Characterisation and validation of lactation information from structured electronic health records for use in pharmacoepidemiological studies.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding information stored within electronic health records (EHR) has recently been used for pharmacoepidemiological research, however the data are primarily collected for clinical care. OBJECTIVES: To characterise breastfeeding information recorded in structured fields in EHR during infant and postpartum health care visits, and to assess the validity of lactation status based on EHR data versus maternal report at research study visits. METHODS: We assessed breastfeeding information recorded in structured fields in EHR from one health system for a subset of 211 patients who were also enrolled in a study on breast milk composition between 2014 and 2017 that required participants to exclusively breastfeed their infants until at least 1 month of age. We assessed the frequency of breastfeeding information in EHR during the first 12 months of age and compared lactation status based on EHR with maternal report at 1 and 6-month study visits (reference standard). RESULTS: The median number of breastfeeding records in the EHR per infant was six (interquartile range 3) with most observations clustering in the first few weeks of life and around well-infant visits. At the 6-month study visit, 93.8% of participants were breastfeeding and 80.1% were exclusively breastfeeding according to maternal report. Sensitivity of EHR data for identifying ever breastfeeding was at or near 100%, and sensitivity for identifying ever exclusive breastfeeding was 98.0% (95% CI: 95.0%, 99.2%). Sensitivities were 97.3% (95% CI: 93.9%, 98.9%) for identifying any breastfeeding and 94.4% (95% CI: 89.7%, 97.0%) for exclusive breastfeeding, and positive predictive values were 99.5% (95% CI: 97.0%, 99.9%) for any breastfeeding and 95.0% (95% CI: 90.4%, 97.4%) for exclusive breastfeeding. CONCLUSIONS: Breastfeeding information in structured EHR fields have the potential to accurately classify lactation status. The validity of these data should be assessed in populations with a lower breastfeeding prevalence.

Minnesota Data Sharing May Be Model For Near-Real-Time Tracking Of Drug Overdose Hospital And ED Trends.

The drug overdose epidemic in the US necessitates detailed and timely data to inform public health responses. In this article we describe how an electronic health record (EHR) data-sharing collaboration across health systems in Minnesota that was developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was adapted to monitor trends in substance use-related hospital and emergency department (ED) visits. We found large increases in methamphetamine- and opioid-involved hospital and ED visits. Throughout the study period, Native American, Black, and multiple-race people experienced the highest rates of drug-involved hospital and ED visits. Monitoring drug-involved health care use through EHR data has the potential to help public health officials detect trends in near real time before mortality spikes and may also inform early intervention. The use of EHR data also allows for detailed monitoring of the impact of the drug overdose epidemic across racial and ethnic groups.

Understanding COVID-19 Health Disparities With Birth Country and Language Data.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding of COVID-19-related disparities in the U.S. is largely informed by traditional race/ethnicity categories that mask important social group differences. This analysis utilizes granular information on patients' country of birth and preferred language from a large health system to provide more nuanced insights into health disparities. METHODS: Data from patients seeking care from a large Midwestern health system between January 1, 2019 and July 31, 2021 and COVID-19-related events occurring from March 18, 2020 to July 31, 2021 were used to describe COVID-19 disparities. Statistics were performed between January 1, 2022 and March 15, 2023. Age-adjusted generalized linear models estimated RR across race/ethnicity, country of birth grouping, preferred language, and multiple stratified groups. RESULTS: The majority of the 1,114,895 patients were born in western advanced economies (58.6%). Those who were Hispanic/Latino, were born in Latin America and the Caribbean, and preferred Spanish language had highest RRs of infection and hospitalization. Black-identifying patients born in sub-Saharan African countries had a higher risk of infection than their western advanced economies counterparts. Subanalyses revealed elevated hospitalization and death risk for White-identifying patients from Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Asian-identifying patients from Southeast Asia and the Pacific. All non-English languages had a higher risk of all COVID-19 outcomes, most notably Hmong and languages from Burma/Myanmar. CONCLUSIONS: Stratifications by country of birth grouping and preferred language identified culturally distinct groups whose vulnerability to COVID-19 would have otherwise been masked by traditional racial/ethnic labels. Routine collection of these data is critical for identifying social groups at high risk and for informing linguistically and culturally relevant interventions.

Evaluation of Preferred Language and Timing of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Disease Outcomes.

Importance: Beyond traditional race and ethnicity demographic characteristics, additional discrete data variables are needed for informed health interventions in the US. Objective: To examine whether COVID-19 vaccine uptake patterns and associated disease outcomes differ among language preference groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cohort study of 851 410 individuals aged 18 years or older in a large multispecialty health system in Minnesota and western Wisconsin was conducted between December 15, 2020, and March 31, 2022. Exposure: Self-identified language preference and limited English proficiency (LEP) as measured by interpreter need were used to create subgroups using US census categories and attention to capture languages known to represent refugee groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccination uptake rates and time to first vaccine. Secondary outcomes were rates of COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death. Results: Most of the 851 410 participants (women, 493 910 [58.0%]; median age, 29 [IQR, 35-64] years) were US-born English speakers; 7.5% were born in other countries, 4.0% had a language preference other than English (LPOE), and 3.0% indicated LEP as measured by interpreter need. Marked temporal clusters were observed for COVID-19 vaccination uptake, hospitalizations, and deaths associated with primary series vaccine eligibility, booster availability, and COVID-19 variants. Delayed first-dose vaccine was observed with LPOE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.82-0.84) and interpreter need (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.80-0.82) compared with those with English language preference and proficiency. Patients with LPOE were approximately twice as likely to be hospitalized (rate ratio [RR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.63-2.08) or die (RR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.65-2.69). Patients with LEP experienced even higher rates of hospitalization (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.73-2.25) and COVID-19-associated death (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.79-2.95). Outcomes varied for individual language preference groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, delayed time to first-dose vaccine was associated with increased COVID-19 hospitalization and death rates for specific LPOE and LEP groups. The findings suggest that data collection of language preference and interpreter need provides actionable health intervention information. Standardized system-level data collection, including at a national level, may improve efficient identification of social groups with disproportionate health disparities and provide key information on improving health equity in the US.

Cardiotoxicity associated with bortezomib: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the prevalence of cardiotoxicity associated with bortezomib are limited. We proposed this study to evaluate the prevalence of cardiotoxicity associated with bortezomib and its relation to multiple myeloma and other malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective, chart review study. Subjects who received bortezomib at the HealthEast care system for various oncologic conditions were evaluated after obtaining IRB approval. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients received bortezomib for various malignancies. Nine out of 64 (14%) patients developed cardiotoxicity during treatment with bortezomib, and the majority of these patients had a prior cardiac history and other cardiac risk factors. On further review, we did not find any significant causal relationship between these cardiac events and bortezomib. CONCLUSION: Cardiotoxicity is probably not related to bortezomib, even though there are some case reports suggestive of cardiac events related to bortezomib. Our findings need to be confirmed in multicenter, prospective studies.