Search

Background: The ability of latent class models to identify clinically distinct groups among high-risk patients has been demonstrated, but it is unclear how healthcare data can inform group-specific intervention design.Objective: Examine how utilization patterns across latent groups of high-risk patients provide actionable information to guide group-specific intervention design.Design: Cohort study using data from 2012 to 2015.Patients: Participants were 934,787 patients receiving primary care in the Veterans Health Administration, with predicted probability of 12-month hospitalization in the top 10th percentile during 2014.Main Measures: Patients were assigned to latent groups via mixture-item response theory models based on 28 chronic conditions. We modeled odds of all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, and 30-day re-hospitalizations by group membership. Detailed outpatient and inpatient utilization patterns were compared between groups.Key Results: A total of 764,257 (81.8%) of patients were matched with a comorbidity group. Groups were characterized by substance use disorders (14.0% of patients assigned), cardiometabolic conditions (25.7%), mental health conditions (17.6%), pain/arthritis (19.1%), cancer (15.3%), and liver disease (8.3%). One-year mortality ranged from 2.7% in the Mental Health group to 14.9% in the Cancer group, compared to 8.5% overall. In adjusted models, group assignment predicted significantly different odds of each outcome. Groups differed in their utilization of multiple types of care. For example, patients in the Pain group had the highest utilization of in-person primary care, with a mean (SD) of 5.3 (5.0) visits in the year of follow-up, while the Substance Use Disorder group had the lowest, with 3.9 (4.1) visits. The Substance Use Disorder group also had the highest rates of using services for housing instability (25.1%), followed by the Liver group (10.1%).Conclusions: Latent groups of high-risk patients had distinct hospitalization and utilization profiles, despite having comparable levels of predicted baseline risk. Utilization profiles pointed towards system-specific care needs that could inform tailored interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bridging anticoagulation is commonly prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation during initiation and interruption of warfarin. Guidelines recommend bridging patients at high risk of stroke, while a recent randomized trial demonstrated overall harm in a population at comparatively low risk of ischemic stroke. Theory suggests that patients at high risk of stroke and low risk of hemorrhage may benefit from bridging, but data informing patient selection are scant.Objective: To estimate the utility and cost-effectiveness of bridging anticoagulation among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, stratified by thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis with lifelong time horizon, from the perspective of a third-party payer MAIN MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per bridged patient; US dollars per QALY gained KEY RESULTS: Unselected patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation may be harmed by bridging anticoagulation. Hospital admission for bridging is almost never cost-effective, and generally harmful. Among patients carefully selected by both thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risks, outpatient bridging can be beneficial and cost-effective. Results were sensitive to how effectively heparin products reduce stroke risk.Conclusions: Outpatient bridging anticoagulation can be beneficial and cost-effective for a subset of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation during interruption or initiation of warfarin. Admission for bridging should be avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bridging anticoagulation is commonly prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation who are initiating warfarin or require interruption of anticoagulation. Current guidelines recommend bridging for patients at high risk of stroke. Among patients with atrial fibrillation and one or more risk factors for ischemic stroke, the recently published BRIDGE trial found forgoing bridging during interruption to be, on average, noninferior to bridging with respect to ischemic complications, with significantly fewer hemorrhagic complications.Objective: We sought to examine the benefits and harms of bridging anticoagulation across the spectrum of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke risk and thereby enable more nuanced, risk-stratified decision-making when bridging is considered during initiation or interruption of vitamin K antagonists.Design: A Monte Carlo simulation, using a combination of literature-derived estimates, registry data, and trial data.Main Measures: Net clinical benefit, weighting for ischemic strokes, intracranial hemorrhages, and extracranial major hemorrhages.Key Results: The benefits and harms of bridging anticoagulation vary according to underlying patient risk profiles for both thromboembolic stroke and major intracranial bleeding. Patients at high risk of ischemic stroke and low risk of hemorrhage derive benefit from bridging during initiation or interruption of warfarin therapy. Patients at similarly high or low risk of both outcomes may receive benefit from bridging during initiation and bridging during interruption, but this was sensitive to underlying assumptions. The need for stratification along both axes of risk was robust to a wide range of parameters.Conclusions: Bridging anticoagulation may provide benefit to patients at high risk of ischemic stroke and low risk of intracranial hemorrhage who are initiating or interrupting warfarin therapy, while patients at high or low risk of both complications may be harmed. The use of bridging anticoagulation in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation should be considered only after stratification by risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most existing performance measures focus on underuse of care, but there is growing interest in identifying and reducing overuse.Objective: We aimed to develop a valid and reliable electronic performance measure of overuse of screening colonoscopy in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System (VA), and to quantify overuse in VA.Design: This was a cross-sectional study with multiple cross-sections.Subjects: U.S. Veterans who underwent screening colonoscopy between 2011 and 2013.Main Measures: Overuse of screening colonoscopy, using a validated electronic measure developed by an expert workgroup.Key Results: Compared to results obtained from manual record review, the electronic measure was highly specific (97 %) for overuse, but not sensitive (20 %). After exclusion of diagnostic and high-risk screening or surveillance procedures, the validated electronic measure identified 88,754 average-risk screening colonoscopies performed in VA during 2013. Of these, 20,530 (23 %) met the definition for probable (17 %) or possible (6 %) overuse. Substantial variation in colonoscopy overuse was noted between Veterans Integrated Care Networks (VISNs) and between facilities, with a nearly twofold difference between the maximum and minimum rates of overuse at the VISN level and a nearly eightfold difference at the facility level. Overuse at the VISN and facility level was relatively stable over time.Conclusions: Overuse of screening colonoscopy can be measured reliably and with high specificity using electronic data, and is common in a large integrated healthcare system. Overuse measures, such as those we have specified through a consensus workgroup process, could be combined with underuse measures to improve the appropriateness of colorectal cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly used among medical inpatients, both for prophylaxis against upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) and continuation of outpatient use. While PPIs reduce the risk of UGIB, they also appear to increase the risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Depending upon the underlying risks of these conditions and the changes in those risks with PPIs, use of proton-pump inhibitors may lead to a net benefit or net harm among medical inpatients. Objective: We aimed to determine the net impact of PPIs on hospital mortality among medical inpatients. Design: A microsimulation model, using literature-derived estimates of the risks of UGIB, HAP, and CDI among medical inpatients, along with the changes in risk associated with PPI use for each of these outcomes. The primary outcome was change in inpatient mortality. Participants: Simulated general medical inpatients outside the intensive care unit (ICU). Main Measure: Change in overall mortality during hospitalization. Key Results: New initiation of PPI therapy led to an increase in hospital mortality in about 90% of simulated patients. Continuation of outpatient PPI therapy on admission led to net increase in hospital mortality in 79% of simulated patients. Results were robust to both one-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses, with net harm occurring in at least two-thirds of patients in all scenarios. Conclusions: For the majority of medical inpatients outside the ICU, use of PPIs likely leads to a net increase in hospital mortality. Even in patients at particularly high risk of UGIB, only those at the very lowest risk of HCAP and CDI should be considered for prophylactic PPI use. Continuation of outpatient PPIs may also increase expected hospital mortality. Apart from patients with active UGIB, use of PPIs in hospitalized patients should be discouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

CONTEXT: Diagnosis and treatment of depression has increased over the past decade in the United States. Whether self-reported depressive symptoms among older adults have concomitantly declined is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in depressive symptoms among older adults in the US between 1998 and 2008. DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional analysis of six biennial assessments. SETTING: Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a nationally-representative survey. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS Adults aged 55 and older ( N = 16,184 in 1998). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The eight-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D8) assessed three levels of depressive symptoms (none = 0, elevated = 4+, severe = 6+), adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Having no depressive symptoms increased over the 10-year period from 40.9 % to 47.4 % (prevalence ratio [PR]: 1.16, 95 % CI: 1.13–1.19), with significant increases in those aged ≥ 60 relative to those aged 55–59. There was a 7 % prevalence reduction of elevated symptoms from 15.5 % to 14.2 % (PR: 0.93, 95 % CI: 0.88–0.98), which was most pronounced among those aged 80–84 in whom the prevalence of elevated symptoms declined from 14.3 % to 9.6 %. Prevalence of having severe depressive symptoms increased from 5.8 % to 6.8 % (PR: 1.17, 95 % CI: 1.06–1.28); however, this increase was limited to those aged 55–59, with the probability of severe symptoms increasing from 8.7 % to 11.8 %. No significant changes in severe symptoms were observed for those aged ≥ 60. CONCLUSIONS: Overall late-life depressive symptom burden declined significantly from 1998 to 2008. This decrease appeared to be driven primarily by greater reductions in depressive symptoms in the oldest-old, and by an increase in those with no depressive symptoms. These changes in symptom burden were robust to physical, functional, demographic, and economic factors. Future research should examine whether this decrease in depressive symptoms is associated with improved treatment outcomes, and if there have been changes in the treatment received for the various age cohorts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Management of diabetes, and in particular blood glucose, can be complex and burdensome. To evaluate patient views of the burdens of therapy and its impact on self-management. Veteran patients with type 2 diabetes. Mailed survey. Patients described their views of the burden of diabetes treatments, adherence, and clinical and demographic status. Factors associated with ratings of burden and adherence to therapy were examined using multivariate regression methods. The response rate was 67% ( n=1,653). Patients viewed pills as the least burdensome treatment and insulin as the most burdensome. Ratings of the burden of insulin were lower if a patient had prior experience with therapy. Adherence to prescribed therapy varied substantially; for example, patients followed medication recommendations more closely than other areas of self-management. Multivariate analyses showed that the main predictor of adherence was patients' ratings of the burden of therapy. Injected insulin regimens are viewed as highly burdensome by patients, although this burden is attenuated by experience. Adherence to self-management is strongly and independently correlated with views of treatment burden. The burden of diabetes-related treatments may be a source of suboptimal glucose control seen in many care settings. Providers should consider the burden of treatment for a particular patient and its impact on adherence as part of a decision-making process to design effective treatment regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In-home automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are increasingly recommended as a means for improving survival of cardiac arrests that occur at home. The current study was conducted to explore the relationship between individuals' risk of cardiac arrest and cost-effectiveness of in-home AED deployment. Markov decision model employing a societal perspective. Four hypothetical cohorts of American adults 60 years of age at progressively greater risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD): 1) all adults (annual probability of SCD 0.4%); 2) adults with multiple SCD risk factors (probability 2%); 3) adults with previous myocardial infarction (probability 4%); and 4) adults with ischemic cardiomyopathy unable to receive an implantable defibrillator (probability 6%). Strategy 1: individuals suffering an in-home cardiac arrest were treated with emergency medical services equipped with AEDs (EMS-D). Strategy 2: individuals suffering an in-home cardiac arrest received initial treatment with an in-home AED, followed by EMS. Assuming cardiac arrest survival rates of 15% with EMS-D and 30% with AEDs, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY) of providing in-home AEDs to all adults 60 years of age is$216,000. Costs of providing in-home AEDs to adults with multiple risk factors (2% probability of SCD), previous myocardial infarction (4% probability), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (6% probability) are$132,000,$104,000, and$88,000, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of in-home AEDs is intimately linked to individuals' risk of SCD. However, providing in-home AEDs to all adults over age 60 appears relatively expensive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For patients with chronic illnesses, it is hypothesized that effective patient-provider collaboration contributes to improved patient self-care by promoting greater agreement on patient-specific treatment goals and strategies. However, this hypothesis has not been tested in actual encounters of patients with their own physicians.Objective: To assess the extent to which patients with type 2 diabetes agree with their primary care providers (PCPs) on diabetes treatment goals and strategies, the factors that predict agreement, and whether greater agreement is associated with better patient self-management of diabetes.Design: One hundred twenty-seven pairs of patients and their PCPs in two health systems were surveyed about their top 3 diabetes treatment goals (desired outcomes) and strategies to meet those goals. Using several measures to evaluate agreement, we explored whether patient characteristics, such as education and attitudes toward treatment, and patient-provider interaction styles, such as shared decision making, were associated with greater agreement on treatment goals and strategies. We then examined whether agreement was associated with higher patient assessments of their diabetes care self-efficacy and self-management.Results: Overall, agreement on top treatment goals and strategies was low (all kappa were less than 0.40). In multivariable analyses, however, patients with more education, greater belief in the efficacy of their diabetes treatment, and who shared in treatment decision making with their providers were more likely to agree with their providers on treatment goals or strategies. Similarly, physician reports of having discussed more content areas of diabetes self-care were associated with greater agreement on treatment strategies. In turn, greater agreement on treatment goals and strategies was associated both with higher patient diabetes care self-efficacy and assessments of their diabetes self-management.Conclusion: Although patients and their PCPs in general had poor agreement on goals and strategies for managing diabetes, agreement was associated with higher patient self-efficacy and assessments of their diabetes self-management. This supports the hypothesis that enhancing patient-provider agreement on both overall treatment goals and specific strategies to meet these goals may lead to improved patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For patients with chronic illnesses, it is hypothesized that effective patient-provider collaboration contributes to improved patient self-care by promoting greater agreement on patient-specific treatment goals and strategies. However, this hypothesis has not been tested in actual encounters of patients with their own physicians. To assess the extent to which patients with type 2 diabetes agree with their primary care providers (PCPs) on diabetes treatment goals and strategies, the factors that predict agreement, and whether greater agreement is associated with better patient self-management of diabetes. One hundred twenty-seven pairs of patients and their PCPs in two health systems were surveyed about their top 3 diabetes treatment goals (desired outcomes) and strategies to meet those goals. Using several measures to evaluate agreement, we explored whether patient characteristics, such as education and attitudes toward treatment, and patient-provider interaction styles, such as shared decision making, were associated with greater agreement on treatment goals and strategies. We then examined whether agreement was associated with higher patient assessments of their diabetes care self-efficacy and self-management. Overall, agreement on top treatment goals and strategies was low (all κ were less than 0.40). In multivariable analyses, however, patients with more education, greater belief in the efficacy of their diabetes treatment, and who shared in treatment decision making with their providers were more likely to agree with their providers on treatment goals or strategies. Similarly, physician reports of having discussed more content areas of diabetes self-care were associated with greater agreement on treatment strategies. In turn, greater agreement on treatment goals and strategies was associated both with higher patient diabetes care self-efficacy and assessments of their diabetes self-management. Although patients and their PCPs in general had poor agreement on goals and strategies for managing diabetes, agreement was associated with higher patient self-efficacy and assessments of their diabetes self-management. This supports the hypothesis that enhancing patient-provider agreement on both overall treatment goals and specific strategies to meet these goals may lead to improved patient outcomes. J GEN INTERN MED 2003; 18:893–902. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends an automated external defibrillator (AED) be considered for a specific location if there is at least a 20% annual probability the device will be used. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the AHA recommendation and of AED deployment in selected public locations with known cardiac arrest rates.Design: Markov Decision Model employing a societal perspective.Setting: Selected public locations in the United States.Patients: A simulated cohort of the American public.Intervention: Strategy 1: individuals experiencing cardiac arrest were treated by emergency medical services equipped with AEDs (EMS-D). Strategy 2: individuals were treated with AEDs deployed as part of a public access defibrillation program. Strategies differed only in the initial availability of an AED and its impact on cardiac arrest survival.Results: Under the base-case assumption that a deployed AED will be used on 1 cardiac arrest every 5 years (20% annual probability of AED use), the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained is $30,000 for AED deployment compared with EMS-D care. AED deployment costs less than $50,000 per QALY gained provided that the annual probability of AED use is 12% or greater. Monte Carlo simulation conducted while holding the annual probability of AED use at 20% demonstrated that 87% of the trials had a cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $50,000 per QALY.Conclusions: AED deployment is likely to be cost-effective across a range of public locations. The current AHA guidelines are overly restrictive. Limited expansion of these programs can be justified on clinical and economic grounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To summarise current knowledge of interventions that should improve the care of patients with type II diabetes mellitus. Interventions lie within the realms of preventions, screening, and treatment, all of which are focused on office practice.Methods: Review of the literature by a multidisciplinary team involved in the care of patients with diabetes, followed by synthesis of the literature into a clinical care guideline. Literature was identified through consultation with experts and a focused MEDLINE search.Main Results: An algorithm-based guideline for screening and treatment of the complications of diabetes was developed. The emphasis is on prevention of atherosclerotic disease, and prevention, screening, and early treatment of microvascular disease. Implementation of these practices has the potential to significantly improve quality of life and increase life expectancy in patients with type II diabetes mellitus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]