Device Therapies Among Patients Receiving Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in the Cardiovascular Research Network

BACKGROUND: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in selected patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction by delivering therapies (antitachycardia pacing or shocks) to terminate potentially lethal arrhythmias; inappropriate therapies also occur. We assessed device therapies among adults receiving primary prevention ICDs in 7 healthcare systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: We linked medical record data, adjudicated device therapies, and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Survival analysis evaluated therapy probability and predictors after ICD implant from 2006 to 2009, with attention to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups: left ventricular ejection fraction, 31% to 35%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy \u3c 9 months\u27 duration; and New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator. Among 2540 patients, 35% were \u3c 65 years old, 26% were women, and 59% were white. During 27 (median) months, 738 (29%) received \u3e /=1 therapy. Three-year therapy risk was 36% (appropriate, 24%; inappropriate, 12%). Appropriate therapy was more common in men (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-2.35). Inappropriate therapy was more common in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.68-2.87), but less common among patients \u3e /=65 years old versus younger (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95) and in recent implants (eg, in 2009 versus 2006; adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development analysis, inappropriate therapy was less common with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator versus single chamber (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.84); therapy risk did not otherwise differ for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In this community cohort of primary prevention patients receiving ICD, therapy delivery varied across demographic and clinical characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups

The relationship of individual comorbid chronic conditions to diabetes care quality.

ObjectiveMultimorbidity affects 26 million persons with diabetes, and care for comorbid chronic conditions may impact diabetes care quality. The aim of this study was to determine which chronic conditions were related to lack of achievement or achievement of diabetes care quality goals to determine potential targets for future interventions.Research design and methodsThis is an exploratory retrospective analysis of electronic health record data for 23 430 adults, aged 18-75, with diabetes who were seen at seven Midwestern US health systems. The main outcome measures were achievement of six diabetes quality metrics in the reporting year, 2011 (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) control and testing, low-density lipoprotein control and testing, blood pressure control, kidney testing). Explanatory variables were 62 chronic condition indicators. Analyses were adjusted for baseline patient sociodemographic and healthcare utilization factors.ResultsThe 62 chronic conditions varied in their relationships to diabetes care goal achievement for specific care goals. Congestive heart failure was related to lack of achievement of cholesterol management goals. Obesity was related to lack of HbA1c and BP control. Mental health conditions were related to both lack of achievement and achievement of different care goals. Three conditions were related to lack of cholesterol testing, including congestive heart failure and substance-use disorders. Of 17 conditions related to achieving control goals, 16 were related to achieving HbA1c control. One-half of the comorbid conditions did not predict diabetes care quality.ConclusionsFuture interventions could target patients at risk for not achieving diabetes care for specific care goals based on their individual comorbidities

Device Therapies Among Patients Receiving Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in the Cardiovascular Research Network

BACKGROUND: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in selected patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction by delivering therapies (antitachycardia pacing or shocks) to terminate potentially lethal arrhythmias; inappropriate therapies also occur. We assessed device therapies among adults receiving primary prevention ICDs in 7 healthcare systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: We linked medical record data, adjudicated device therapies, and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Survival analysis evaluated therapy probability and predictors after ICD implant from 2006 to 2009, with attention to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups: left ventricular ejection fraction, 31% to 35%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy \u3c9 \u3emonths\u27 duration; and New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator. Among 2540 patients, 35% wereold, 26% were women, and 59% were white. During 27 (median) months, 738 (29%) received ≥1 therapy. Three-year therapy risk was 36% (appropriate, 24%; inappropriate, 12%). Appropriate therapy was more common in men (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-2.35). Inappropriate therapy was more common in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.68-2.87), but less common among patients ≥65 years old versus younger (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95) and in recent implants (eg, in 2009 versus 2006; adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development analysis, inappropriate therapy was less common with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator versus single chamber (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.84); therapy risk did not otherwise differ for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In this community cohort of primary prevention patients receiving ICD, therapy delivery varied across demographic and clinical characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups

Comparison of Inappropriate Shocks and Other Health Outcomes Between Single- and Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Results from the Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

Background In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual‐chamber devices. The superiority of dual‐chamber over single‐chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single‐ and dual‐chamber ICDs for primary prevention. Methods and Results We identified patients receiving a single‐ or dual‐chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all‐cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital‐level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single‐chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual‐chamber device. In a propensity‐weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59–1.38 [P=0.65]), all‐cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87–1.21 [P=0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–1.21 [P=0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93–1.53 [P=0.17]). Conclusions Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual‐chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single‐chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual‐chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks

Risk Prediction for Breast, Endometrial, and Ovarian Cancer in White Women Aged 50 y or Older: Derivation and Validation from Population-Based Cohort Studies

Background: Breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers share some hormonal and epidemiologic risk factors. While several models predict absolute risk of breast cancer, there are few models for ovarian cancer in the general population, and none for endometrial cancer. Methods and Findings: Using data on white, non-Hispanic women aged 50+ y from two large population-based cohorts (the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial [PLCO] and the National Institutes of Health–AARP Diet and Health Study [NIH-AARP]), we estimated relative and attributable risks and combined them with age-specific US-population incidence and competing mortality rates. All models included parity. The breast cancer model additionally included estrogen and progestin menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) use, other MHT use, age at first live birth, menopausal status, age at menopause, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, benign breast disease/biopsies, alcohol consumption, and body mass index (BMI); the endometrial model included menopausal status, age at menopause, BMI, smoking, oral contraceptive use, MHT use, and an interaction term between BMI and MHT use; the ovarian model included oral contraceptive use, MHT use, and family history or breast or ovarian cancer. In independent validation data (Nurses' Health Study cohort) the breast and ovarian cancer models were well calibrated; expected to observed cancer ratios were 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96–1.04) for breast cancer and 1.08 (95% CI: 0.97–1.19) for ovarian cancer. The number of endometrial cancers was significantly overestimated, expected/observed = 1.20 (95% CI: 1.11–1.29). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs; discriminatory power) were 0.58 (95% CI: 0.57–0.59), 0.59 (95% CI: 0.56–0.63), and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66–0.70) for the breast, ovarian, and endometrial models, respectively. Conclusions: These models predict absolute risks for breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers from easily obtainable risk factors and may assist in clinical decision-making. Limitations are the modest discriminatory ability of the breast and ovarian models and that these models may not generalize to women of other races. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summar

Evaluation of Population-Level Changes Associated With the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations in Community-Based Health Care Systems

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released updated lung cancer screening recommendations in 2021, lowering the screening age from 55 to 50 years and smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years. These changes are expected to expand screening access to women and racial and ethnic minority groups. Objective: To estimate the population-level changes associated with the 2021 USPSTF expansion of lung cancer screening eligibility by sex, race and ethnicity, sociodemographic factors, and comorbidities in 5 community-based health care systems. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed data of patients who received care from any of 5 community-based health care systems (which are members of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium, a collaboration that conducts research to better understand how to improve the cancer screening processes in community health care settings) from January 1, 2010, through September 30, 2019. Individuals who had complete smoking history and were engaged with the health care system for 12 or more continuous months were included. Those who had never smoked or who had unknown smoking history were excluded. Exposures: Electronic health record-derived age, sex, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), comorbidities, and smoking history. Main Outcomes and Measures: Differences in the proportion of the newly eligible population by age, sex, race and ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis, and SES as well as lung cancer diagnoses under the 2013 recommendations vs the expected cases under the 2021 recommendations were evaluated using χ2 tests. Results: As of September 2019, there were 341 163 individuals aged 50 to 80 years who currently or previously smoked. Among these, 34 528 had electronic health record data that captured pack-year and quit-date information and were eligible for lung cancer screening according to the 2013 USPSTF recommendations. The 2021 USPSTF recommendations expanded screening eligibility to 18 533 individuals, representing a 53.7% increase. Compared with the 2013 cohort, the newly eligible 2021 population included 5833 individuals (31.5%) aged 50 to 54 years, a larger proportion of women (52.0% [n = 9631]), and more racial or ethnic minority groups. The relative increases in the proportion of newly eligible individuals were 60.6% for Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander; 67.4% for Hispanic; 69.7% for non-Hispanic Black; and 49.0% for non-Hispanic White groups. The relative increase for women was 13.8% higher than for men (61.2% vs 47.4%), and those with a lower comorbidity burden and lower SES had higher relative increases (eg, 68.7% for a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 0; 61.1% for lowest SES). The 2021 recommendations were associated with an estimated 30% increase in incident lung cancer diagnoses compared with the 2013 recommendations. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study suggests that, in diverse health care systems, adopting the 2021 USPSTF recommendations will increase the number of women, racial and ethnic minority groups, and individuals with lower SES who are eligible for lung cancer screening, thus helping to minimize the barriers to screening access for individuals with high risk for lung cancer

Molecular markers of risk of subsequent invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: protocol for a population-based cohort study

INTRODUCTION: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is a non-obligate precursor of invasive breast cancer (IBC). Many DCIS patients are either undertreated or overtreated. The overarching goal of the study described here is to facilitate detection of patients with DCIS at risk of IBC development. Here, we propose to use risk factor data and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) DCIS tissue from a large, ethnically diverse, population-based cohort of 8175 women with a first diagnosis of DCIS and followed for subsequent IBC to: identify/validate miRNA expression changes in DCIS tissue associated with risk of subsequent IBC; evaluate ipsilateral IBC risk in association with two previously identified marker sets (triple immunopositivity for p16, COX-2, Ki67; Oncotype DX Breast DCIS score); examine the association of risk factor data with IBC risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a series of case-control studies nested within the cohort. Cases are women with DCIS who developed subsequent IBC; controls (2/case) are matched to cases on calendar year of and age at DCIS diagnosis. We project 485 cases/970 controls in the aim focused on risk factors. We estimate obtaining FFPE tissue for 320 cases/640 controls for the aim focused on miRNAs; of these, 173 cases/346 controls will be included in the aim focused on p16, COX-2 and Ki67 immunopositivity, and of the latter, 156 case-control pairs will be included in the aim focused on the Oncotype DX Breast DCIS score®. Multivariate conditional logistic regression will be used for statistical analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Boards of Albert Einstein College of Medicine (IRB 2014-3611), Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Kaiser Permanente Hawaii, Henry Ford Health System, Mayo Clinic, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute and Hackensack Meridian Health, and from Lifespan Research Protection Office. The study results will be presented at meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals