A Role for Behavior in the Relationships Between Depression and Hostility and Cardiovascular Disease Incidence, Mortality, and All-Cause Mortality: the Prime Study.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral factors are important in disease incidence and mortality and may explain associations between mortality and various psychological traits. PURPOSE: These analyses investigated the impact of behavioral factors on the associations between depression, hostility and cardiovascular disease(CVD) incidence, CVD mortality, and all-cause mortality. METHODS: Data from the PRIME Study (N = 6953 men) were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models, following adjustment for demographic and biological CVD risk factors, and other psychological traits, including social support. RESULTS: Following initial adjustment, both depression and hostility were significantly associated with both mortality outcomes (smallest SHR = 1.24, p < 0.001). Following adjustment for behavioral factors, all relationships were attenuated both when accounting for and not accounting for other psychological variables. Associations with all-cause mortality remained significant (smallest SHR = 1.14, p = 0.04). Of the behaviors included, the most significant contribution to outcomes was found for smoking, but a role was also found for fruit and vegetable intakes and high alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate well-known associations between depression, hostility, and mortality and suggest the potential importance of behaviors in explaining these relationships

Using Feedback Letters to Influence the Use of Antiulcer Agents in a Medicaid Program

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of printed patient-specific feedback regarding potential misprescribing of antiulcer agents (AUAs). Measures of impact included improvements in patients’ dispensing profiles, assessed according to predetermined criteria, and decreases in cost and quantity of AUAs dispensed. DESIGN: Controlled study. After evaluation for compliance with predetermined criteria, prescribers identified as having one or two patient profiles with potential errors were assigned alternatively to control or experimental groups. An intervention was mailed to the experimental group. SETTING: Outpatient setting in the New Mexico Medicaid population. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and prescribers identified as having potential misprescribing of AUAs. INTERVENTION: The intervention consisted of a cover letter describing the purpose of the drug utilization review program, an educational fact sheet regarding prescribing AUAs, patient profiles with potential misprescribing, and physician response forms. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were greater improvements in dispensing to patients in the intervention group (χ(2), p < .001). Significant odds ratios for the intervention group were 2.29 for AUAs discontinued, 1.98 for all improvements combined, 13.13 for improvement in listing of proper diagnosis for AUAs, and 2.84 for appropriate indication when prescribing the higher acute daily dosage. Using data from 3 months before and after the intervention, we found greater decreases in mean monthly costs (p = .044) and mean monthly quantity of AUAs dispensed (p = .049) in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: This intervention significantly decreased AUA dispensing to patients whose prescribers were mailed the patient-specific feedback intervention