ObjectiveTo quantify the effects of varying opioid prescribing patterns after surgery on dependence, overdose, or abuse in an opioid naive population.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingSurgical claims from a linked medical and pharmacy administrative database of 37 651 619 commercially insured patients between 2008 and 2016.Participants1 015 116 opioid naive patients undergoing surgery.Main outcome measuresUse of oral opioids after discharge as defined by refills and total dosage and duration of use. The primary outcome was a composite of misuse identified by a diagnostic code for opioid dependence, abuse, or overdose.Results568 612 (56.0%) patients received postoperative opioids, and a code for abuse was identified for 5906 patients (0.6%, 183 per 100 000 person years). Total duration of opioid use was the strongest predictor of misuse, with each refill and additional week of opioid use associated with an adjusted increase in the rate of misuse of 44.0% (95% confidence interval 40.8% to 47.2%, P<0.001), and 19.9% increase in hazard (18.5% to 21.4%, P<0.001), respectively.ConclusionsEach refill and week of opioid prescription is associated with a large increase in opioid misuse among opioid naive patients. The data from this study suggest that duration of the prescription rather than dosage is more strongly associated with ultimate misuse in the early postsurgical period. The analysis quantifies the association of prescribing choices on opioid misuse and identifies levers for possible impact.

Only 7 procedures account for most admissions, deaths, complications, and inpatient costs attributable to the 512 079 EGS procedures performed in the United States each year. National quality benchmarks and cost reduction efforts should focus on these common, complicated, and costly EGS procedures.

We leveraged the largely untapped resource of electronic health record data to address critical clinical and epidemiological questions about Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). To do this, we formed an international consortium (4CE) of 96 hospitals across five countries (www.covidclinical.net). Contributors utilized the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) or Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) platforms to map to a common data model. The group focused on temporal changes in key laboratory test values. Harmonized data were analyzed locally and converted to a shared aggregate form for rapid analysis and visualization of regional differences and global commonalities. Data covered 27,584 COVID-19 cases with 187,802 laboratory tests. Case counts and laboratory trajectories were concordant with existing literature. Laboratory tests at the time of diagnosis showed hospital-level differences equivalent to country-level variation across the consortium partners. Despite the limitations of decentralized data generation, we established a framework to capture the trajectory of COVID-19 disease in patients and their response to interventions.

No abstract

Many surgeries are complicated by the need to anastomose, or reconnect, micron-scale vessels. Although suturing remains the gold standard for anastomosing vessels, it is difficult to place sutures correctly through collapsed lumen, making the procedure prone to failure. Here, we report a multi-phase transitioning peptide hydrogel that can be injected into the lumen of vessels to facilitate suturing. The peptide, which contains a photocaged glutamic acid, forms a solid-like gel in a syringe and can be shear-thin delivered to the lumen of collapsed vessels (where it distends the vessel), and the space between two vessels (where it is used to approximate the vessel ends). Suturing is performed directly through the gel. Light is used to initiate the final gel-sol phase transition that disrupts the hydrogel network, allowing the gel to be removed and blood flow to resume. This gel adds a new tool to the armamentarium for micro- and supermicrosurgical procedures.

The growth in healthcare spending is an important topic in the United States, and preterm and low-birthweight infants have some of the highest healthcare expenditures of any patient population. We performed a retrospective cohort study of spending in this population using a large, national claims database of commercially insured individuals. A total of 763,566 infants with insurance coverage through Aetna, Inc. for the first 6 months of post-natal life were included, and received approximately $8.4 billion (2016 USD) in healthcare services. Infants with billing codes indicating preterm status (<37 weeks, n = 50,511) incurred medical expenditures of $76,153 on average, while low-birthweight status (<2500 g) was associated with average spending of $114,437. Infants born at 24 weeks gestation (n = 418) had the highest per infant average expenditures of $603,778. Understanding the drivers of variation in costs within gestational age and birthweight bands is an important target for future studies.

In recent years, the number of digital health tools with the potential to significantly improve delivery of healthcare services has grown tremendously. However, the use of these tools in large, complex health systems remains comparatively limited. The adoption and implementation of digital health tools at an enterprise level is a challenge; few strategies exist to help tools cross the chasm from clinical validation to integration within the workflows of a large health system. Many previously proposed frameworks for digital health implementation are difficult to operationalize in these dynamic organizations. In this piece, we put forth nine dimensions along which clinically validated digital health tools should be examined by health systems prior to adoption, and propose strategies for selecting digital health tools and planning for implementation in this setting. By evaluating prospective tools along these dimensions, health systems can evaluate which existing digital health solutions are worthy of adoption, ensure they have sufficient resources for deployment and long-term use, and devise a strategic plan for implementation.

Coincident with the tsunami of COVID-19–related publications, there has been a surge of studies using real-world data, including those obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). Unfortunately, several of these high-profile publications were retracted because of concerns regarding the soundness and quality of the studies and the EHR data they purported to analyze. These retractions highlight that although a small community of EHR informatics experts can readily identify strengths and flaws in EHR-derived studies, many medical editorial teams and otherwise sophisticated medical readers lack the framework to fully critically appraise these studies. In addition, conventional statistical analyses cannot overcome the need for an understanding of the opportunities and limitations of EHR-derived studies. We distill here from the broader informatics literature six key considerations that are crucial for appraising studies utilizing EHR data: data completeness, data collection and handling (eg, transformation), data type (ie, codified, textual), robustness of methods against EHR variability (within and across institutions, countries, and time), transparency of data and analytic code, and the multidisciplinary approach. These considerations will inform researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders as to the recommended best practices in reviewing manuscripts, grants, and other outputs from EHR-data derived studies, and thereby promote and foster rigor, quality, and reliability of this rapidly growing field.