Lindsey B De Lott1,2, Chun Chieh Lin1,2, James F Burke1,2, Beth Wallace2,3,4, Daniel Saukkonen1, Akbar K Waljee2,3,4, Kevin A Kerber1,2. 1. Department of Neurology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 4. VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Acute optic neuritis (ON) is variably treated with glucocorticoids. We aimed to describe factors associated with glucocorticoid use. METHODS: In this retrospective, longitudinal cohort study of insured patients in the United States (2005-2019), adults 18-50 years old with one inpatient or ≥2 outpatient diagnoses of ON within 90 days were included. Glucocorticoid use was classified as none, any dose, and high-dose (>100 mg prednisone equivalent ≥1 days). The primary outcome was glucocorticoid receipt within 90 days of the first ON diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the relationship between glucocorticoid use and sociodemographics, comorbidities, clinician specialty, visit number, and year. RESULTS: Of 3026 people with ON, 65.8% were women (n = 1991), median age (interquartile range) was 38 years (31,44), and 68.6% were white (n = 2075). Glucocorticoids were received by 46% (n = 1385); 54.6% (n = 760/1385) of whom received high-dose. The odds of receiving glucocorticoids were higher among patients with multiple sclerosis (OR 1.61 [95%CI 1.28-2.04]; P < .001), MRI (OR 1.75 [95%CI 1.09-2.80]; P = .02), 3 (OR 1.80 [95%CI 1.46-2.22]; P < .001) or more (OR 4.08 [95%CI 3.37-4.95]; P < .001) outpatient ON visits, and in certain regions. Compared to ophthalmologists, patients diagnosed by neurologists (OR 1.36 [95%CI: 1.10-1.69], p = .005), emergency medicine (OR 3.97 [95%CI: 2.66-5.94]; P < .001) or inpatient clinicians (OR 2.94 [95%CI: 2.22-3.90]; P < .001) had higher odds of receiving glucocorticoids. Use increased 1.1% annually (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Demyelinating disease, care intensity, setting, region, and clinician type were associated with glucocorticoid use for ON. To optimize care, future studies should explore reasons for ON care variation, and patient/clinician preferences.
PURPOSE: Acute optic neuritis (ON) is variably treated with glucocorticoids. We aimed to describe factors associated with glucocorticoid use. METHODS: In this retrospective, longitudinal cohort study of insured patients in the United States (2005-2019), adults 18-50 years old with one inpatient or ≥2 outpatient diagnoses of ON within 90 days were included. Glucocorticoid use was classified as none, any dose, and high-dose (>100 mg prednisone equivalent ≥1 days). The primary outcome was glucocorticoid receipt within 90 days of the first ON diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the relationship between glucocorticoid use and sociodemographics, comorbidities, clinician specialty, visit number, and year. RESULTS: Of 3026 people with ON, 65.8% were women (n = 1991), median age (interquartile range) was 38 years (31,44), and 68.6% were white (n = 2075). Glucocorticoids were received by 46% (n = 1385); 54.6% (n = 760/1385) of whom received high-dose. The odds of receiving glucocorticoids were higher among patients with multiple sclerosis (OR 1.61 [95%CI 1.28-2.04]; P < .001), MRI (OR 1.75 [95%CI 1.09-2.80]; P = .02), 3 (OR 1.80 [95%CI 1.46-2.22]; P < .001) or more (OR 4.08 [95%CI 3.37-4.95]; P < .001) outpatient ON visits, and in certain regions. Compared to ophthalmologists, patients diagnosed by neurologists (OR 1.36 [95%CI: 1.10-1.69], p = .005), emergency medicine (OR 3.97 [95%CI: 2.66-5.94]; P < .001) or inpatient clinicians (OR 2.94 [95%CI: 2.22-3.90]; P < .001) had higher odds of receiving glucocorticoids. Use increased 1.1% annually (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Demyelinating disease, care intensity, setting, region, and clinician type were associated with glucocorticoid use for ON. To optimize care, future studies should explore reasons for ON care variation, and patient/clinician preferences.
Authors: Ruth Ann Marrie; Okechukwu Ekuma; José M A Wijnands; Elaine Kingwell; Feng Zhu; Yinshan Zhao; John D Fisk; Charity Evans; Helen Tremlett Journal: Mult Scler Relat Disord Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: R W Beck; P A Cleary; M M Anderson; J L Keltner; W T Shults; D I Kaufman; E G Buckley; J J Corbett; M J Kupersmith; N R Miller Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1992-02-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mohamed B Hassan; Caroline Stern; Eoin P Flanagan; Sean J Pittock; Amy Kunchok; Robert C Foster; Jiraporn Jitprapaikulsan; David O Hodge; M Tariq Bhatti; John J Chen Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Akbar K Waljee; Mary A M Rogers; Paul Lin; Amit G Singal; Joshua D Stein; Rory M Marks; John Z Ayanian; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-04-12