veterans affairs
Recently Published Documents

Abstract Background The US Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system began reporting risk-adjusted mortality for intensive care (ICU) admissions in 2005. However, while the VA’s mortality model has been updated and adapted for risk-adjustment of all inpatient hospitalizations, recent model performance has not been published. We sought to assess the current performance of VA’s 4 standardized mortality models: acute care 30-day mortality (acute care SMR-30); ICU 30-day mortality (ICU SMR-30); acute care in-hospital mortality (acute care SMR); and ICU in-hospital mortality (ICU SMR). Methods Retrospective cohort study with split derivation and validation samples. Standardized mortality models were fit using derivation data, with coefficients applied to the validation sample. Nationwide VA hospitalizations that met model inclusion criteria during fiscal years 2017–2018(derivation) and 2019 (validation) were included. Model performance was evaluated using c-statistics to assess discrimination and comparison of observed versus predicted deaths to assess calibration. Results Among 1,143,351 hospitalizations eligible for the acute care SMR-30 during 2017–2019, in-hospital mortality was 1.8%, and 30-day mortality was 4.3%. C-statistics for the SMR models in validation data were 0.870 (acute care SMR-30); 0.864 (ICU SMR-30); 0.914 (acute care SMR); and 0.887 (ICU SMR). There were 16,036 deaths (4.29% mortality) in the SMR-30 validation cohort versus 17,458 predicted deaths (4.67%), reflecting 0.38% over-prediction. Across deciles of predicted risk, the absolute difference in observed versus predicted percent mortality was a mean of 0.38%, with a maximum error of 1.81% seen in the highest-risk decile. Conclusions and Relevance The VA’s SMR models, which incorporate patient physiology on presentation, are highly predictive and demonstrate good calibration both overall and across risk deciles. The current SMR models perform similarly to the initial ICU SMR model, indicating appropriate adaption and re-calibration.

<i>Objective:</i> There is mounting evidence regarding the cardiovascular (CV) benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2-Is) and glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). There is paucity of data assessing real-world practice patterns for these drug classes. We aimed to assess utilization rates of these drug classes and facility-level variation in their utilization. <p> </p> <p><i>Research Design and Methods:</i> We used the nationwide Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system dataset from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 and included patients with established ASCVD and T2DM. Among these patients, we assessed the use of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA and the facility-level variation in their utilization. Facility-level variation was computed using median rate ratios (MRR), a measure of likelihood that two random facilities differ in use of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA in patients with ASCVD and T2DM. </p> <p> </p> <p><i>Results:</i> Among 537,980 patients with ASCVD and T2DM across 130 VA facilities, 11.2% of patients received SGLT2i while 8.0% of patients received GLP-1RA. Patients receiving these cardioprotective glucose-lowering drug classes were on average younger and had a higher proportion of non-Hispanic Whites. Overall, median (10^th-90^th percentile) facility-level rates were 14.92% (9.31%-22.50%) for SGLT2i and 10.88% (4.44%-17.07%) for GLP-1RA. There was significant facility level variation among SGLT2-Is utilization - MRR_unadjusted (95% CI):1.41 (1.35-1.47) and MRR_adjusted (95% CI): 1.55 (1.46 – 1.63). Similar facility level variation was observed for utilization of GLP-1 RA – MRR_unadjusted (95% CI):1.34 (1.29-1.38) and MRR_adjusted(95% CI): 1.78 (1.65 – 1.90).</p> <p> </p> <p><i>Conclusions:</i> Overall utilization rates of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA among eligible patients are low with significantly higher residual facility-level variation in utilization of these drug classes. Our results suggest opportunities to optimize their use to prevent future adverse cardiovascular events among these patients. </p>

<i>Objective:</i> There is mounting evidence regarding the cardiovascular (CV) benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2-Is) and glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). There is paucity of data assessing real-world practice patterns for these drug classes. We aimed to assess utilization rates of these drug classes and facility-level variation in their utilization. <p> </p> <p><i>Research Design and Methods:</i> We used the nationwide Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system dataset from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 and included patients with established ASCVD and T2DM. Among these patients, we assessed the use of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA and the facility-level variation in their utilization. Facility-level variation was computed using median rate ratios (MRR), a measure of likelihood that two random facilities differ in use of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA in patients with ASCVD and T2DM. </p> <p> </p> <p><i>Results:</i> Among 537,980 patients with ASCVD and T2DM across 130 VA facilities, 11.2% of patients received SGLT2i while 8.0% of patients received GLP-1RA. Patients receiving these cardioprotective glucose-lowering drug classes were on average younger and had a higher proportion of non-Hispanic Whites. Overall, median (10^th-90^th percentile) facility-level rates were 14.92% (9.31%-22.50%) for SGLT2i and 10.88% (4.44%-17.07%) for GLP-1RA. There was significant facility level variation among SGLT2-Is utilization - MRR_unadjusted (95% CI):1.41 (1.35-1.47) and MRR_adjusted (95% CI): 1.55 (1.46 – 1.63). Similar facility level variation was observed for utilization of GLP-1 RA – MRR_unadjusted (95% CI):1.34 (1.29-1.38) and MRR_adjusted(95% CI): 1.78 (1.65 – 1.90).</p> <p> </p> <p><i>Conclusions:</i> Overall utilization rates of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA among eligible patients are low with significantly higher residual facility-level variation in utilization of these drug classes. Our results suggest opportunities to optimize their use to prevent future adverse cardiovascular events among these patients. </p>

OBJECTIVE There is mounting evidence regarding the cardiovascular benefits of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-Is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). There is paucity of data assessing real-world practice patterns for these drug classes. We aimed to assess utilization rates of these drug classes and facility-level variation in their use. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used the nationwide Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system data set from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020 and included patients with established ASCVD and T2DM. Among these patients, we assessed the use of SGLT2-I and GLP-1 RA and the facility-level variation in their use. Facility-level variation was computed using median rate ratios (MRR), a measure of likelihood that two random facilities differ in use of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA in patients with ASCVD and T2DM. RESULTS Among 537,980 patients with ASCVD and T2DM across 130 VA facilities, 11.2% of patients received an SGLT2i while 8.0% of patients received a GLP-1 RA. Patients receiving these cardioprotective glucose-lowering drug classes were on average younger and had a higher proportion of non-Hispanic Whites. Overall, median (10th–90th percentile) facility-level rates were 14.92% (9.31–22.50) for SGLT2i and 10.88% (4.44–17.07) for GLP-1 RA. There was significant facility-level variation among SGLT2-Is use—MRRunadjusted: 1.41 (95% CI 1.35–1.47) and MRRadjusted: 1.55 (95% CI 1.46 –1.63). Similar facility-level variation was observed for use of GLP-1 RA—MRRunadjusted: 1.34 (95% CI 1.29–1.38) and MRRadjusted: 1.78 (95% CI1.65–1.90). CONCLUSIONS Overall utilization rates of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA among eligible patients are low, with significantly higher residual facility-level variation in the use of these drug classes. Our results suggest opportunities to optimize their use to prevent future adverse cardiovascular events among these patients.

Abstract Objectives: To assess the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria (R-GNB) among patients without recent hospitalization and to examine the influence of outpatient antibiotic exposure on the risk of acquiring R-GNB in this population. Design: 2-year retrospective cohort study. Setting: Regional Veterans Affairs healthcare system. Patients: Outpatients at 13 community-based clinics. Methods: We examined the rate of acquisition of R-GNB within 90 days following an outpatient visit from 2018 to 2019. We used clinical and administrative databases to determine and summarize prescriptions for systemic antibiotics, associated infectious diagnoses, and subsequent R-GNB acquisition among patients without recent hospitalizations. We also calculated the odds ratio of R-GNB acquisition following antibiotic exposure. Results: During the 2-year study period, 7,215 patients had outpatient visits with microbiological cultures obtained within 90 days. Of these patients, 206 (2.9%) acquired an R-GNB. Among patients receiving antibiotics at the visit, 4.6% acquired a R-GNB compared to 2.7% among patients who did not receive antibiotics, yielding an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.18–2.52) for a R-GNB following an outpatient visit with versus without an antibiotic exposure. Regardless of R-GNB occurrence, >50% of antibiotic prescriptions were issued at visits without an infectious disease diagnosis or issued without documentation of an in-person or telehealth clinical encounter. Conclusions: Although the rate of R-GNBs was low (2.9%), the 1.75-fold increased odds of acquiring a R-GNB following an outpatient antibiotic highlights the importance of antimicrobial stewardship efforts in outpatient settings. Specific opportunities include reducing antibiotics prescribed without an infectious diagnosis or a clinical visit.