Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors for Prevention of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in US Outpatient Visits.

Antisecretory medications, primarily proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), have proven effective in reducing upper gastrointestinal toxicities, including upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin, which are among the most commonly used medications in the United States.1 Accordingly, professional guidance recommends PPIs for patients at high risk for UGIB.2-4 However, little is known about trends in use of antisecretory medications for gastrointestinal prophylaxis ("gastroprotection"). Herein, we examined contemporary use and prescribing of antisecretory medications in visits by patients at high risk for UGIB, relative to visits by patients diagnosed with acid-related disorders.

Evaluating the accessibility and value of U.S. ambulatory care among Medicaid expansion states and non-expansion states, 2012-2015.

BACKGROUND: While the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion improved healthcare coverage and access for millions of uninsured Americans, less is known about its effects on the overall accessibility and quality of care across all payers. Rapid volume increases of newly enrolled Medicaid patients might have unintentionally strained accessibility or quality of care. We assessed changes in physician office visits and high- and low-value care associated with Medicaid expansion across all payers. METHODS: Prespecified, quasi-experimental, difference-in-differences analysis pre and post Medicaid expansion (2012-2015) in 8 states that did and 5 that did not choose to expand Medicaid. Physician office visits sampled from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, standardized with U.S. Census population estimates. Outcomes included visit rates per state population and rates of high or low-value service composites of 10 high-value measures and 7 low-value care measures respectively, stratified by year and insurance. RESULTS: We identified approximately 143 million adults utilizing 1.9 billion visits (mean age 56; 60% female) during 2012-2015. Medicaid visits increased in expansion states post-expansion compared to non-expansion states by 16.2 per 100 adults (p = 0.031 95% CI 1.5-31.0). New Medicaid visits increased by 3.1 per 100 adults (95% CI 0.9-5.3, p = 0.007). No changes were observed in Medicare or commercially-insured visit rates. High or low-value care did not change for any insurance type, except high-value care during new Medicaid visits, which increased by 4.3 services per 100 adults (95% CI 1.1-7.5, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Following Medicaid expansion, the U.S. healthcare system increased access to care and use of high-value services for millions of Medicaid enrollees, without observable reductions in access or quality for those enrolled in other insurance types. Provision of low-value care continued at similar rates post-expansion, informing future federal policies designed to improve the value of care.

Trends in US Ambulatory Care Patterns During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2019-2021.

Importance: Following reductions in US ambulatory care early in the pandemic, it remains unclear whether care consistently returned to expected rates across insurance types and services. Objective: To assess whether patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility had significantly lower than expected return to use of ambulatory care rates than patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study examining ambulatory care service patterns from January 1, 2019, through February 28, 2021, claims data from multiple US payers were combined using the Milliman MedInsight research database. Using a difference-in-differences design, the extent to which utilization during the pandemic differed from expected rates had the pandemic not occurred was estimated. Changes in utilization rates between January and February 2020 and each subsequent 2-month time frame during the pandemic were compared with the changes in the corresponding months from the year prior. Age- and sex-adjusted Poisson regression models of monthly utilization counts were used, offsetting for total patient-months and stratifying by service and insurance type. Exposures: Patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility compared with patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization rates per 100 people for 6 services: emergency department, office and urgent care, behavioral health, screening colonoscopies, screening mammograms, and contraception counseling or HIV screening. Results: More than 14.5 million US adults were included (mean age, 52.7 years; 54.9% women). In the March-April 2020 time frame, the combined use of 6 ambulatory services declined to 67.0% (95% CI, 66.9%-67.1%) of expected rates, but returned to 96.7% (95% CI, 96.6%-96.8%) of expected rates by the November-December 2020 time frame. During the second COVID-19 wave in the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization again declined to 86.2% (95% CI, 86.1%-86.3%) of expected rates, with colonoscopy remaining at 65.0% (95% CI, 64.1%-65.9%) and mammography at 79.2% (95% CI, 78.5%-79.8%) of expected rates. By the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization returned to expected rates as follows: patients with Medicaid at 78.4% (95% CI, 78.2%-78.7%), Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility at 73.3% (95% CI, 72.8%-73.8%), commercial at 90.7% (95% CI, 90.5%-90.9%), Medicare Advantage at 83.2% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%), and Medicare fee-for-service at 82.0% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%; P < .001; comparing return to expected utilization rates among patients with Medicaid and Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, respectively, with each of the other insurance types). Conclusions and Relevance: Between March 2020 and February 2021, aggregate use of 6 ambulatory care services increased after the preceding decrease in utilization that followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the rate of increase in use of these ambulatory care services was significantly lower for participants with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility than for those insured by commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service.

The Quality and Outcomes of Care Provided to Patients with Cirrhosis by Advanced Practice Providers.

Cirrhosis is morbid and increasingly prevalent, yet the U.S. health care system lacks enough physicians and specialists to adequately manage patients with cirrhosis. Although advanced practice providers (APPs) can expand access to cirrhosis-related care, their impact on the quality of care remains unknown. We sought to determine the effect on care quality and outcomes for patients managed by APPs using a retrospective analysis of a nationally representative American commercial claims database (Optum), which included 389,257 unique adults with cirrhosis. We evaluated a complication of process measures (i.e., rates of hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC] screening, endoscopic varices screening, and use of rifaximin after hospitalization for hepatic encephalopathy) and outcomes (30-day readmissions and survival). Compared with patients without APP care, patients with APP care had higher rates of HCC screening (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.19, 1.27), varices screening (OR 1.20 [1.13, 1.27]), use of rifaximin after a discharge for hepatic encephalopathy (OR 2.09 [1.80, 2.43]), and reduced risk of 30-day readmission (OR 0.68 [0.66, 0.70]). Gastroenterology/hepatology consultation was also associated with improved quality metric performance compared with primary care; however, shared visits between gastroenterologists/hepatologists and APPs were associated with the best performance and lower 30-day readmissions compared with subspecialty consultation without an APP (OR 0.91 [0.87, 0.95]. Multivariate analysis adjusting for comorbidities, liver disease severity, and other factors including gastroenterology/hepatology consultation showed that patients seen by APPs were more likely to receive consistent HCC and varices screening over time, less likely to experience 30-day readmissions, and had lower mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.55, 0.60). Conclusion: APPs, particularly when working with gastroenterologists/hepatologists, are associated with improved quality of care and outcomes for patients with cirrhosis.

The Utilization and Costs of Grade D USPSTF Services in Medicare, 2007-2016.

BACKGROUND: Low-value care, or patient care that offers no net benefit in specific clinical scenarios, is costly and often associated with patient harm. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendations represent one of the most scientifically sound and frequently delivered groups of low-value services, but a more contemporary measurement of the utilization and spending for Grade D services beyond the small number of previously studied measures is needed. OBJECTIVE: To estimate utilization and costs of seven USPSTF Grade D services among US Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study of data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2007 to 2016 to identify instances of Grade D services. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: NAMCS is a nationally representative survey of US ambulatory visits at non-federal and non-hospital-based offices that uses a multistage probability sampling design. We included all visits by Medicare enrollees, which included traditional fee-for-service, Medicare Advantage, supplemental coverage, and dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid enrollees. MAIN MEASURES: We measured annual utilization of seven Grade D services among adult Medicare patients, using inclusion and exclusion criteria from prior studies and the USPSTF recommendations. We calculated annual costs by multiplying annual utilization counts by mean per-unit costs of services using publicly available sources. KEY RESULTS: During the study period, we identified 95,121 unweighted Medicare patient visits, representing approximately 2.4 billion visits. Each year, these seven Grade D services were utilized 31.1 million times for Medicare beneficiaries and cost $477,891,886. Three services-screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria, vitamin D supplements for fracture prevention, and colorectal cancer screening for adults over 85 years-comprised $322,382,772, or two-thirds of the annual costs of the Grade D services measured in this study. CONCLUSIONS: US Medicare beneficiaries frequently received a group of rigorously defined and costly low-value preventive services. Spending on low-value preventive care concentrated among a small subset of measures, representing important opportunities to safely lower US health care spending while improving the quality of care.

Comparing Use of Low-Value Health Care Services Among U.S. Advanced Practice Clinicians and Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Many physicians believe that advanced practice clinicians (APCs [nurse practitioners and physician assistants]) provide care of relatively lower value. OBJECTIVE: To compare use of low-value services among U.S. APCs and physicians. DESIGN: Service use after primary care visits was evaluated for 3 conditions after adjustment for patient and provider characteristics and year. Patients with guideline-based red flags were excluded and analyses stratified by office- versus hospital-based visits, acute versus nonacute presentations, and whether clinicians self-identified as the patient's primary care provider (PCP). SETTING: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), 1997 to 2011. PATIENTS: Patients presenting with upper respiratory infections (URIs), back pain, or headache. MEASUREMENTS: Use of guideline-discordant antibiotics (for URIs), radiography (for URIs and back pain), computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (for headache and back pain), and referrals to other physicians (for all 3 conditions). RESULTS: 12 170 physician and 473 APC office-based visits and 13 359 physician and 2947 APC hospital-based visits were identified. Although office-based clinicians saw similar patients, hospital-based APCs saw younger patients (mean age, 42.6 vs. 45.0 years; P < 0.001), and practiced in urban settings less frequently (49.7% vs. 81.7% of visits; P < 0.001) than hospital-based physicians. Unadjusted and adjusted results revealed that APCs ordered antibiotics, CT or MRI, radiography, and referrals as often as physicians in both settings. Stratification suggested that self-identified PCP APCs ordered more services than PCP physicians in the hospital-based setting. LIMITATION: NHAMCS reflects hospital-based APC care; NAMCS samples physician practices and likely underrepresents office-based APCs. CONCLUSION: APCs and physicians provided an equivalent amount of low-value health services, dispelling physicians' perceptions that APCs provide lower-value care than physicians for these common conditions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Health Services and Research Administration, Ryoichi Sasakawa Fellowship Fund, and National Institutes of Health.

Trends in the ambulatory management of headache: analysis of NAMCS and NHAMCS data 1999-2010.

BACKGROUND: Headache is a frequent complaint and among the most common reasons for visiting a physician. OBJECTIVE: To characterize trends from 1999 through 2010 in the management of headache. DESIGN: Longitudinal trends analysis. DATA: Nationally representative sample of visits to clinicians for headache from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, excluding visits with "red flags," such as neurologic deficit, cancer, or trauma. MAIN MEASURES: Use of advanced imaging (CT/MRI), opioids/barbiturates, and referrals to other physicians (guideline-discordant indicators), as well as counseling on lifestyle modifications and use of preventive medications including verapamil, topiramate, amitriptyline, or propranolol (guideline-concordant during study period). We analyzed results using logistic regression, adjusting for patient and clinician characteristics, and weighted to reflect U.S. population estimates. Additionally, we stratified findings based on migraine versus non-migraine, acute versus chronic symptoms, and whether the clinician self-identified as the primary care physician. KEY RESULTS: We identified 9,362 visits for headache, representing an estimated 144 million visits during the study period. Nearly three-quarters of patients were female, and the mean age was approximately 46 years. Use of CT/MRI rose from 6.7% of visits in 1999-2000 to 13.9% in 2009-2010 (unadjusted p < 0.001), and referrals to other physicians increased from 6.9 % to 13.2% (p = 0.005). In contrast, clinician counseling declined from 23.5 % to 18.5% (p = 0.041). Use of preventive medications increased from 8.5 % to 15.9% (p = 0.001), while opioids/barbiturates remained unchanged, at approximately 18%. Adjusted trends were similar, as were results after stratifying by migraine versus non-migraine and acute versus chronic presentation. Primary care clinicians had lower odds of ordering CT/MRI (OR 0.56 [0.42, 0.74]). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to numerous guidelines, clinicians are increasingly ordering advanced imaging and referring to other physicians, and less frequently offering lifestyle counseling to their patients. The management of headache represents an important opportunity to improve the value of U.S. healthcare.

Trends and quality of care in outpatient visits to generalist and specialist physicians delivering primary care in the United States, 1997-2010.

BACKGROUND: Although many specialists serve as primary care physicians (PCPs), the type of patients they serve, the range of services they provide, and the quality of care they deliver is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in patient, physician, and visit characteristics, and compare visit-based quality for visits to generalists and specialists self-identified as PCPs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study and time trend analysis. DATA: Nationally representative sample of visits to office-based physicians from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1997-2010. MAIN MEASURES: Proportions of primary care visits to generalist and specialists, patient characteristics, principal diagnoses, and quality. KEY RESULTS: Among 84,041 visits to self-identified PCPs representing an estimated 4.0 billion visits, 91.5 % were to generalists, 5.9 % were to medical specialists and 2.6 % were to obstetrician/gynecologists. The proportion of PCP visits to generalists increased from 88.4 % in 1997 to 92.4 % in 2010, but decreased for medical specialists from 8.0 % to 4.8 %, p = 0.04). The proportion of medical specialist visits in which the physician self-identified as the patient's PCP decreased from 30.6 % in 1997 to 9.8 % in 2010 (p < 0.01). Medical specialist PCPs take care of older patients (mean age 61 years), and dedicate most of their visits to chronic disease management (51.0 %), while generalist PCPs see younger patients (mean age 55.4 years) most commonly for new problems (40.5 %). Obstetrician/gynecologists self-identified as PCPs see younger patients (mean age 38.3 p < 0.01), primarily for preventive care (54.0 %, p < 0.01). Quality of care for cardiovascular disease was better in visits to cardiologists than in visits to generalists, but was similar or better in visits to generalists compared to visits to other medical specialists. CONCLUSIONS: Medical specialists are less frequently serving as PCPs for their patients over time. Generalist, medical specialist, and obstetrician/gynecologist PCPs serve different primary care roles for different populations. Delivery redesign efforts must account for the evolving role of generalist and specialist PCPs in the delivery of primary care.

Proportion Of Preventive Primary Care Visits Nearly Doubled, Especially Among Medicare Beneficiaries, 2001-19.

There is debate about the value of preventive visits in primary care, and multiple policy trends during the past fifteen years may have influenced the likelihood of US adults undergoing preventive primary care visits. Using nationally representative, serial cross-sectional data on adult visits to primary care physicians from the 2001-19 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, we characterized temporal trends in the proportion of primary care visits with a preventive focus and the differential characteristics of these visits. Based on a sample of 139,783 unweighted (5,902,144,258 weighted) US primary care visits, we found that the proportion of primary care visits with a preventive focus increased between 2001 and 2019 (12.8 percent of visits in 2001-02 versus 24.6 percent in 2018-19; [Formula: see text]), with the greatest rate of increase seen for people with Medicare. Primary care visits with a preventive focus involved more time spent with the physician and addressed fewer reasons for the visit compared with problem-based visits. At least one of the following was significantly more likely to occur during a preventive visit than a problem-based visit: counseling provision, ordering of preventive labs, or ordering of a preventive image or procedure. Our findings demonstrate a relative increase in preventive versus problem-based visits in primary care and suggest the importance of enhanced insurance coverage in influencing preventive care delivery trends.

Development and validation of a new ICD-10-based screening colonoscopy overuse measure in a large integrated healthcare system: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Low-value use of screening colonoscopy is wasteful and potentially harmful to patients. Decreasing low-value colonoscopy prevents procedural complications, saves patient time and reduces patient discomfort, and can improve access by reducing procedural demand. The objective of this study was to develop and validate an electronic measure of screening colonoscopy overuse using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition codes and then apply this measure to estimate facility-level overuse to target quality improvement initiatives to reduce overuse in a large integrated healthcare system. METHODS: Retrospective national observational study of US Veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy at 119 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) endoscopy facilities in 2017. A measure of screening colonoscopy overuse was specified by an expert workgroup, and electronic approximation of the measure numerator and denominator was performed ('electronic measure'). The electronic measure was then validated via manual record review (n=511). Reliability statistics (n=100) were calculated along with diagnostic test characteristics of the electronic measure. The measure was then applied to estimate overall rates of overuse and facility-level variation in overuse among all eligible patients. RESULTS: The electronic measure had high specificity (99%) and moderate sensitivity (46%). Adjusted positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 33% and 95%, respectively. Inter-rater reliability testing revealed near perfect agreement between raters (k=0.81). 269 572 colonoscopies were performed in VHA in 2017 (88 143 classified as screening procedures). Applying the measure to these 88 143 screening colonoscopies, 24.5% were identified as potential overuse. Median facility-level overuse was 22.5%, with substantial variability across facilities (IQR 19.1%-27.0%). CONCLUSIONS: An International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition based electronic measure of screening colonoscopy overuse has high specificity and improved sensitivity compared with a previous International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition based measure. Despite increased focus on reducing low-value care and improving access, a quarter of VHA screening colonoscopies in 2017 were identified as potential low-value procedures, with substantial facility-level variability.

Reallocating Cervical Cancer Preventive Service Spending from Low- to High-Value Clinical Scenarios.

Timely follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test result is critical to the prevention and early diagnosis of cervical cancer. The current inadequate and inequitable delivery of these potentially life-saving services is attributed to several factors, including patient out-of-pocket costs. Waiving of consumer cost-sharing for follow-up testing (e.g., colposcopy and related cervical services) is likely to improve access and uptake, especially among underserved populations. One approach to defray the incremental costs of providing more generous coverage for follow-up testing is reducing expenditures on "low-value" cervical cancer screening services. To explore the potential fiscal implications of a policy that redirects cervical cancer screening resources from potentially low- to high-value clinical scenarios, we analyzed 2019 claims from the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database to quantify (i) total spending on low-value cervical cancer screening and (ii) out-of-pocket costs associated with colposcopy and related cervical services among commercially insured Virginians. In a cohort of 1,806,921 female patients (ages 48.1 ± 24.8 years), 295,193 claims for cervical cancer screening were reported, 100,567 (34.0%) of which were determined to be low-value ($4,394,361 total; $4,172,777 for payers and $221,584 out-of-pocket [$2/patient]). Claims for 52,369 colposcopy and related cervical services were reported ($40,994,016 total; $33,457,518 for payers and $7,536,498 out-of-pocket [$144/patient]). These findings suggest that reallocating savings incurred from unnecessary spending to fund more generous coverage of necessary follow-up care is a feasible approach to enhancing cervical cancer prevention equity and outcomes. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Out-of-pocket fees are a barrier to follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test. Among commercially insured Virginians, out-of-pocket costs for follow-up services averaged $144/patient; 34% of cervical cancer screenings were classified as low value. Reallocating low-value cervical cancer screening expenditures to enhance coverage for follow-up care can improve screening outcomes. See related Spotlight, p. 363.

Choosing Wisely interventions to reduce antibiotic overuse in the safety net.

OBJECTIVES: Physician pay-for-performance (P4P) programs frequently target inappropriate antibiotics. Yet little is known about P4P programs' effects on antibiotic prescribing among safety-net populations at risk for unintended harms from reducing care. We evaluated effects of P4P-motivated interventions to reduce antibiotic prescriptions for safety-net patients with acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs). STUDY DESIGN: Interrupted time series. METHODS: A nonrandomized intervention (5/28/2015-2/1/2018) was conducted at 2 large academic safety-net hospitals: Los Angeles County+University of Southern California (LAC+USC) and Olive View-UCLA (OV-UCLA). In response to California's 2016 P4P program to reduce antibiotics for acute bronchitis, 5 staggered Choosing Wisely-based interventions were launched in combination: audit and feedback, clinician education, suggested alternatives, procalcitonin, and public commitment. We also assessed 5 unintended effects: reductions in Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS)-appropriate prescribing, diagnosis shifting, substituting antibiotics with steroids, increasing antibiotics for ARTIs not penalized by the P4P program, and inappropriate withholding of antibiotics. RESULTS: Among 3583 consecutive patients with ARTIs, mean antibiotic prescribing rates for ARTIs decreased from 35.9% to 22.9% (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.93) at LAC+USC and from 48.7% to 27.3% (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93) at OV-UCLA after the intervention. HEDIS-inappropriate prescribing rates decreased from 28.9% to 19.7% (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.39-1.21) at LAC+USC and from 40.9% to 12.5% (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.88) at OV-UCLA. There was no evidence of unintended consequences. CONCLUSIONS: These real-world multicomponent interventions responding to P4P incentives were associated with substantial reductions in antibiotic prescriptions for ARTIs in 2 safety-net health systems without unintended harms.

Developing an electronic health record measure of low-value esophagogastroduodenoscopy for GERD at a large academic health system.

OBJECTIVES: Low-value esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) for uncomplicated gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can harm patients and raise patient and payer costs. We developed an electronic health record (EHR) 'eMeasure' to detect low-value EGDs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort of 518 adult patients diagnosed with GERD who underwent initial EGD between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019. SETTING: Outpatient primary care and gastroenterology clinics at a large, urban, academic health centre. PARTICIPANTS: Adult primary care patients at the University of California Los Angeles who underwent initial EGD for GERD in 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: EGD appropriateness criteria were based on the American College of Gastroenterology 2012 guidelines. An initial EGD was considered low-value if it lacked a documented guideline-based indication, including alarm symptoms (eg, iron-deficiency anaemia); failure of an 8-week proton pump inhibitor trial or elevated Barrett's oesophagus risk. We performed manual chart review on a random sample of 204 patients as a gold standard of the eMeasure's validity. We estimated EGD costs using Medicare physician and facility fee rates. RESULTS: Among 518 initial EGDs performed (mean age 53 years; 54% female), the eMeasure identified 81 (16%) as low-value. The eMeasure's sensitivity was 42% (95% CI 22 to 61) and specificity was 93% (95% CI 89 to 96). Stratifying across clinics, 62 (74.6%) low-value EGDs originated from 2 (12.5%) out of 16 clinics. Total cost for 81 low-value EGDs was approximately US$75 573, including US$14 985 in patients' out-of-pocket costs. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a highly specific eMeasure that showed that low-value EGDs occurred frequently in our healthcare system and were concentrated in a minority of clinics. These results can inform future QI efforts at our institution, such as best practice alerts for the ordering physician. Moreover, this open-source eMeasure has a much broader potential impact, as it can be integrated into any EHR and improve medical decision-making at the point of care.

Assessment of coronary artery calcium using dual-energy subtraction digital radiography.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of global mortality, yet its early detection remains a vexing problem of modern medicine. Although the computed tomography (CT) calcium score predicts cardiovascular risk, relatively high cost ($250-400) and radiation dose (1-3 mSv) limit its universal utility as a screening tool. Dual-energy digital subtraction radiography (DE; <$60, 0.07 mSv) enables detection of calcified structures with high sensitivity. In this pilot study, we examined DE radiography's ability to quantify coronary artery calcification (CAC). We identified 25 patients who underwent non-contrast CT and DE chest imaging performed within 12 months using documented CAC as the major inclusion criteria. A DE calcium score was developed based on pixel intensity multiplied by the area of the calcified plaque. DE scores were plotted against CT scores. Subsequently, a validation cohort of 14 additional patients was independently evaluated to confirm the accuracy and precision of CAC quantification, yielding a total of 39 subjects. Among all subjects (n = 39), the DE score demonstrated a correlation coefficient of 0.87 (p < 0.0001) when compared with the CT score. For the 13 patients with CT scores of <400, the correlation coefficient was -0.26. For the 26 patients with CT scores of ≥400, the correlation coefficient yielded 0.86. This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of DE radiography to identify patients at the highest cardiovascular risk. DE radiography's accuracy at lower scores remains unclear. Further evaluation of DE radiography as an inexpensive and low-radiation imaging tool to diagnose cardiovascular disease appears warranted.

US emergency care patterns among nurse practitioners and physician assistants compared with physicians: a cross-sectional analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Nurse practitioners and physician assistants (NPs/PAs) increasingly practice in emergency departments (EDs), yet limited research has compared their practice patterns with those of physicians. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using nationally representative data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), we analysed ED visits among NPs/PAs and physicians between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2017. To compare NP/PA and physician utilisation, we estimated propensity score-weighted multivariable regressions adjusted for clinical/sociodemographic variables, including triage acuity score (1=sickest/5=healthiest). Because NPs/PAs may preferentially consult physicians for more complex patients, we performed sensitivity analyses restricting to EDs with >95% of visits including the NP/PA-physician combination. EXPOSURES: NPs/PAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of hospitalisations, diagnostic tests, medications, procedures and six low-value services, for example, CT/MRI for uncomplicated headache, based on Choosing Wisely and other practice guidelines. RESULTS: Before propensity weighting, we studied visits to 12 410 NPs/PAs-alone, 21 560 to the NP/PA-physician combination and 143 687 to physicians-alone who saw patients with increasing age (41, 45 and 47 years, p<0.001) and worsening triage acuity scores (3.03, 2.85 and 2.67, p<0.001), respectively. After weighting, NPs/PAs-alone used fewer medications (2.62 vs 2.80, p=0.002), diagnostic tests (3.77 vs 4.66, p<0.001), procedures (0.67 vs 0.77, p<0.001), hospitalisations (OR 0.35 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.46)) and low-value CT/MRI studies (OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.80)) than physicians. Contrastingly, the NP/PA-physician combination used more medications (3.08 vs 2.80, p<0.001), diagnostic tests (5.07 vs 4.66, p<0.001), procedures (0.86 vs 0.77, p<0.001), hospitalisations OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.51) and low-value CT/MRI studies (OR 1.23 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.43)) than physicians-results were similar among EDs with >95% of NP/PA visits including the NP/PA-physician combination. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: While U.S. NPs/PAs-alone used less care and low-value advanced diagnostic imaging, the NP/PA-physician combination used more care and low-value advanced diagnostic imaging than physicians alone. Findings were reproduced among EDs where nearly all NP/PA visits were collaborative with physicians, suggesting that NPs/PAs seeing more complex patients used more services than physicians alone, but the converse might be true for more straightforward patients.