Search

Frequently changing cervical cancer screening guidelines over the past two decades have been inconsistently adopted in the United States. Current guidelines set the recommended screening interval to three years for average-risk women aged 21-29 years. Few studies have evaluated how patient and provider factors are associated with implementation of cervical cancer screening intervals among younger women. This study evaluated multilevel factors associated with screening interval length among 69,939 women aged 21-29 years with an initial negative Pap screen between 2010 and 2015 across three large health systems in the U.S. Shorter-interval screening was defined as a second screening Pap within 2.5 years of an initial negative Pap. Mixed-effects logistic regression was performed for each site to identify provider and patient characteristics associated with shorter-interval screening. The odds of shorter-interval screening decreased over the study period across all sites, though the proportion of patients screened within 2.5 years remained between 7.5% and 20.7% across sites in 2014-2015. Patient factors including insurance, race/ethnicity, and pregnancy were associated with shorter-interval screening, though the patterns differed across sites. At one site, the variation in shorter-interval screening explained by the provider was 10.6%, whereas at the other two sites, the provider accounted for < 2% of the variation in shorter-interval screening. Our results highlight the heterogeneity in factors driving cervical cancer screening interval across health systems and point to the need for tailored approaches targeted to both providers and patients to improve guideline-concordant screening., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Objectives: Nadofaragene firadenovec is a gene therapy for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) undergoing Food and Drug Administration review. Pembrolizumab is approved for treating patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with carcinoma in situ (CIS). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these treatments compared with a hypothetical therapeutic alternative, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, in CIS and non-CIS BCG-unresponsive NMIBC populations., Methods: We developed a Markov cohort simulation model with a 3-month cycle length and lifetime horizon to estimate the total costs, QALYs, and cost per additional QALY from the health sector perspective. Clinical inputs were informed by results of single-arm clinical trials evaluating the treatments, and systematic literature reviews were conducted to obtain other model inputs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in model results., Results: Nadofaragene firadenovec, at a placeholder price 10% higher than the price of pembrolizumab, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $263 000 and $145 000 per QALY gained in CIS and non-CIS populations, respectively. Pembrolizumab had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $168 000 per QALY gained for CIS. A 5.4% reduction in pembrolizumab's price would make it cost-effective. The model was sensitive to many inputs, especially to the probabilities of disease progression, initial treatment response and durability, and drug price., Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of nadofaragene firadenovec will depend upon its price. Pembrolizumab, although not cost-effective in our base-case analysis, is an important alternative in this population with an unmet medical need. Comparative trials of these treatments are warranted to better estimate cost-effectiveness., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Thousands of colonoscopies were canceled during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. As facilities resumed services, some patients were hesitant to reschedule. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a decision aid plus telephone coaching would increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and improve patient reports of shared decision making (SDM). A randomized controlled trial assigned adults aged 45-75 without prior history of CRC who had a colonoscopy canceled from March to May 2020 to intervention (n = 400) or usual care control (n = 400) arms. The intervention arm received three-page decision aid and call from decision coach from September 2020 through November 2020. Screening rates were collected at 6 months. A subset (n = 250) in each arm was surveyed 8 weeks after randomization to assess SDM (scores range 0-4, higher scores indicating more SDM), decisional conflict, and screening preference. The sample was on average, 60 years old, 53% female, 74% White, non-Hispanic, and 11% Spanish speaking. More intervention arm patients were screened within 6 months (35% intervention vs 23% control, p < 0.001). The intervention respondents reported higher SDM scores (mean difference 0.7 [0.4, 0.9], p < 0.001) and less decisional conflict than controls (-21% [-35%, -7%], p = 0.003). The majority in both arms preferred screening versus delaying (68% intervention vs. 65% control, p = 0.75). An SDM approach that offered alternatives and incorporated patients' preferences resulted in higher screening rates. Patients who are overdue for CRC screening may benefit from proactive outreach with SDM support., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences., Objective: To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults., Design: Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat., Participants and Setting: Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period., Interventions: Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only., Main Measures: The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit., Key Results: Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms., Conclusion: Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential., Trial Registration: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696)., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force endorsed primary human papillomavirus testing (pHPV) for cervical cancer screening. We aimed to describe providers' beliefs about pHPV testing effectiveness and which screening approach they regularly recommend. We invited providers who performed 10 or more cervical cancer screens in 2019 in 3 healthcare systems that had not adopted pHPV testing: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Mass General Brigham, and Parkland Health; 53.7% (501/933) completed the survey between October and December 2020. Response distributions varied across modalities (P < .001), with cytology alone or cotesting being more often viewed as somewhat or very effective for 30- to 65-year-olds compared with pHPV (cytology alone 94.1%, cotesting 96.1%, pHPV 66.0%). In 21- to 29-year-olds, the pattern was similar (cytology alone 92.2%, 64.7% cotesting, 50.8% pHPV). Most providers were either incorrect or unsure of the guideline-recommended screening interval for pHPV. Educational efforts are needed about the relative effectiveness and recommended use of pHPV to promote guideline-concordant care., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were canceled. Patient perceptions of the benefits and risks of routine screening relative to health concerns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic were unknown. Purpose. Assess patient anxiety, worry, and interest in CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A random sample of 200 patients aged 45 to 75 y with colonoscopy cancellation due to COVID-19 in March to May 2020 were surveyed. Anxiety, COVID-19 and CRC risk perceptions, COVID-19 and CRC worry, likelihood of following through with colonoscopy in the next month, and interest in alternatives to colonoscopy were assessed. Subsequent screening was tracked for 12 mo. Results. Respondents ( N  = 127/200, 63.5%) were on average 60 y old, female (59%), college educated (62% college degree or more), and White (91%). A substantial portion of patients (46%) stated they may not follow through with a colonoscopy in the next month. There was greater interest in stool-based testing than in delaying screening (48% v. 26%). Women, older patients, and patients indicating tolerance of uncertainty due to complexity reported they were less likely to follow through with colonoscopy in the next month. Greater interest in stool-based testing was related to lower perceptions of CRC risk. Greater interest in delaying screening was related to less worry about CRC and less tolerance of risk. Over 12 mo, 60% of participants completed screening. Patients who stated they were more likely to screen in the next month were more likely to complete CRC screening ( P  = 0.01). Conclusions. Respondents who had a colonoscopy canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in interest in rescheduling the procedure. A shared decision-making approach may help patients address varying concerns and select the best approach to screening for them., Highlights: In the wake of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of patients stated they were not likely to follow through with a colonoscopy in the short term, about half were interested in screening with a stool-based test, and only one-quarter were interested in delaying screening until next year.Patients who perceived themselves at higher risk of colorectal cancer were less interested in stool-based testing, and patients who were more worried about colorectal cancer were less interested in delaying screening.A shared decision-making approach may be necessary to tailor screening discussions for patients during subsequent waves of the pandemic, other occasions where resources are limited and patient preferences vary, or where patients hold conflicting views of screening., Competing Interests: With regard to potential conflicts of interest for this study, Dr. Atlas reports a grant from the National Cancer Institute, and Dr. Richter reports approximately 25% income derived from performing colonoscopy. All other authors report no conflicts outside receiving grant funding through their institution from PCORI for this study., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

Background: Morbidity from undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) may be preventable with early detection. Many consumer wearables contain optical photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors to measure pulse rate. PPG-based software algorithms that detect irregular heart rhythms may identify undiagnosed AF in large populations using wearables, but minimizing false-positive detections is essential., Methods: We performed a prospective remote clinical trial to examine a novel PPG-based algorithm for detecting undiagnosed AF from a range of wrist-worn devices. Adults aged ≥22 years in the United States without AF, using compatible wearable Fitbit devices and Android or iOS smartphones, were included. PPG data were analyzed using a novel algorithm that examines overlapping 5-minute pulse windows (tachograms). Eligible participants with an irregular heart rhythm detection (IHRD), defined as 11 consecutive irregular tachograms, were invited to schedule a telehealth visit and were mailed a 1-week ambulatory ECG patch monitor. The primary outcome was the positive predictive value of the first IHRD during ECG patch monitoring for concurrent AF., Results: A total of 455 699 participants enrolled (median age 47 years, 71% female, 73% White) between May 6 and October 1, 2020. IHRDs occurred for 4728 (1%) participants, and 2070 (4%) participants aged ≥65 years during a median of 122 (interquartile range, 110-134) days at risk for an IHRD. Among 1057 participants with an IHRD notification and subsequent analyzable ECG patch monitor, AF was present in 340 (32.2%). Of the 225 participants with another IHRD during ECG patch monitoring, 221 had concurrent AF on the ECG and 4 did not, resulting in an IHRD positive predictive value of 98.2% (95% CI, 95.5%-99.5%). For participants aged ≥65 years, the IHRD positive predictive value was 97.0% (95% CI, 91.4%-99.4%)., Conclusions: A novel PPG software algorithm for wearable Fitbit devices exhibited a high positive predictive value for concurrent AF and identified participants likely to have AF on subsequent ECG patch monitoring. Wearable devices may facilitate identifying individuals with undiagnosed AF., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04380415.

Importance: Health care systems focus on delivering routine cancer screening to eligible individuals, yet little is known about the perceptions of primary care practitioners (PCPs) about barriers to timely follow-up of abnormal results., Objective: To describe PCP perceptions about factors associated with the follow-up of abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening test results., Design, Setting, and Participants: Survey study of PCPs from 3 primary care practice networks in New England between February and October 2020, prior to participating in a randomized clinical trial to improve follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results. Participants were physicians and advanced practice clinicians from participating practices., Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported process, attitudes, knowledge, and satisfaction about the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results., Results: Overall, 275 (56.7%) PCPs completed the survey (range by site, 34.9%-71.9%) with more female PCPs (61.8% [170 of 275]) and general internists (73.1% [201 of 275]); overall, 28,7% (79 of 275) were aged 40 to 49 years. Most PCPs felt responsible for managing abnormal cancer screening test results with the specific cancer type being the best factor (range, 63.6% [175 of 275] for breast to 81.1% [223 of 275] for lung; P < .001). The PCPs reported limited support for following up on overdue abnormal cancer screening test results. Standard processes such as automated reports, reminder letters, or outreach workers were infrequently reported. Major barriers to follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results across all cancer types included limited electronic health record tools (range, 28.5% [75 of 263]-36.5%[96 of 263]), whereas 50% of PCPs felt that there were major social barriers to receiving care for abnormal cancer screening test results for colorectal cancer. Fewer than half reported being very satisfied with the process of managing abnormal cancer screening test results, with satisfaction being greatest for breast cancer (46.9% [127 of 271]) and lowest for cervical (21.8% [59 of 271]) and lung cancer (22.4% [60 of 268])., Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of PCPs, important deficiencies in systems for managing abnormal cancer screening test results were reported. These findings suggest a need for comprehensive organ-agnostic systems to promote timely follow-up of abnormal cancer screening results using a primary care-focused approach across the range of cancer screening tests.

Importance: Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important cause of stroke. Screening for AF using wrist-worn wearable devices may prevent strokes, but their cost-effectiveness is unknown., Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of contemporary AF screening strategies, particularly wrist-worn wearable devices., Design Setting and Participants: This economic evaluation used a microsimulation decision-analytic model and was conducted from September 8, 2020, to May 23, 2022, comprising 30 million simulated individuals with an age, sex, and comorbidity profile matching the US population aged 65 years or older., Interventions: Eight AF screening strategies, with 6 using wrist-worn wearable devices (watch or band photoplethysmography, with or without watch or band electrocardiography) and 2 using traditional modalities (ie, pulse palpation and 12-lead electrocardiogram) vs no screening., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, defined as US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Secondary measures included rates of stroke and major bleeding., Results: In the base case analysis of this model, the mean (SD) age was 72.5 (7.5) years, and 50% of the individuals were women. All 6 screening strategies using wrist-worn wearable devices were estimated to be more effective than no screening (range of QALYs gained vs no screening, 226-957 per 100 000 individuals) and were associated with greater relative benefit than screening using traditional modalities (range of QALYs gained vs no screening, -116 to 93 per 100 000 individuals). Compared with no screening, screening using wrist-worn wearable devices was associated with a reduction in stroke incidence by 20 to 23 per 100 000 person-years but an increase in major bleeding by 20 to 44 per 100 000 person-years. The overall preferred strategy was wearable photoplethysmography, followed conditionally by wearable electrocardiography with patch monitor confirmation, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $57 894 per QALY, meeting the acceptability threshold of $100 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of screening was consistent across multiple scenarios, including strata of sex, screening at earlier ages (eg, ≥50 years), and with variation in the association of anticoagulation with risk of stroke in the setting of screening-detected AF., Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation of AF screening using a microsimulation decision-analytic model suggests that screening using wearable devices is cost-effective compared with either no screening or AF screening using traditional methods., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Singer reported receiving grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Fitbit Inc, Medtronic, Pfizer, and UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr Atlas reported receiving grants from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance and the American Heart Association and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and FitBit Inc outside the submitted work. Dr Ellinor reported receiving grants from IBM and Bayer AG during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Novartis, MyoKardia, and Bayer AG outside the submitted work. Dr McManus reported receiving grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, the Heart Rhythm Society, Avania Consulting, and Fitbit Inc; and nonfinancial support from Apple outside the submitted work. Dr Lubitz reported receiving grants from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Fitbit Inc, IBM, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Premier, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Heart Association and personal fees from Invitae, Blackstone Life Sciences, and Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr Chhatwal reported receiving personal fees from Bayer, Flatiron, and Value Analytics Labs and holding stock in Apple and Alphabet outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported., (Copyright 2022 Chen W et al. JAMA Health Forum.)

Background Models predicting atrial fibrillation (AF) risk, such as Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology AF (CHARGE-AF), have not performed as well in electronic health records. Natural language processing (NLP) may improve models by using narrative electronic health record text. Methods and Results From a primary care network, we included patients aged ≥65 years with visits between 2003 and 2013 in development (n=32 960) and internal validation cohorts (n=13 992). An external validation cohort from a separate network from 2015 to 2020 included 39 051 patients. Model features were defined using electronic health record codified data and narrative data with NLP. We developed 2 models to predict 5-year AF incidence using (1) codified+NLP data and (2) codified data only and evaluated model performance. The analysis included 2839 incident AF cases in the development cohort and 1057 and 2226 cases in internal and external validation cohorts, respectively. The C-statistic was greater ( P <0.001) in codified+NLP model (0.744 [95% CI, 0.735-0.753]) compared with codified-only (0.730 [95% CI, 0.720-0.739]) in the development cohort. In internal validation, the C-statistic of codified+NLP was modestly higher (0.735 [95% CI, 0.720-0.749]) compared with codified-only (0.729 [95% CI, 0.715-0.744]; P =0.06) and CHARGE-AF (0.717 [95% CI, 0.703-0.731]; P =0.002). Codified+NLP and codified-only were well calibrated, whereas CHARGE-AF underestimated AF risk. In external validation, the C-statistic of codified+NLP (0.750 [95% CI, 0.740-0.760]) remained higher ( P <0.001) than codified-only (0.738 [95% CI, 0.727-0.748]) and CHARGE-AF (0.735 [95% CI, 0.725-0.746]). Conclusions Estimation of 5-year risk of AF can be modestly improved using NLP to incorporate narrative electronic health record data.

Background: Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) is attractive because AF independently raises the risk of ischemic stroke, this risk is largely reversible by long-term oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC), and many patients with AF remain undiagnosed and untreated. Recent trials of one-time brief screening for AF have not produced a significant increase in the proportion of patients diagnosed with AF. Trials of longer-term screening have demonstrated an increase in AF diagnoses, primarily paroxysmal AF. To date, however, no trials have demonstrated that screening for AF results in lower rates of stroke. Clinical practice guidelines conflict in their level of support for screening for AF., Methods: The GUARD-AF individually randomized trial is designed to test whether screening for AF in individuals age 70 years or greater using a 2-week single-lead electrocardiographic patch monitor can identify patients with undiagnosed AF and lead to treatment with OAC, resulting in a reduced rate of stroke in the screened population. The trial's efficacy end point is hospitalization for stroke (either ischemic or hemorrhagic) and the trial's safety end point is hospitalization for a bleeding event. End points will be ascertained via Medicare claims or electronic health records at 2.5 years after study start. Enrollment is based in primary care practices and the OAC decision for screen-detected cases is left to the patient and their physician. The initial planned target sample size was 52,000, with 26,000 allocated to either screening or to usual care., Results: Trial enrollment was severely hampered by the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and stopped at a total enrollment of 11,931 participants. Of 5,965 randomized to the screening arm, 5,713 patients (96%) returned monitors with analyzable results. Incidence of screen-detected and clinically detected AF and associated stroke and bleeding outcomes will be ascertained., Conclusions: GUARD-AF is the largest AF screening randomized trial using a longer-term patch-based continuous electrocardiographic monitor. The results will contribute important information on the yield of patch-based AF screening, the "burden" of AF detected (percent time in AF, longest episode), and physicians' OAC decisions as a function of AF burden. GUARD-AF's stroke and bleed results will contribute to pooled trial analyses of AF screening, thereby informing future studies and guidelines., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cancer screening and timely follow-up of abnormal results can reduce mortality. One barrier to follow-up is the failure to identify abnormal results. While EHRs have coded results for certain tests, cancer screening results are often stored in free-text reports, which limit capabilities for automated decision support. As part of the multilevel Follow-up of Cancer Screening (mFOCUS) trial, we developed and implemented a natural language processing (NLP) tool to assist with real-time detection of abnormal cancer screening test results (including mammograms, low-dose chest CT scans, and Pap smears) and identification of gynecological follow-up for higher risk abnormalities (i.e. colposcopy) from free-text reports. We demonstrate the integration and implementation of NLP, within the mFOCUS system, to improve the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening results in a large integrated healthcare system. The NLP pipelines have detected scenarios when guideline-recommended care was not delivered, in part because the provider mis-identified the text-based result reports.

Electronic health record (EHR) datasets are statistically powerful but are subject to ascertainment bias and missingness. Using the Mass General Brigham multi-institutional EHR, we approximated a community-based cohort by sampling patients receiving longitudinal primary care between 2001-2018 (Community Care Cohort Project [C3PO], n = 520,868). We utilized natural language processing (NLP) to recover vital signs from unstructured notes. We assessed the validity of C3PO by deploying established risk models for myocardial infarction/stroke and atrial fibrillation. We then compared C3PO to Convenience Samples including all individuals from the same EHR with complete data, but without a longitudinal primary care requirement. NLP reduced the missingness of vital signs by 31%. NLP-recovered vital signs were highly correlated with values derived from structured fields (Pearson r range 0.95-0.99). Atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarction/stroke incidence were lower and risk models were better calibrated in C3PO as opposed to the Convenience Samples (calibration error range for myocardial infarction/stroke: 0.012-0.030 in C3PO vs. 0.028-0.046 in Convenience Samples; calibration error for atrial fibrillation 0.028 in C3PO vs. 0.036 in Convenience Samples). Sampling patients receiving regular primary care and using NLP to recover missing data may reduce bias and maximize generalizability of EHR research., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) may cause preventable strokes. Guidelines differ regarding AF screening recommendations. We tested whether point-of-care screening with a handheld single-lead ECG at primary care practice visits increases diagnoses of AF., Methods: We randomized 16 primary care clinics 1:1 to AF screening using a handheld single-lead ECG (AliveCor KardiaMobile) during vital sign assessments, or usual care. Patients included were ages ≥65 years. Screening results were provided to primary care clinicians at the encounter. All confirmatory diagnostic testing and treatment decisions were made by the primary care clinician. New AF diagnoses during the 1-year follow-up were ascertained electronically and manually adjudicated. Proportions and incidence rates were calculated. Effect heterogeneity was assessed., Results: Of 30 715 patients without prevalent AF (n=15 393 screening [91% screened], n=15 322 control), 1.72% of individuals in the screening group had new AF diagnosed at 1 year versus 1.59% in the control group (risk difference, 0.13% [95% CI, -0.16 to 0.42]; P =0.38). In prespecified subgroup analyses, new AF diagnoses in the screening and control groups were greater among those aged ≥85 years (5.56% versus 3.76%, respectively; risk difference, 1.80% [95% CI, 0.18 to 3.30]). The difference in newly diagnosed AF between the screening period and the previous year was marginally greater in the screening versus control group (0.32% versus -0.12%; risk difference, 0.43% [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.84]). The proportion of individuals with newly diagnosed AF who were initiated on oral anticoagulants was not different in the screening (n=194, 73.5%) and control (n=172, 70.8%) arms (risk difference, 2.7% [95% CI, -5.5 to 10.4])., Conclusions: Screening for AF using a single-lead ECG at primary care visits did not affect new AF diagnoses among all individuals aged 65 years or older compared with usual care., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03515057.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Herron-Smith, Nhan, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Atlas, Brouwer, Carlson, and Hansen received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

Since 2012, cervical cancer screening guidelines allow for choice of screening test for women age 30-65 years (i.e., Pap every 3 years or Pap with human papillomavirus co-testing every 5 years). Intended to give patients and providers options, this flexibility reflects a trend in the growing complexity of screening guidelines. Our objective was to characterize variation in cervical screening at the individual, provider, clinic/facility, and healthcare system levels. The analysis included 296,924 individuals receiving screening from 3626 providers at 136 clinics/facilities in three healthcare systems, 2010 to 2017. Main outcome was receipt of co-testing vs. Pap alone. Co-testing was more common in one healthcare system before the 2012 guidelines (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of co-testing at the other systems relative to this system 0.00 and 0.50) but was increasingly implemented over time in a second with declining uptake in the third (2017: AORs shifted to 7.32 and 0.01). Despite system-level differences, there was greater heterogeneity in receipt of co-testing associated with providers than clinics/facilities. In the three healthcare systems, providers in the highest quartile of co-testing use had an 8.35, 8.81, and 25.05-times greater odds of providing a co-test to women with the same characteristics relative to the lowest quartile. Similarly, clinics/ facilities in the highest quartile of co-testing use had a 4.20, 3.14, and 6.56-times greater odds of providing a co-test relative to the lowest quartile. Variation in screening test use is associated with health system, provider, and clinic/facility levels even after accounting for patient characteristics., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical guidelines recommend engaging patients in shared decision making for common orthopedic procedures; however, limited work has assessed what is occurring in practice. This study assessed the quality of shared decision making for elective hip and knee replacement and spine surgery at four network-affiliated hospitals., Methods: A cross-sectional sample of 875 adult patients undergoing total hip or knee joint replacement (TJR) for osteoarthritis or spine surgery for lumbar herniated disc or lumbar spinal stenosis was selected. Patients were mailed a survey including measures of Shared Decision Making (SDMP scale) and Informed, Patient-Centered (IPC) decisions. We examined decision-making across sites, surgeons, and conditions, and whether the decision-making measures were associated with better health outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for clustering of patients within surgeons., Results: Six hundred forty-six surveys (74% response rate) were returned with sufficient responses for analysis. Patients who had TJR reported lower SDMP scores than patients who had spine surgery (2.2 vs. 2.8; p < 0.001). Patients who had TJR were more likely to make IPC decisions (OA = 70%, Spine = 41%; p < 0.001). SDMP and IPC scores varied widely across surgeons, but the site was not predictive of SDMP scores or IPC decisions (all p > 0.09). Higher SDMP scores and IPC decisions were associated with larger improvements in global health outcomes for patients who had TJR, but not patients who had spine surgery., Conclusions: Measures of shared decision making and decision quality varied among patients undergoing common elective orthopedic procedures. Routine measurement of shared decision making provides insight into areas of strength across these different orthopedic conditions as well as areas in need of improvement., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background Performance of existing atrial fibrillation (AF) risk prediction models in poststroke populations is unclear. We evaluated predictive utility of an AF risk model in patients with acute stroke and assessed performance of a fully refitted model. Methods and Results Within an academic hospital, we included patients aged 46 to 94 years discharged for acute ischemic stroke between 2003 and 2018. We estimated 5-year predicted probabilities of AF using the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology for Atrial Fibrillation (CHARGE-AF) model, by recalibrating CHARGE-AF to the baseline risk of the sample, and by fully refitting a Cox proportional hazards model to the stroke sample (Re-CHARGE-AF) model. We compared discrimination and calibration between models and used 200 bootstrap samples for optimism-adjusted measures. Among 551 patients with acute stroke, there were 70 incident AF events over 5 years (cumulative incidence, 15.2%; 95% CI, 10.6%-19.5%). Median predicted 5-year risk from CHARGE-AF was 4.8% (quartile 1-quartile 3, 2.0-12.6) and from Re-CHARGE-AF was 16.1% (quartile 1-quartile 3, 8.0-26.2). For CHARGE-AF, discrimination was moderate (C statistic, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70) and calibration was poor, underestimating AF risk (Greenwood-Nam D'Agostino chi-square, P <0.001). Calibration with recalibrated baseline risk was also poor (Greenwood-Nam D'Agostino chi-square, P <0.001). Re-CHARGE-AF improved discrimination ( P =0.001) compared with CHARGE-AF (C statistic, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.79]; optimism-adjusted, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.65-0.75]) and was well calibrated (Greenwood-Nam D'Agostino chi-square, P =0.97). Conclusions Covariates from an established AF risk model enable accurate estimation of AF risk in a poststroke population after recalibration. A fully refitted model was required to account for varying baseline AF hazard and strength of associations between covariates and incident AF.

Introduction: While substantial attention is focused on the delivery of routine preventive cancer screening, less attention has been paid to systematically ensuring that there is timely follow-up of abnormal screening test results. Barriers to completion of timely follow-up occur at the patient, provider, care team and system levels., Methods: In this pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial, primary care sites in three networks are randomized to one of four arms: (1) standard care, (2) "visit-based" reminders that appear in a patient's electronic health record (EHR) when it is accessed by either patient or providers (3) visit based reminders with population health outreach, and (4) visit based reminders, population health outreach, and patient navigation with systematic screening and referral to address social barriers to care. Eligible patients in participating practices are those overdue for follow-up of an abnormal results on breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer screening tests., Results: The primary outcome is whether an individual receives follow-up, specific to the organ type and screening abnormality, within 120 days of becoming eligible for the trial. Secondary outcomes assess the effect of intervention components on the patient and provider experience of obtaining follow-up care and the delivery of the intervention components., Conclusions: This trial will provide evidence for the role of a multilevel intervention on improving the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results. We will also specifically assess the relative impact of the components of the intervention, compared to standard care., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03979495., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) screening is endorsed by certain guidelines for individuals aged ≥65 years. Yet many AF screening strategies exist, including the use of wrist-worn wearable devices, and their comparative effectiveness is not well-understood. Methods and Results We developed a decision-analytic model simulating 50 million individuals with an age, sex, and comorbidity profile matching the United States population aged ≥65 years (ie, with a guideline-based AF screening indication). We modeled no screening, in addition to 45 distinct AF screening strategies (comprising different modalities and screening intervals), each initiated at a clinical encounter. The primary effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life-years, with incident stroke and major bleeding as secondary measures. We defined continuous or nearly continuous modalities as those capable of monitoring beyond a single time-point (eg, patch monitor), and discrete modalities as those capable of only instantaneous AF detection (eg, 12-lead ECG). In total, 10 AF screening strategies were effective compared with no screening (300-1500 quality-adjusted life-years gained/100 000 individuals screened). Nine (90%) effective strategies involved use of a continuous or nearly continuous modality such as patch monitor or wrist-worn wearable device, whereas 1 (10%) relied on discrete modalities alone. Effective strategies reduced stroke incidence (number needed to screen to prevent a stroke: 3087-4445) but increased major bleeding (number needed to screen to cause a major bleed: 1815-4049) and intracranial hemorrhage (number needed to screen to cause intracranial hemorrhage: 7693-16 950). The test specificity was a highly influential model parameter on screening effectiveness. Conclusions When modeled from a clinician-directed perspective, the comparative effectiveness of population-based AF screening varies substantially upon the specific strategy used. Future screening interventions and guidelines should consider the relative effectiveness of specific AF screening strategies.

Background: Early detection of atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) may enable prevention of downstream morbidity. Consumer wrist-worn wearable technology is capable of detecting AF by identifying irregular pulse waveforms using photoplethysmography (PPG). The validity of PPG-based software algorithms for AF detection requires prospective assessment., Methods: The Fitbit Heart Study (NCT04380415) is a single-arm remote clinical trial examining the validity of a novel PPG-based software algorithm for detecting AF. The proprietary Fitbit algorithm examines pulse waveform intervals during analyzable periods in which participants are sufficiently stationary. Fitbit consumers with compatible wrist-worn trackers or smartwatches were invited to participate. Enrollment began May 6, 2020 and as of October 1, 2020, 455,699 participants enrolled. Participants in whom an irregular heart rhythm was detected were invited to attend a telehealth visit and eligible participants were then mailed a one-week single lead electrocardiographic (ECG) patch monitor. The primary study objective is to assess the positive predictive value of an irregular heart rhythm detection for AF during the ECG patch monitor period. Additional objectives will examine the validity of irregular pulse tachograms during subsequent heart rhythm detections, self-reported AF diagnoses and treatments, and relations between irregular heart rhythm detections and AF episode duration and time spent in AF., Conclusions: The Fitbit Heart Study is a large-scale remote clinical trial comprising a unique software algorithm for detection of AF. The study results will provide critical insights into the use of consumer wearable technology for AF detection, and for characterizing the nature of AF episodes detected using consumer-based PPG technology., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cervical cancer screening delivery remains suboptimal. Understanding the multiple influences on use of screening is important to designing interventions. We describe the influence of patient, primary care provider (PCP), and clinic characteristics on whether a woman is up-to-date with cervical screening as of December 2016. PCPs (n = 194) and their female screen-eligible patients age 21-65 years (n = 32,115) were included in this cross-sectional analysis of patients from two primary care networks linked to a contemporaneous PCP survey. Principal independent variables for patients included : age, race, insurance, continuity of care; for PCP included : overall satisfaction with the practice of medicine, gender, hours worked per week, financial support for achieving clinical targets; and for clinic included : routine receipt of data on preventive care performance and language translation resources. Overall, 66.6% of women were up-to-date. Women were less likely to be up-to-date with cervical cancer screening if they were younger and were more likely to be screened if they were Black, Hispanic or Asian vs. White. Women with greater continuity of primary care or with a female PCP were more likely to be up-to-date (1.52; 1.33-1.75); those who received care in a clinic that was less prepared to manage language translation were less likely to be up-to-date (0.78; 0.65-0.95). Patient, provider, and clinic factors all influence use of cervical cancer screening. Systems interventions like improving continuity of care, promoting translation services, or enhanced efforts to track screening among patients of male PCPs may improve delivery., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

DISCLOSURES : Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Beinfeld, McKenna, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette received funding from ICER for work on this report and has also received fees from Monument Analytics and AstraZeneca, unrelated to this work. The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) and Touchette hold a patent for the model described in this report. The model is included in ICER's Interactive Modeler, for which a fee is paid to UIC and Touchette. Atlas also received funding from ICER for work on this report.

Objective: We aimed to identify the proportion of primary care patients meeting criteria for sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) for cardiorenal comorbidities per 2021 American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care recommendations using readily available electronic health record (EHR) characteristics., Research Design and Methods: We applied 2021 ADA recommendations to a primary care cohort of 13,350 adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D)., Results: We found that 33% of patients with diabetes would be eligible for an SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA based on cardiorenal comorbidities, 13% of patients met criteria for an SGLT2i based on heart failure or albuminuric chronic kidney disease (CKD), and 18% of patients met criteria for either agent based on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or CKD with an albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≤300 mg/g., Conclusions: This EHR algorithm identified one-third of primary care patients with T2D as meeting criteria for SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA based on strict comorbidity definitions according to 2021 ADA recommendations., (© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Importance: Angina pectoris is associated with morbidity and mortality. Angina prevalence and frequency among contemporary US populations with coronary artery disease (CAD) remain incompletely defined., Objective: To ascertain the angina prevalence and frequency among stable outpatients with CAD., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional survey study involved telephone-based administration of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 (SAQ-7) between February 1, 2017, and July 31, 2017, to a nonconvenience sample of adults with established CAD who receive primary care through a large US integrated primary care network. Data analysis was performed from August 2017 to August 2019., Exposure: SAQ-7 administration., Main Outcomes and Measures: Angina prevalence and frequency were assessed using SAQ-7 question 2. Covariates associated with angina were assessed in univariable and multivariable regression., Results: Of 4139 eligible patients, 1612 responded to the survey (response rate, 38.9%). The mean (SD) age of the respondents was 71.8 (11.0) years, 577 (35.8%) were women, 1447 (89.8%) spoke English, 147 (9.1%) spoke Spanish, 1336 (82.8%) were White, 76 (4.7%) were Black, 92 (5.7%) were Hispanic, 974 (60.4%) had Medicare, and 83 (5.2%) had Medicaid. Among respondents, 342 (21.2%) reported experiencing angina at least once monthly; among those, 201 (12.5%) reported daily or weekly angina, and 141 respondents (8.7%) reported monthly angina. The mean (SD) SAQ-7 score was 93.7 (13.7). After multivariable adjustment, speaking a language other than Spanish or English (odds ratio [OR], 5.07; 95% CI, 1.39-18.50), Black race (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.08-3.75), current smoking (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78), former smoking (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.51), atrial fibrillation (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.18-2.18) were associated with more frequent angina. Male sex (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.86), peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90), and novel oral anticoagulant use (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.48) were associated with less frequent angina., Conclusions and Relevance: Among stable outpatients with CAD receiving primary care through an integrated primary care network, 21.2% of surveyed patients reported experiencing angina at least once monthly. Several objective demographic and clinical characteristics were associated with angina frequency. Proactive assessment of angina symptoms using validated assessment tools and estimation of patients at higher risk of suboptimally controlled angina may be associated with reduced morbidity.

We characterized monitor utilization in stroke survivors and assessed associations with underlying clinical atrial fibrillation (AF) risk. We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke 10/2018-6/2019 without prevalent AF and assessed the 6-month incidence of monitor utilization (Holter/ECG, event/patch, implantable loop recorder [ILR]) using Fine-Gray models accounting for the competing risk of death. We assessed for predictors of monitor utilization using cause-specific hazards regression adjusted for the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology AF (CHARGE-AF) score, stroke subtype, and discharge disposition. Of 493 patients with acute ischemic stroke (age 65±16; 47% women), the 6-month incidence of monitor utilization was 36.5% (95% CI 31.7, 41.3), and 6-month mortality was 13.6% (10.4, 16.8). Monitoring was performed with Holter/event (n = 107; 72.3%), ILR (n = 34; 23.0%) or both (n = 7; 4.7%). Monitoring was more likely after cryptogenic (hazard ratio [HR] 4.53 [3.22, 6.39]; 6-month monitor incidence 70.6%) and cardioembolic (HR 2.43 [1.28, 4.62]; incidence 47.7%) stroke, versus other/undocumented (incidence 22.7%). Among patients with cryptogenic stroke, the 6-month incidence of ILR was 27.5% [18.5, 36.5]. Monitoring was more likely after discharge home (HR 1.80 [1.29, 2.52]; incidence 46.1%) versus facility (incidence 24.9%). Monitoring was not associated with CHARGE-AF score (HR 1.08 per 1-SD increase [0.91, 1.27]), even though CHARGE-AF was associated with incident AF (HR 1.56 [1.03, 2.35]). In conclusion, rhythm monitors are utilized after one-third of ischemic strokes. Monitoring is more frequent after cryptogenic strokes, though ILR use is low. Monitor utilization is not associated with AF risk., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Disagreement exists between rheumatology and primary care societies regarding gout management. This paper describes a formal process for gathering input from stakeholders in the planning of a trial to compare gout management strategies., Methods: We recruited patients, nurses, physician assistants, primary care clinicians, and rheumatologists to participate in a modified Delphi panel (mDP) to provide input on design of a trial focused on optimal management for primary care patients with gout. The 16 panelists received a plain-language briefing document that discussed the rationale for the trial, key clinical issues in gout, and aspects of trial design. The panelists also received information and considerations on nine voting questions (VQs), judged to be the key design questions. Cognitive interviews with panelists ensured that the VQs were understood by the range of panelists involved in the mDP. Panelists were asked to score all VQs from 1 (definitely no) to 9 (definitely yes). Two voting rounds were conducted-round 1 by email and round 2 by video conference., Results: The VQs were modified through the cognitive interviews. The round 1 voting resulted in consensus on eight items, with consensus defined as median voting score in the same tercile (1-3, 4-6 or 7-9). Re-voting at the meeting (round 2) reached consensus on the remaining item., Conclusion: An mDP with various stakeholders facilitated consensus on the design of a trial of different management strategies for chronic gout. This method may be useful for designing trials of clinical questions with substantial disagreement across stakeholders., (© 2021 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: In April 2017, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published a clinical practice guideline for low back pain (LBP) recommending nonpharmacologic treatments as first-line therapy for acute, subacute, and chronic LBP. Objective: To assess primary care provider (PCP)-reported initial treatment recommendations for LBP following guideline release. Design: Cross-sectional structured interviews. Participants: Convenience sample of 72 PCPs from 3 community-based outpatient clinics in high- or low-income neighborhoods. Approach: PCPs were interviewed about their familiarity with the ACP guideline, and how they initially manage patients with acute/subacute and chronic LBP. Treatment responses were coded as patient education, nonpharmacologic, pharmacologic, or medical specialty referral. PCPs were also asked about their comfort referring patients to nonpharmacologic treatment providers, and about barriers to referring. Responses were assessed using content analysis. Differences in responses were assessed using descriptive statistics. Key results: Interviews were completed between December 2017 and March 2018. Of 72 participating PCPs (50% male; mean years of practice = 13.8), over three-fourths indicated being familiar with the ACP guideline (76%-87% at 3 clinics). For acute LBP, PCPs typically provided advice to stay active (81%) and pharmacologic management (97%; primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). For chronic LBP, PCPs were more likely to recommend nonpharmacologic treatments than for acute LBP (85% vs. 0%, p  < 0.001). The most common nonpharmacologic treatments recommended for chronic LBP were physical therapy (78%), chiropractic care (21%), massage therapy (18%), and acupuncture (17%) (each compared with 0% for acute LBP, all p  < 0.001). The cost of nonpharmacologic treatments was perceived as a barrier. However, PCPs working in low-income neighborhood clinics were as likely to recommend nonpharmacologic approaches as those from a high-income neighborhood clinic. Conclusions: While most PCPs indicated they were familiar with the ACP guideline for LBP, nonpharmacologic treatments were not recommended for patients with acute symptoms. Further dissemination and implementation of the ACP guideline are needed.

Introduction: Back and neck pain are the leading causes of disability worldwide. Doctors of chiropractic (DCs) are trained to manage these common conditions and can provide non-pharmacological treatment aligned with international clinical practice guidelines. Although DCs practice in over 90 countries, chiropractic care is rarely available within integrated healthcare delivery systems. A lack of DCs in private practice, particularly in low-income communities, may also limit access to chiropractic care. Improving collaboration between medical providers and community-based DCs, or embedding DCs in medical settings such as hospitals or community health centres, will improve access to evidence-based care for musculoskeletal conditions., Methods and Analyses: This scoping review will map studies of DCs working with or within integrated healthcare delivery systems. We will use the recommended six-step approach for scoping reviews. We will search three electronic data bases including Medline, Embase and Web of Science. Two investigators will independently review all titles and abstracts to identify relevant records, screen the full-text articles of potentially admissible records, and systematically extract data from selected articles. We will include studies published in English from 1998 to 2020 describing medical settings that have established formal relationships with community-based DCs (eg, shared medical record) or where DCs practice in medical settings. Data extraction and reporting will be guided by the Proctor Conceptual Model for Implementation Research, which has three domains: clinical intervention, implementation strategies and outcome measurement. Stakeholders from diverse clinical fields will offer feedback on the implications of our findings via a web-based survey., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval will not be obtained for this review of published and publicly accessible data, but will be obtained for the web-based survey. Our results will be disseminated through conference presentations and a peer-reviewed publication. Our findings will inform implementation strategies that support the adoption of chiropractic care within integrated healthcare delivery systems., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Patient navigation (PN) improves initial colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in underserved populations. Whether the impact persists and improves the timeliness of follow-up screening colonoscopy (FSC) is not known. Patients receiving PN at initial colonoscopy between 2010-2011 with findings requiring FSC were matched to unnavigated patients requiring FSC. The primary outcome was proportion of patients with timely FSC, defined as colonoscopy within six months of recommendation. Of 216 patients in the study 103 (48%) completed FSC: 33 of 62 (53%) who received PN compared with 70 of 154 (45%) in the control group (p=.30). After adjusting for insurance, education, language and visits, navigated patients had higher odds (AOR=1.53, 95% CI 0.80-2.92) of timely FSC completion compared with unnavigated patients. Timely FSC completion in underserved patients is low. Patients navigated for initial colonoscopy or not had similar rates of FSC completion. Future studies should investigate navigation for FSC to improve equity in CRC.

Background and Purpose: Oral anticoagulation is generally indicated for cardioembolic strokes, but not for other stroke causes. Consequently, subtype classification of ischemic stroke is important for risk stratification and secondary prevention. Because manual classification of ischemic stroke is time-intensive, we assessed the accuracy of automated algorithms for performing cardioembolic stroke subtyping using an electronic health record (EHR) database., Methods: We adapted TOAST (Trial of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment) features associated with cardioembolic stroke for derivation in the EHR. Using administrative codes and echocardiographic reports within Mass General Brigham Biobank (N=13 079), we iteratively developed EHR-based algorithms to define the TOAST cardioembolic stroke features, revising regular expression algorithms until achieving positive predictive value ≥80%. We compared several machine learning-based statistical algorithms for discriminating cardioembolic stroke using the feature algorithms applied to EHR data from 1598 patients with acute ischemic strokes from the Massachusetts General Hospital Ischemic Stroke Registry (2002-2010) with previously adjudicated TOAST and Causative Classification of Stroke subtypes., Results: Regular expression-based feature extraction algorithms achieved a mean positive predictive value of 95% (range, 88%-100%) across 11 echocardiographic features. Among 1598 patients from the Massachusetts General Hospital Ischemic Stroke Registry, 1068 had any cardioembolic stroke feature within predefined time windows in proximity to the stroke event. Cardioembolic stroke tended to occur at an older age, with more TOAST-based comorbidities, and with atrial fibrillation (82.3%). The best model was a random forest with 92.2% accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 91.1% (95% CI, 87.5%-93.9%). Atrial fibrillation, age, dilated cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, patent foramen ovale, mitral annulus calcification, and recent myocardial infarction were the most discriminatory features., Conclusions: Machine learning-based identification of cardioembolic stroke using EHR data is feasible. Future work is needed to improve the accuracy of automated cardioembolic stroke identification and assess generalizability of electronic phenotyping algorithms across clinical settings.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Borrelli, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this publication. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

Objective: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the US. Screening has decreased CRC mortality. However, disadvantaged patients, particularly those with mental illness or substance use disorder (SUD), are less likely to be screened. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the impact of a patient navigation program on CRC screening in patients with mental illness and/or SUD., Methods: A pilot randomized nonblinded controlled trial was conducted from January to June 2017 in an urban community health center serving a low-income population. We randomized 251 patients aged 50-74 years with mental illness and/or SUD diagnosis overdue for CRC screening to intervention ( n  = 126) or usual care ( n  = 125) stratified by mental illness, SUD, or dual diagnosis. Intervention group patients received a letter followed by a phone call from patient navigators. Navigators helped patients overcome their individual barriers to CRC screening including: education, scheduling, explanation of bowel preparation, lack of transportation or accompaniment to appointments. If patient refused colonoscopy, navigators offered fecal occult blood testing. The main measure was proportion of patients completing CRC screening in intervention and usual care groups., Results: Navigators contacted 85 patients (67%) in the intervention group and 26 declined to participate. In intention-to treat analysis, more patients in the intervention group received CRC screening than in the usual care group, 19% versus 10.4% ( p = .04). Among 56 intervention patients who received navigation, 19 completed screening (33.9% versus 10.4% in the control group, p = .001). In the subgroup of patients with SUD, 20% in the intervention group were screened compared to none in the usual care group ( p = .05)., Conclusions: A patient navigation program improved CRC screening rates in patients with mental illness and/or SUD. Larger studies in diverse care settings are needed to demonstrate generalizability and explore which modality of CRC screening is most acceptable and which navigator activities are most effective for this vulnerable population., Trials Registration Number: 2016P001322.

Background: Determining the primary indication of a surgical procedure can be useful in identifying patients undergoing elective surgery where shared decision-making is recommended. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an algorithm to identify patients receiving the following combinations of surgical procedure and primary indication as part of a study to promote shared decision-making: (1) knee arthroplasty to treat knee osteoarthritis (KOA); (2) hip arthroplasty to treat hip osteoarthritis (HOA); (3) spinal surgery to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (SpS); and (4) spinal surgery to treat lumbar herniated disc (HD)., Methods: Consecutive surgical procedures performed by participating spine, hip, and knee surgeons at four sites within an integrated care network were included. Study staff reviewed electronic medical records to ascertain a "gold standard" determination of the procedure and primary indication status. Electronic algorithms consisting of ICD-10 and CPT codes for each combination of procedure and indication were then applied to records for each case. The primary measures of validity for the algorithms were the sensitivity and specificity relative to the gold standard review., Results: Participating surgeons performed 790 procedures included in this study. The sensitivity of the algorithms in determining whether a surgical case represented one of the combinations of procedure and primary indication ranged from 0.70 (HD) to 0.92 (KOA). The specificity ranged from 0.94 (SpS) to 0.99 (HOA, KOA)., Conclusion: The electronic algorithm was able to identify all four procedure/primary indication combinations of interest with high specificity. Additionally, the sensitivity for the KOA cases was reasonably high. For HOA and the spine conditions, additional work is needed to improve the sensitivity of the algorithm to identify the primary indication for each case.

Background: Clarifying the relationship between pain phenotypes and physical function in older adults may enhance screening and treatment for functional decline in primary care settings., Objective: To investigate the association of more severe pain phenotypes with neuromuscular impairments or mobility limitations among older community-dwelling primary care patients., Design: Cross-sectional analysis., Setting: The Boston Rehabilitative Impairment Study of the Elderly., Participants: Adults aged 65 years or older., Methods: We counted the number of musculoskeletal pain locations (none, single site, multisite, or widespread) using the McGill Pain Questionnaire and identified pain intensity tertiles using the Brief Pain Inventory. Neuromuscular attributes (trunk extensor muscle endurance, and leg speed, strength, strength asymmetry, and range of motion) and mobility (Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]) were assessed with performance-based measures. Additionally, self-reported mobility was measured on the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI). For neuromuscular attributes and LLFDI, scores in the lowest tertile indicated neuromuscular impairment or mobility limitations, respectively. For SPPB, a score <7 (of 12) indicated severe mobility limitations., Results: Among 430 participants (mean age = 77) most were female (68%), white (83%), and had either multisite (50%) or widespread (14%) pain. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, widespread pain (compared to none) was associated with slow leg speed (adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: aOR = 2.33, 1.03-5.27), limited ankle range of motion (aOR = 2.15, 1.03-4.47) and mobility limitations on LLFDI (aOR = 3.85, 1.81-8.19). Being in the highest pain intensity tertile, versus lowest tertile, was associated with poor trunk extensor muscle endurance (aOR = 2.49, 1.41-4.39), limited ankle range of motion (aOR = 2.15, 1.25-3.71), and mobility limitations on SPPB (aOR = 2.56, 1.45-4.52), and LLFDI (aOR = 4.70, 2.63-8.40)., Conclusions: Among ambulatory, older primary care patients, more severe pain phenotypes are associated with neuromuscular impairments identified on physical testing and mobility limitations on validated measures., (© 2020 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.)

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) may occur after an acute precipitant and subsequently resolve. Management guidelines for AF in these settings are unclear as the risk of recurrent AF and related morbidity is poorly understood. We examined the relations between acute precipitants of AF and long-term recurrence of AF in a clinical setting., Methods: From a multi-institutional longitudinal electronic medical record database, we identified patients with newly diagnosed AF between 2000 and 2014. We developed algorithms to identify acute AF precipitants (surgery, sepsis, pneumonia, pneumothorax, respiratory failure, myocardial infarction, thyrotoxicosis, alcohol, pericarditis, pulmonary embolism, and myocarditis). We assessed risks of AF recurrence in individuals with and without a precipitant and the relations between AF recurrence and heart failure, stroke, and mortality., Results: Among 10 723 patients with newly diagnosed AF (67.9±9.9 years, 41% women), 19% had an acute AF precipitant, the most common of which were cardiac surgery (22%), pneumonia (20%), and noncardiothoracic surgery (15%). The cumulative incidence of AF recurrence at 5 years was 41% among individuals with a precipitant compared with 52% in those without a precipitant (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69-0.81]; P <0.001). The lowest risk of recurrence among those with precipitants occurred with postoperative AF (5-year incidence 32% in cardiac surgery and 39% in noncardiothoracic surgery). Regardless of the presence of an initial precipitant, recurrent AF was associated with increased adjusted risks of heart failure (hazard ratio, 2.74 [95% CI, 2.39-3.15]; P <0.001), stroke (hazard ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.30-1.90]; P <0.001), and mortality (hazard ratio, 2.96 [95% CI, 2.70-3.24]; P <0.001)., Conclusions: AF after an acute precipitant frequently recurs, although the risk of recurrence is lower than among individuals without an acute precipitant. Recurrence is associated with substantial long-term morbidity and mortality. Future studies should address surveillance and management after newly diagnosed AF in the setting of an acute precipitant.

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in Latinos. In a telephone survey, we assessed perceptions about lung cancer and awareness of, interest in, and barriers to lung screening among older current and former smokers. We compared Latino and non-Latino responses adjusting for age, sex, education, and smoking status using logistic regression models. Of the 460 patients who completed the survey (51.5% response rate), 58.0% were women, 49.3% former smokers, 15.7% Latino, with mean age 63.6 years. More Latinos believed that lung cancer could be prevented compared to non-Latinos (74.6% vs. 48.2%, OR 3.07, CI 1.89-5.01), and less worried about developing lung cancer (34.8% vs. 50.3%, OR 0.44, CI 0.27-0.72). Most participants were not aware of lung screening (44.1% Latinos vs. 34.3% Non-Latinos, OR 1.24, CI 0.79-1.94), but when informed, more Latinos wanted to be screened (90.7% vs. 67%, OR 4.58, CI 2.31-9.05). Latinos reported fewer barriers to lung screening.

Linking individuals to community resources in order to help meet health-related social needs, such as food, medications, or transportation, may improve clinical outcomes. However, little is known about the mechanisms whereby such linkage interventions might improve health. The authors conducted a mixed-methods analysis consisting of outcomes from a prospective cohort study of a linkage intervention and a qualitative analysis of case records from participants. The cohort study included intervention participants who first enrolled between December 2014 and March 2015. Participants were excluded if they could not complete the assessment because of illness or language. The authors examined changes in cost-related medication underuse (CRMU), transportation barriers, and food insecurity (FI). For the qualitative analysis, a random sample of 80 participants was selected for electronic health record review - 40 cases who showed clinical improvement (responders) and 40 cases who did not (nonresponders). Themes were extracted by 3 reviewers guided by the immersion/crystallization approach. For the cohort study, 141 individuals were included; 138 (97.9%) completed follow-up. Comparing baseline to follow-up, there were significant reductions in the prevalence of CRMU (from 44.2% to 39.1%, P  = .003) and transportation barriers (from 46.3% to 30.2%, P  = .001), but not FI (from 40.4% to 38.2%, P  = .73). For the qualitative study, emergent themes that helped differentiate responders and nonresponders included acuity of need, resource availability/access, and adequacy of the resource utilized. CRMU and transportation barriers may be important mechanisms by which linkage interventions improve health-related social needs. Patient-centered themes can help guide intervention improvements.

Given the preventable morbidity and mortality associated with atrial fibrillation (AF), increased awareness of undiagnosed AF, and advances in mobile electrocardiogram (ECG) technology, there is a critical need to assess the effectiveness of using such technology to routinely screen for AF in clinical practice. VITAL-AF is a pragmatic trial that will test whether screening for AF using a single-lead handheld ECG in individuals 65 years or older during primary care visits will lead to an increased rate of AF detection. The study is a cluster-randomized trial, with 8 primary care practices randomized to AF screening and 8 primary care practices randomized to usual care. We anticipate studying approximately 16,000 patients in each arm. During the 1-year enrollment period, practice medical assistants will screen eligible patients who agree to participate during office visits using a single-lead ECG device. Automated screening results are documented in the electronic health record, and patients can discuss screening results with their provider during the scheduled visit. All single-lead ECGs are overread by a cardiologist. Screen-detected AF is managed at the discretion of the patient's physician. The primary study end point is incident AF during the screening period. Key secondary outcomes include new oral anticoagulation prescriptions, incident ischemic stroke, and major hemorrhage during a 24-month period following the study start. Outcomes are ascertained based on electronic health record documentation and are manually adjudicated. The results of this pragmatic trial may help identify a model for widespread adoption of AF screening as part of routine clinical practice., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Outpatient primary care experience is vital to internal medicine resident training but may impact quality and equity of care delivered in practices that include resident physicians. Understanding whether quality differences exist among resident and staff primary care physicians (PCPs) may present an opportunity to address health disparities within academic medical centers., Objective: To determine whether there are differences in the quality of primary care provided by resident PCPs compared to staff PCPs., Design: A retrospective cohort study with a propensity-matched analysis., Participants: 143,274 patients, including 10,870 patients managed by resident PCPs, seen in 16 primary care practices affiliated with an academic medical center., Main Measures: Guideline-concordant chronic disease management of diabetes (HbA1c, LDL) and coronary artery disease (LDL), preventive breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening, and resource utilization measures including emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, high-cost imaging, and patient-reported health experience., Key Results: At baseline, there were significant differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics between resident and staff physician patients. Resident patients were less likely to achieve chronic disease and preventive cancer screening outcome measures including LDL at goal (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.77 [95% CI 0.65, 0.92]) for patients with coronary artery disease; HbA1c at goal (aOR 0.73 [95% CI 0.62, 0.85]) for patients with diabetes; breast (aOR 0.56 [95% CI 0.49, 0.63]), cervical (aOR 0.66 [95% CI 0.60, 0.74]), and colorectal (aOR 0.72 [95% CI 0.65, 0.79] cancer screening. Additionally, resident patients had higher rates of ED visits and hospitalizations but lower rates of high-cost imaging. Resident patients reported lower rates of satisfaction with certain access to care and communication measures. Similar outcomes were noted in propensity-matched sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: After controlling for differences in sociodemographic and clinical factors, resident patients were less likely to achieve chronic disease and preventive cancer screening outcomes compared to staff patients. Further efforts to address ambulatory trainee education and primary care quality along with novel approaches to the management of the disproportionately disadvantaged resident patient panels are needed.

Objectives: Interest in linking patients with unmet social needs to area-level resources, such as food pantries and employment centres in one's ZIP code, is growing. However, whether the presence of these resources is associated with better health outcomes is unclear. We sought to determine if area-level resources, defined as organisations that assist individuals with meeting health-related social needs, are associated with lower levels of cardiometabolic risk factors., Design: Cross-sectional., Setting: Data were collected in a primary care network in eastern Massachusetts in 2015., Participants and Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: 123 355 participants were included. The primary outcome was body mass index (BMI). The secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). All participants were included in BMI analyses. Participants with hypertension were included in SBP analyses. Participants with an indication for cholesterol lowering were included in LDL analyses and participants with diabetes mellitus were included in HbA1c analyses. We used a random forest-based machine-learning algorithm to identify types of resources associated with study outcomes. We then tested the association of ZIP-level selected resource types (three for BMI, two each for SBP and HbA1c analyses and one for LDL analyses) with these outcomes, using multilevel models to account for individual-level, clinic-level and other area-level factors., Results: Resources associated with lower BMI included more food resources (-0.08 kg/m 2 per additional resource, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.03 kg/m 2 ), employment resources (-0.05 kg/m 2 , 95% CI -0.11 to -0.002 kg/m 2 ) and nutrition resources (-0.07 kg/m 2 , 95% CI -0.13 to -0.01 kg/m 2 ). No area resources were associated with differences in SBP, LDL or HbA1c., Conclusions: Access to specific local resources is associated with better BMI. Efforts to link patients to area resources, and to improve the resources landscape within communities, may help reduce BMI and improve population health., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)