Specificity of Clinical Breast Examination in Community Practice

BACKGROUND: Millions of women receive clinical breast examination (CBE) each year, as either a breast cancer screening test or a diagnostic test for breast symptoms. While screening CBE had moderately high specificity (∼94%) in clinical trials, community clinicians may be comparatively inexperienced and may conduct relatively brief examinations, resulting in even higher specificity but lower sensitivity. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the specificity of screening and diagnostic CBE in clinical practice and identify patient factors associated with specificity. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Breast-cancer-free female health plan enrollees in 5 states (WA, OR, CA, MA, and MN) who received CBE (N = 1,484). MEASUREMENTS: Medical charts were abstracted to ascertain breast cancer risk factors, examination purpose (screening vs diagnostic), and results (true-negative vs false-positive). Women were considered “average-risk” if they had neither a family history of breast cancer nor a prior breast biopsy and “increased-risk” otherwise. RESULTS: Among average- and increased-risk women, respectively, the specificity (true-negative proportion) of screening CBE was 99.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 98.8–99.7%] and 97.1% (95% CI: 95.7–98.0%), and the specificity of diagnostic CBE was 68.7% (95% CI: 59.7–76.5%) and 57.1% (95% CI: 51.1–63.0%). The odds of a true-negative screening CBE (specificity) were significantly lower among women at increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio 0.21; 95% CI: 0.10–0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Screening CBE likely has higher specificity among community clinicians compared to examiners in clinical trials of breast cancer screening, even among women at increased breast cancer risk. Highly specific examinations, however, may have relatively low sensitivity for breast cancer. Diagnostic CBE, meanwhile, is relatively nonspecific

Complications among colorectal cancer survivors: SF-6D preference-weighted quality of life scores

Background Societal preference-weighted health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores enable comparing multi-dimensional health states across diseases and treatments for research and policy. Objective To assess the effects of living with a permanent intestinal stoma, compared to a major bowel resection, among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. Research Design Cross-sectional multivariate linear regression analysis to explain preference-weighted HRQOL scores. Subjects Six-hundred-forty CRC survivors (≥5 years) from three group-model HMOs; ostomates and non-ostomates with colorectal resections for CRC were matched on gender, age (±5 years), time since diagnosis, and tumor site (rectum vs. colon). Measures SF-6D scoring system applied to Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 version 2 (SF-36v2); City of Hope Quality of Life-Ostomy (mCOH-QOL-O); Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index. Methods Survey of CRC survivors linked to respondents’ clinical data extracted from HMO files. Results Response rate was 52%. Ostomates and non-ostomates had similar sociodemographic characteristics. Mean SF-6D score was 0.69 for ostomates, compared to 0.73 for non-ostomates (p <.001), but other factors explained this difference. Complications of initial cancer surgery, and prior-year comorbidity burden and hospital use were negatively associated with SF-6D scores, while household income was positively associated. Conclusions CRC survivors’ SF-6D scores were not associated with living with a permanent ostomy after other factors were taken into account. Surgical complications, comorbidities, and metastatic disease lowered the preference-weighted HRQOL of CRC survivors with and without ostomies. Further research to understand and reduce late complications from CRC surgeries as well as associated depression is warranted

Drug Adverse Event Detection in Health Plan Data Using the Gamma Poisson Shrinker and Comparison to the Tree-based Scan Statistic

Background: Drug adverse event (AE) signal detection using the Gamma Poisson Shrinker (GPS) is commonly applied in spontaneous reporting. AE signal detection using large observational health plan databases can expand medication safety surveillance. Methods: Using data from nine health plans, we conducted a pilot study to evaluate the implementation and findings of the GPS approach for two antifungal drugs, terbinafine and itraconazole, and two diabetes drugs, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. We evaluated 1676 diagnosis codes grouped into 183 different clinical concepts and four levels of granularity. Several signaling thresholds were assessed. GPS results were compared to findings from a companion study using the identical analytic dataset but an alternative statistical method—the tree-based scan statistic (TreeScan). Results: We identified 71 statistical signals across two signaling thresholds and two methods, including closely-related signals of overlapping diagnosis definitions. Initial review found that most signals represented known adverse drug reactions or confounding. About 31% of signals met the highest signaling threshold. Conclusions: The GPS method was successfully applied to observational health plan data in a distributed data environment as a drug safety data mining method. There was substantial concordance between the GPS and TreeScan approaches. Key method implementation decisions relate to defining exposures and outcomes and informed choice of signaling thresholds

Challenges in Designing a National Surveillance Program for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the United States:

This review describes the history of US government funding for surveillance programs in IBD, provides current estimates of the incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in the United States (US), and enumerates a number of challenges faced by current and future IBD surveillance programs. A rationale for expanding the focus of IBD surveillance beyond counts of incidence and prevalence, in order to provide a greater understanding of the burden of IBD, disease etiology and pathogenesis, is provided. Lessons learned from other countries are summarized, as well as potential resources that may be used to optimize a new form of IBD surveillance in the US. A consensus recommendation on the goals and available resources for a new model for disease surveillance are provided. This new model should focus upon “surveillance of the burden of disease,” including 1) natural history of disease and 2) outcomes and complications of the disease and/or treatments

The implementation checklist: A pragmatic instrument for accelerating research‐to‐implementation cycles

Abstract Introduction Learning health systems require rapid‐cycle research and nimble implementation processes to maximize innovation across disparate specialties and operations. Existing detailed research‐to‐implementation frameworks require extensive time commitments and can be overwhelming for physician‐researchers with clinical and operational responsibilities, inhibiting their widespread adoption. The creation of a short, pragmatic checklist to inform implementation processes may substantially improve uptake and implementation efficiency across a variety of health systems. Methods We conducted a systematic review of existing implementation frameworks to identify core concepts. Utilizing comprehensive stakeholder engagement with 25 operational leaders, embedded physician‐researchers, and delivery scientists, concepts were iteratively integrated to create and implement a final concise instrument. Results A systematic review identified 894 publications describing implementation frameworks, which included 15 systematic reviews. Among these, domains were extracted from three commonly utilized instruments: the Quality Implementation Framework (QIF), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE‐AIM) framework. Iterative testing and stakeholder engagement revision of a four‐page draft implementation document with five domains resulted in a concise, one‐page implementation planning instrument to be used at project outset and periodically throughout project implementation planning. The instrument addresses end‐user feasibility concerns while retaining the main goals of more complex tools. This instrument was then systematically integrated into projects within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Delivery Science and Applied Research program to address stakeholder engagement, efficiency, project planning, and operational implementation of study results. Conclusion A streamlined one‐page implementation planning instrument, incorporating core concepts of existing frameworks, provides a pragmatic, robust framework for evidence‐based healthcare innovation cycles that is being broadly implemented within a learning health system. These streamlined processes could inform other settings needing a best practice rapid‐cycle research‐to‐implementation tool for large numbers of diverse projects

Comparative Effectiveness of Etanercept and Adalimumab in Patient Reported Outcomes and Injection-Related Tolerability.

To describe patient preferences in selecting specific biologics and compare clinical response using patient reported outcomes (PROs) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) started on different anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies.Participants were enrollees in Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Patients with RA who had at least two provider visits and started a new anti-TNF therapy from 10/2010-8/2011, were eligible for participation in this longitudinal study. Using a telephone survey, patient preferences in biologic selection and RAPID3, MDHAQ, and SF-12 scores were collected at baseline and at 6 months. Patient scores rating injection/infusion-site burning and stinging (ISBS) were collected at 6 months.In all, 267 patients with RA responded to the baseline survey, of whom 57% preferred an injectable biologic, 22% preferred an infused biologic, and 21% had no preference. Motivation for injectable biologics was convenience (92%) and for infusion therapy was dislike or lack of self-efficacy for self-injection (16%). After 6 months of treatment with anti-TNF, 70% of the 177 patients who answered the ISBS question reported ISBS with the last dose; on a scale of 1 (none) to 10 (worst), 41% of these reported a score of 2-5; and 29% reported a score of 6-10. Adalimumab users experienced 3.2 times (95% confidence interval 1.2-8.6) the level of ISBS that etanercept users experienced. There were no significant differences in RAPID3, MDHAQ, or SF-12 scores between etanercept or adalimumab initiators.Convenience and fear of self-injection were important considerations to patients selecting a biologic drug. Although more convenient, adalimumab associated with more ISBS than did etanercept, and this rate was higher than reported in clinical trials. At 6 months, PROs did not differ between etanercept and adalimumab users