OBJECTIVE To examine the association between hearing aids (HAs) and time to diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) or dementia, anxiety or depression, and injurious falls among adults, aged 66 years and older, within 3 years of hearing loss (HL) diagnosis. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. SETTING We used 2008 to 2016 national longitudinal claims data (based on office visit, inpatient, or outpatient healthcare encounters) from a large private payer. We used Kaplan‐Meier curves to examine unadjusted disease‐free survival and crude and adjusted Cox regression models to examine associations between HAs and time to diagnosis of three age‐related/HL‐associated conditions within 3 years of HL diagnosis. All models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, census divisions, and prior diagnosis of cardiovascular conditions, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, and diabetes. PARTICIPANTS The participants included 114 862 adults, aged 66 years and older, diagnosed with HL. MEASUREMENT Diagnosis of (1) AD or dementia; (2) depression or anxiety; and (3) injurious falls. INTERVENTION Use of HAs. RESULTS Large sex and racial/ethnic differences exist in HA use. Approximately 11.3% of women vs 13.3% of men used HAs (95% confidence interval [CI] difference = −0.024 to −0.016). Approximately 13.6% of whites (95% CI = 0.13‐0.14) vs 9.8% of blacks (95% CI = 0.09‐0.11) and 6.5% of Hispanics (95% CI = 0.06‐0.07) used HAs. The risk‐adjusted hazard ratios of being diagnosed with AD/dementia, anxiety/depression, and injurious falls within 3 years after HL diagnosis, for those who used HAs vs those who did not, were 0.82 (95% CI = 0.76‐0.89), 0.89 (95% CI = 0.86‐0.93), and 0.87 (95% CI = 0.80‐0.95), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Use of HAs is associated with delayed diagnosis of AD, dementia, depression, anxiety, and injurious falls among older adults with HL. Although we have shown an association between use of HAs and reduced risk of physical and mental decline, randomized trials are needed to determine whether, and to what extent, the relationship is causal. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2362–2369, 2019

IMPORTANCE Appendicitis may be missed during initial emergency department (ED) presentation.OBJECTIVE To compare patients with a potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis (ie, patients with symptoms associated with appendicitis, including abdominal pain, constipation, nausea and/or vomiting, fever, and diarrhea diagnosed within 1-30 days after initial ED presentation) with patients diagnosed with appendicitis on the same day of ED presentation to identify factors associated with potentially missed appendicitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this cohort study, a retrospective analysis of commercially insured claims data was conducted from January 1 to December 15, 2019. Patients who presented to the ED with undifferentiated symptoms associated with appendicitis between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were identified using the Clinformatics Data Mart administrative database (Optum Insights). The study sample comprised eligible adults (aged Ն18 years) and children (aged <18 years) who had previous ED visits within 30 days of an appendicitis diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPotentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for abdominal pain and its combinations with other symptoms associated with appendicitis were compared between patients with a same-day diagnosis of appendicitis and patients with a potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis. RESULTSOf 187 461 patients with a diagnosis of appendicitis, a total of 123 711 (66%; 101 375 adults [81.9%] and 22 336 children [18.1%]) were eligible for analysis. Among adults, 51 923 (51.2%) were women, with a mean (SD) age of 44.3 (18.2) years; among children, 9631 (43.1%) were girls, with a mean (SD) age of 12.2 (18.2) years. The frequency of potentially missed appendicitis was 6060 of 101 375 adults (6.0%) and 973 of 22 336 children (4.4%). Patients with isolated abdominal pain (adults, AOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62-0.69; P < .001; children, AOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90; P < .001) or with abdominal pain and nausea and/or vomiting (adults, AOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; P = .003; children, AOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; P = .03) were less likely to have missed appendicitis. Patients with abdominal pain and constipation (adults, AOR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.31-1.75; P < .001; children, AOR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.86-3.17; P < .001) were more likely to have missed appendicitis. Stratified by the presence of undifferentiated symptoms, women (abdominal pain, AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.58-1.78; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.52-1.85; fever, AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; diarrhea, AOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.40; and constipation, AOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.24-1.82) and girls (abdominal pain, AOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.43-1.88; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.42-2.13; fever, AOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.14-2.11; diarrhea, AOR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.19-2.74; and constipation, AOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.88-1.78) as well as patients with a comorbidity index of 2 or greater (adults, abdominal pain, AOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 3.09-3.60; nausea and/or vomiting, AOR, 3.66; 95% CI, ...

Aim To validate the Whitney Comorbidity Index (WCI), which was recently developed to monitor disease status for adults with cerebral palsy (CP), and to identify WCI scores associated with an increased mortality risk using a representative sample of adults with CP. Method Data from 2016 to 2018 were used from a random 20% sample from the fee‐for‐service Medicare database for this retrospective cohort study. The WCI was examined as unweighted (WCIunw) and weighted (WCIw) among adults at least 18 years old with CP. Cox regression models were developed with mortality as the outcome after adjusting for demographics. A concordance statistic (C‐statistic) of at least 0.70 was considered as showing sufficient validity. The hazard ratio of mortality for each WCI score was estimated. Secondary analyses were performed for subgroups with co‐occurring epilepsy and/or intellectual disabilities. Results For the entire group (n=16 728) and subgroups, the WCI showed sufficient validity (C‐statistic 0.73–0.81). For the entire group, the mortality rate was elevated for a score of 1 compared with 0 from the WCIunw (hazard ratio 3.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.52–6.17) and WCIw (hazard ratio 4.08; 95% CI 1.69–9.85), and became larger with each WCI score. Results were similar for the subgroups. Interpretation The WCI is a valid marker for health/disease status for adults with CP. Several WCI score thresholds were identified to assist in clinical decision making for preventive medicine and intervention implementation. The Whitney Comorbidity Index (WCI) is valid among 16 728 adults with CP. The WCI is valid for those with co‐occurring epilepsy and/or intellectual disabilities. Thresholds of the WCI score were identified to assist clinical decision making.

We evaluated whether rotavirus vaccination is associated with the incidence of type 1 diabetes among children. We designed a cohort study of 1,474,535 infants in the United States from 2001–2017, using data from a nationwide health insurer. There was a 33% reduction in the risk of type 1 diabetes with completion of the rotavirus vaccine series compared to the unvaccinated (95% CI: 17%, 46%). Completion of the pentavalent vaccine series was associated with 37% lower risk of type 1 diabetes (95% CI: 22%, 50%). Partial vaccination (incompletion of the series) was not associated with the incidence of type 1 diabetes. There was a 31% reduction in hospitalizations in the 60-day period after vaccination (95% CI: 27%, 35%) compared to unvaccinated children. Overall, there was a 3.4% decrease in incidence annually in children ages 0–4 in the United States from 2006–2017 which coincides with the vaccine introduction in 2006. We conclude that rotavirus vaccination is associated with a reduced incidence of type 1 diabetes. Rotavirus vaccination may be the first practical measure that could play a role in the prevention of this disease.

Objective:To determine the influence of delivery hospital on the rate of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC).Study Design:This retrospective cohort study used claims data from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. Women with a prior cesarean and a singleton livebirth between 2012 and 2016 were included. We calculated the hospital-specific risk-standardized VBAC rates and median odds ratio as a measure of variation.Result:Hospital-level adjusted rates varied nearly 10-fold (3.7%-35.5%). Compared to the lowest volume hospitals (1st quartile), the likelihood of VBAC increased for those in the 2nd (adjusted OR 2.75 [95% CI 1.23-6.17]), 3rd (adjusted OR 3.73 [95% CI 1.59-8.75]), and 4th quartiles (adjusted OR 2.9 [95% CI 1.11-7.72]). The median OR suggested significant variation by hospital after adjustment.Conclusion:The delivery hospital itself explains a large amount of the variation in rates of VBAC after adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics.