Advantages of the dental practice-based research network initiative and its role in dental education

Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) provide a novel venue in which providers can increase their knowledge base and improve delivery of care through participation in clinical studies. This article describes some aspects of our experience with a National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research-supported PBRN and discusses the role it can play in dental education. PBRNs create a structured pathway for providers to advance their professional development by participating in the process of collecting data through clinical research. This process allows practitioners to contribute to the goals of evidence-based dentistry by helping to provide a foundation of evidence on which to base clinical decisions as opposed to relying on anecdotal evidence. PBRNs strengthen the professional knowledge base by applying the principles of good clinical practice, creating a resource for future dental faculty, training practitioners on best practices, and increasing the responsibility, accountability, and scope of care. PBRNs can be the future pivotal instruments of change in dental education, the use of electronic health record systems, diagnostic codes, and the role of comparative effectiveness research, which can create an unprecedented opportunity for the dental profession to advance and be integrated into the health care system

Practice based research networks impacting periodontal care:PEARL initiative

In 2005, the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research /National Institutes of Health funded the largest initiative to date to affect change in the delivery of oral care. This commentary provides the background for the first study related to periodontics in a Practice Based Research Network (PBRN). It was conducted in the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research & Learning (PEARL) Network. The PEARL Network is headquartered at New York University College of Dentistry. The basic tenet of the PBRN initiative is to engage clinicians to participate in clinical studies, where they will be more likely to accept the results and to incorporate the findings into their practices. This process may reduce the translational gap that exists between new findings and the time it takes for them to be incorporated into clinical practice. The cornerstone of the PBRN studies is to conduct comparative effectiveness research studies to disseminate findings to the profession and improve care. This is particularly important because the majority of dentists practice independently. Having practitioners generate clinical data allows them to contribute in the process of knowledge development and incorporate the results in their practice to assist in closing the translational gap. With the advent of electronic health systems on the horizon, dentistry may be brought into the mainstream health care paradigm and the PBRN concept can serve as the skeletal framework for advancing the profession provided there is consensus on the terminology used

Treatment of Anal High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions to Prevent Anal Cancer

BACKGROUND: The incidence of anal cancer is substantially higher among persons living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) than in the general population. Similar to cervical cancer, anal cancer is preceded by high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). Treatment for cervical HSIL reduces progression to cervical cancer; however, data from prospective studies of treatment for anal HSIL to prevent anal cancer are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3 trial at 25 U.S. sites. Persons living with HIV who were 35 years of age or older and who had biopsy-proven anal HSIL were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive either HSIL treatment or active monitoring without treatment. Treatment included office-based ablative procedures, ablation or excision under anesthesia, or the administration of topical fluorouracil or imiquimod. The primary outcome was progression to anal cancer in a time-to-event analysis. Participants in the treatment group were treated until HSIL was completely resolved. All the participants underwent high-resolution anoscopy at least every 6 months; biopsy was also performed for suspected ongoing HSIL in the treatment group, annually in the active-monitoring group, or any time there was concern for cancer. RESULTS: Of 4459 participants who underwent randomization, 4446 (99.7%) were included in the analysis of the time to progression to cancer. With a median follow-up of 25.8 months, 9 cases were diagnosed in the treatment group (173 per 100,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 90 to 332) and 21 cases in the active-monitoring group (402 per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI, 262 to 616). The rate of progression to anal cancer was lower in the treatment group than in the active-monitoring group by 57% (95% CI, 6 to 80; P = 0.03 by log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with biopsy-proven anal HSIL, the risk of anal cancer was significantly lower with treatment for anal HSIL than with active monitoring. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02135419.)