Search

Neurocognitive impairment and metabolic syndrome (MetS) are prevalent in persons with HIV (PWH). We examined disparities in HIV-associated neurocognitive function between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White older PWH, and the role of MetS in explaining these disparities. Participants included 116 community-dwelling PWH aged 50–75 years enrolled in a cohort study in southern California [58 Hispanic (53% Spanish speaking) and 58 age-comparable non-Hispanic White; overall group: age: M = 57.9, standard deviation (SD) = 5.7; education (years): M = 13, SD = 3.4; 83% male, 58% AIDS, 94% on antiretroviral therapy]. Global neurocognition was derived from T-scores adjusted for demographics (age, education, sex, ethnicity, language) on a battery of 10 cognitive tests. MetS was ascertained via standard criteria that considered central obesity, and fasting elevated triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and elevated glucose, or medical treatment for these conditions. Covariates examined included sociodemographic, psychiatric, substance use and HIV disease characteristics. Compared with non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics showed worse global neurocognitive function (Cohen's d = 0.56, p < 0.05) and had higher rates of MetS (38% vs. 56%, p < 0.05). A stepwise regression model including ethnicity and significant covariates showed Hispanic ethnicity was the sole significant predictor of worse global neurocognition (B = −3.82, SE = 1.27, p < 0.01). A model also including MetS showed that both Hispanic ethnicity (B = −3.39, SE = 1.31, p = 0.01) and MetS (B = −2.73, SE = 1.31, p = 0.04) were independently associated with worse neurocognition. In conclusion, findings indicate that increased MetS is associated with worse neurocognitive function in both Hispanic and non-Hispanic White older PWH, but does not explain neurocognitive disparities. MetS remains an important target for intervention efforts to ameliorate neurocognitive dysfunction among diverse older PWH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution. Methods: Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs. Results: 298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031). Conclusions: Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]