. Already the backbone of high-quality care delivery and patient outcomes, nurses are becoming key drivers of health care organizations' financial outcomes, too. The first three articles published in this 6-part series on value-informed nursing practice—practice that considers both the outcomes and the cost of producing the outcomes—described what value-informed nursing practice means, its economic, policy, and ethical impetuses, and how value-informed nursing practice helps improve environmental sustainability of health systems. Here, in Part 4, we focus on the importance of nursing innovation in implementing value-informed nursing practice. We begin by discussing how innovation is connected to value and then examine the false dichotomy, perceived by many, between innovation and evidence-based care. Following this, we examine how health care organizations and systems can support nursing innovation, before concluding with recommendations for nursing educators.