Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
JAMIA Open ; 5(4): ooac103, 2022 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2189222

RESUMEN

Objective: In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) rapidly expanded virtual care (defined as care delivered by video and phone), raising concerns about technology access disparities (ie, the digital divide). Virtual care was somewhat established in primary care and mental health care prepandemic, but video telehealth implementation was new for most subspecialties, including cardiology. We sought to identify patient characteristics of virtual and video-based care users in VA cardiology clinics nationally during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: Cohort study of Veteran patients across all VA facilities with a cardiology visit January 1, 2019-March 10, 2020, with follow-up January 1, 2019-March 10, 2021. Main measures included cardiology visits by visit type and likelihood of receiving cardiology-related virtual care, calculated with a repeated event survival model. Results: 416 587 Veterans with 1 689 595 total cardiology visits were analyzed; average patient age was 69.6 years and 4.3% were female. Virtual cardiology care expanded dramatically early in the COVID-19 pandemic from 5% to 70% of encounters. Older, lower-income, and rural-dwelling Veterans and those experiencing homelessness were less likely to use video care (adjusted hazard ratio for ages 75 and older 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.86; for highly rural residents 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87; for low-income status 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.98; for homeless Veterans 0.85, 95% CI 0.80-0.92). Conclusion: The pandemic worsened the digital divide for cardiology care for many vulnerable patients to the extent that video visits represent added value over phone visits. Targeted interventions may be necessary for equity in COVID-19-era access to virtual cardiology care.

2.
Am Heart J Plus ; 22: 100210, 2022 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2031078

RESUMEN

This study aims to evaluate trends in guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with recent-onset heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic using an interrupted time series analysis in the Veteran's Affairs Healthcare System. Among 71,428 patients with recent-onset HFrEF between 1/1/2018 and 2/28/2021, we found the pandemic was not associated with differences in treatment rates for beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; there was a 2.6 % absolute decrease (95 % CI: 0.5 %-4.7 %) in ARNI rates in April 2020; which decreased over the pandemic. Despite the changes to healthcare delivery, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with minimal changes in GDMT rates among patients with recent-onset HFrEF.

3.
J Card Fail ; 28(3): 453-466, 2022 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1850744

RESUMEN

The cost of heart failure care is high owing to the cost of hospitalization and chronic treatments. Heart failure treatments vary in their benefit and cost. The cost effectiveness of therapies can be determined by comparing the cost of treatment required to obtain a certain benefit, often defined as an increase in 1 year of life. This review was sponsored by the Heart Failure Society of America and describes the growing economic burden of heart failure for patients and the health care system in the United States. It also provides a summary of the cost effectiveness of drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, hospital care, and transitions of care for patients with heart failure. Many medications that are no longer under patent are inexpensive and highly cost-effective. These include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. In contrast, more recently developed medications and devices, vary in cost effectiveness, and often have high out-of-pocket costs for patients.


Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/uso terapéutico , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de la Enzima Convertidora de Angiotensina/uso terapéutico , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/epidemiología , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Hospitalización , Humanos , Antagonistas de Receptores de Mineralocorticoides/uso terapéutico , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
4.
J Gen Intern Med ; 36(12): 3802-3809, 2021 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1446213

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There are theoretical concerns that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could increase the risk of severe Covid-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine if ACEIs and ARBs are associated with an increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization overall, or hospitalization involving intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. DESIGN: Observational case-control study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 66 years with hypertension, treated with ACEIs, ARBs, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), or thiazide diuretics. MAIN MEASURES: Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the outcomes of Covid-19 hospitalization, or hospitalization involving ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. RESULTS: A total of 35,300 cases of hospitalized Covid-19 were matched to 228,228 controls on calendar date and neighborhood of residence. The median age of cases was 79 years, 57.4% were female, and the median duration of hospitalization was 8 days (interquartile range 5-12). ACEIs and ARBs were associated with a slight reduction in Covid-19 hospitalization risk compared with treatment with other first-line antihypertensives (OR for ACEIs 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98; OR for ARBs 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.97). Similar results were obtained for hospitalizations involving ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. There were no meaningful differences in risk for ACEIs compared with ARBs. In an analysis restricted to monotherapy with a first-line agent, CCBs were associated with a small increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization compared with ACEIs (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.14), ARBs (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15), or thiazide diuretics (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: ACEIs and ARBs were not associated with an increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization or with hospitalization involving ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. The finding of a small increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization with CCBs was unexpected and could be due to residual confounding.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Hipertensión , Anciano , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina , Inhibidores de la Enzima Convertidora de Angiotensina/uso terapéutico , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Femenino , Hospitalización , Humanos , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipertensión/epidemiología , Medicare , Sistema Renina-Angiotensina , SARS-CoV-2 , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
5.
Am Heart J ; 240: 46-57, 2021 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1316364

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are known to impact the functional receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The association between chronic therapy with these medications and infection risk remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine the association between prior ACEI or ARB therapy and SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with hypertension in the U.S. Veteran's Affairs health system. METHODS: We compared the odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection among three groups: patients treated with ACEI, treated with ARB, or treated with alternate first-line anti-hypertensives without ACEI/ARB. We excluded patients with alternate indications for ACEI or ARB therapy. We performed an augmented inverse propensity weighted analysis with adjustment for demographics, region, comorbidities, vitals, and laboratory values. RESULTS: Among 1,724,723 patients with treated hypertension, 659,180 were treated with ACEI, 310,651 with ARB, and 754,892 with neither. Before weighting, patients treated with ACEI or ARB were more likely to be diabetic and use more anti-hypertensives. There were 13,278 SARS-CoV-2 infections (0.8%) between February 12, 2020 and August 19, 2020. Patients treated with ACEI had lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% CI: 0.89-0.97) while those treated with ARB had similar odds (OR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.96-1.07) compared with patients treated with alternate first-line anti-hypertensives without ACEI/ARB. In falsification analyses, patients on ACEI did not have a difference in their odds of unrelated outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the safety of continuing ACEI and ARB therapy. The association between ACEI therapy and lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection requires further investigation.


Asunto(s)
Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de la Enzima Convertidora de Angiotensina/uso terapéutico , Antihipertensivos/uso terapéutico , COVID-19/epidemiología , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Sistema Renina-Angiotensina/efectos de los fármacos , Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/uso terapéutico , Anciano , Bloqueadores del Receptor Tipo 2 de Angiotensina II , Bloqueadores de los Canales de Calcio/uso terapéutico , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Comorbilidad , Intervalos de Confianza , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oportunidad Relativa , Puntaje de Propensión , Receptores Virales , SARS-CoV-2 , Inhibidores de los Simportadores del Cloruro de Sodio/uso terapéutico , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , United States Department of Veterans Affairs , Veteranos/estadística & datos numéricos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA