Effect of a Physician Uncertainty Reduction Intervention on Blood Pressure in Uncontrolled Hypertensives-A Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND: Clinical inertia, provider failure to appropriately intensify treatment, is a major contributor to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP). Some clinical inertia may result from physician uncertainty over the patient’s usual BP, adherence, or value of continuing efforts to control BP through lifestyle changes. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that providing physicians with uncertainty reduction tools, including 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, electronic bottle cap monitoring, and lifestyle assessment and counseling, will lead to improved BP control. DESIGN: Cluster randomized trial with five intervention clinics (IC) and five usual care clinics (UCC). SETTING: Six public and 4 private primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 665 patients (63 percent African American) with uncontrolled hypertension (BP ≥140 mmHg/90 mmHg or ≥130/80 mmHg if diabetic). INTERVENTIONS: An order form for uncertainty reduction tools was placed in the IC participants’ charts before each visit and results fed back to the provider. OUTCOME MEASURES: Percent with controlled BP at last visit. Secondary outcome was BP changes from baseline. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 24 months. IC physicians intensified treatment in 81% of IC patients compared to 67% in UCC (p\u3c0.001); 35.0% of IC patients and 31.9% of UCC patients achieved control at the last recorded visit (p\u3e0.05). Multi-level mixed effects longitudinal regression modeling of SBP and DBP indicated a significant, non-linear slope difference favoring IC (p time × group interaction=0.048 for SBP and p=0.001 for DBP). The model-predicted difference attributable to intervention was −2.8 mmHg for both SBP and DBP by month 24, and −6.5 mmHg for both SBP and DBP by month 36. CONCLUSIONS: The uncertainty reduction intervention did not achieve the pre-specified dichotomous outcome, but led to lower measured BP in IC patients

Rapid method for determination of DNA repair capacity in human peripheral blood lymphocytes amongst smokers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>DNA repair capacity is an important determinant of susceptibility to cancer. The hOGG1 enzyme is crucial for repairing the 8-oxoguanine lesion that occurs either as a byproduct of oxidative metabolism or as a result of exogenous sources such as exposure to cigarette smoke. It has been previously reported that smokers with low hOGG1 activity had significantly higher risk of developing lung cancer as compared to smokers with high hOGG1 activity.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In the current study we elucidate the association between plasma levels of 8-OHdG and the OGG1 repair capacity. We used the commercially available 8-OHdG ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), the Comet assay/FLARE hOGG1 (Fragment Length Analysis by Repair Enzymes) assay for quantification of the levels of 8-OHdG and measured the constitutive, induced and unrepaired residual damage, respectively. We compared the DNA repair capacity in peripheral blood lymphocytes following H₂O₂exposure in 30 lung cancer patients, 30 non-, 30 former and 30 current smoker controls matched by age and gender.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our results show that lung cancer cases and current smoker controls have similar levels of 8-OHdG lesions that are significantly higher compared to the non-smokers controls. However, lung cancer cases showed significantly poorer repair capacity compared to all controls tested, including the current smokers controls. After adjustment for age, gender and family history of smoking-related cancer using linear regression, we observed a 5-fold increase in risk of lung cancer associated with high levels of residual damage/reduced repair capacity. Reduced OGG1 activity could be expected to be a risk factor in other smoking-related cancers.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our study shows that the Comet/FLARE assay is a relatively rapid and useful method for determination of DNA repair capacity. Using this assay we could identify individuals with high levels of residual damage and hence poor repair capacity who would be good candidates for intensive follow-up and screening.</p

What Would Make Getting Colorectal Cancer Screening Easier? Perspectives from Screeners and Nonscreeners

Background. Despite the availability of multiple effective tests for colorectal cancer (CRC), screening rates are low. Greater understanding of barriers between screeners and nonscreeners may improve public health initiatives to increase CRC screening (CRCS). Methods. We conducted a content analysis of 625 responses to the question: “Was there anything that would have made getting tested easier?” Respondents were patients at a multispecialty practice who participated in a behavioral intervention trial to increase CRCS. Using clinic records, we classified patients as early-screeners (<6 months), late-screeners(6–12 months), and nonscreeners (>12 months). Results. Both screeners and nonscreeners reported the same categories of barriers. However, early-screeners predominantly cited dislike of test attributes such as bowel preparation, whereas nonscreeners cited concerns regarding finances and work and family responsibilities. Conclusion. Multilevel strategies that address scheduling barriers and external screening barriers may improve CRCS. Future studies may test hypotheses about mediators explaining how screeners overcome barriers

Self-reported prior lung diseases as risk factors for non-small cell lung cancer in Mexican Americans

This study was conducted to assess the association between prior history of respiratory disease and lung cancer among Mexican Americans using data from a multi-racial/ethnic lung cancer case-control study. Cases (n = 204) were patients with previously untreated lung cancer. Healthy control participants (n = 325) were recruited from a large physician group practice. Demographics, cigarette use, and history of respiratory disease were collected. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate relative risk. Prior history of COPD (OR = 2.0; 95 % CI 1.2-3.3) and pneumonia (OR = 2.2; 95 % CI 1.3-3.6) were associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. These findings illustrate that prior COPD and pneumonia are associated with an increased risk of lung cancer among Mexican Americans. To our knowledge, this is one of largest case-control analyses assessing the role of respiratory disease and lung cancer risk specifically among Mexican-Americans