Search

Background: Clinical practice guidelines that help clinicians and patients to understand the magnitude of expected individual risks and benefits would help with patient-centered decision-making and prioritization of care. We assessed the net benefit from taking daily aspirin to estimate the individual and public health implications of a more individualized decision-making approach.Methods and Results: We used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey representing all US persons aged 30 to 85 years with no history of myocardial infarction and applied a Markov model based on randomized evidence and published literature to estimate lifetime effects of aspirin treatment in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We found that treatment benefit varies greatly by an individual's cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Almost all adults have fewer major clinical events on aspirin, but for most, events prevented would be so rare that even a very small distaste for aspirin use would make treatment inappropriate. With minimal dislike of aspirin use (disutility, 0.005 QALY per year), only those with a 10-year cardiac event risk >6.1% would have a net benefit. A disutility of 0.01 QALY moves this benefit cut point to 10.6%. Multiple factors altered the absolute benefit of aspirin, but the strong relationship between CVD risk and magnitude of benefit was robust.Conclusions: The benefits of aspirin therapy depend substantially on an individual's risk of CVD and adverse treatment effects. Understanding who benefits from aspirin use and how much can help clinicians and patients to develop a more patient-centered approach to preventive therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Black Americans with diabetes have a higher burden of illness and mortality than do white Americans. However, the extent to which differences in medical care processes and treatment intensity contribute to poorer diabetes outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess racial disparities in the quality of diabetes care processes, intermediate outcomes, and treatment intensity. METHODS: We conducted an observational study of 801 white and 115 black patients who completed the Diabetes Quality Improvement Project survey (response rate=72%) in 21 Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities using survey data; medical record information on receipt of diabetes services (A1c, low-density lipoprotein [LDL], nephropathy screen, and foot and dilated eye examinations), and intermediate outcomes (glucose control measured by A1c; cholesterol control measured by LDL; and achieved level of blood pressure); and pharmacy data on filled prescriptions. RESULTS: There were no racial differences in receipt of an A1c test or foot examination. Blacks were less likely than whites to have LDL checked in the past 2 years (72% vs. 80%, P<0.05) and to have a dilated eye examination (50% vs. 63%, P<0.01). Even after adjusting for patients' age, education, income, insulin use, diabetes self-management, duration, severity, comorbidities, and health services utilization, racial disparities in receipt of an LDL test and eye examination persisted. After taking into account the nested structure of the data using a random intercepts model, blacks remained significantly less likely to have LDL testing than whites who received care within the same facility (68% vs. 83%, P<0.01). In contrast, there were no longer differences in receipt of eye examinations, suggesting that black patients were more likely to be receiving care at facilities with overall lower rates of eye examinations. After adjusting for patient characteristics and facility effects, black patients were substantially more likely than whites to have poor cholesterol control (LDL > or =130) and blood pressure control (BP > or =140/90 mm Hg) (P<0.01). Among those with poor blood pressure and lipid control, blacks received as intensive treatment as whites for these conditions. CONCLUSIONS: We found racial disparities in some diabetes care process and intermediate outcome quality measures, but not in intensity of treatment for those patients with poor control. Disparities in receipt of eye examinations were the result of black patients being more likely to receive care at lower-performing facilities, whereas for other quality measures, racial disparities within facilities were substantial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: National performance measures monitor the proportion of diabetic patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels >/=130 mg/dL, but such simple intermediate outcomes measure poor control, not necessarily poor care. 'Tightly linked' quality measures define good quality either by a good intermediate outcome (LDL <130 mg/dL) or by evidence of appropriate responses to poor control (eg, starting or optimizing medications for high LDL or not doing so in the face of contraindications). OBJECTIVES: We examined hyperlipidemia therapy for patients with diabetes to determine the relative accuracy of quality assessment using simple intermediate outcome versus tightly linked quality measures. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort. SUBJECTS: A total of 1154 diabetic patients with an LDL test done between October 1, 1998, and March 31, 1999, in 2 large VA facilities. MEASURES: LDL levels, medication treatment, and explanations for poor quality. RESULTS: Although 27% (307 of 1154) of patients had an LDL >/=130 mg/dL using the simple intermediate outcome measure, only 13% (148 of 1154) were classified as having substandard quality using the tightly linked measure. Among the 159 reclassified to adequate quality, 117 had lipid-lowering medication started or increased within 6 months of an LDL >/=130 mg/dL, 8 were already on high-dose medication, 12 had a repeat LDL <130 mg/dL, and 22 had contraindications to treatment. CONCLUSION: Simple intermediate outcome measures can be an inaccurate reflection of true quality of care, and many patients classified as having substandard quality by 'poor control' might actually be receiving good quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]