A Randomized Controlled Study on Clinical Adherence to Evidence-Based Guidelines in the Management of Simulated Patients With Barrett's Esophagus and the Clinical Utility of a Tissue Systems Pathology Test: Results From Q-TAB.

INTRODUCTION: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Physicians infrequently adhere to guidelines for managing BE, leading to either reduced detection of dysplasia or inappropriate re-evaluation. METHODS: We conducted a three-arm randomized controlled trial with 2 intervention arms to determine the impact of a tissue systems pathology (TSP-9) test on the adherence to evidence-based guidelines for simulated patients with BE. Intervention 1 received TSP-9 results, and intervention 2 had the option to order TSP-9 results. We collected data from 259 practicing gastroenterologists and gastrointestinal surgeons who evaluated and made management decisions for 3 types of simulated patients with BE: nondysplastic BE, indefinite for dysplasia, and low-grade dysplasia. RESULTS: Intervention 1 was significantly more likely to correctly assess risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia/esophageal adenocarcinoma and offer treatment in accordance with US society guidelines compared with the control group (+6.9%, 95% confidence interval +1.4% to +12.3%). There was no significant difference in ordering guideline-recommended endoscopic eradication therapy. However, for cases requiring annual endoscopic surveillance, we found significant improvement in adherence for intervention 1, with a difference-in-difference of +18.5% ( P = 0.019). Intervention 2 ordered the TSP-9 test in 21.9% of their cases. Those who ordered the test performed similarly to intervention 1; those who did not, performed similarly to the control group. DISCUSSION: The TSP-9 test optimized adherence to clinical guidelines for surveillance and treatment of both patients with BE at high and low risk of disease progression. Use of the TSP-9 test can enable physicians to make risk-aligned management decisions, leading to improved patient health outcomes.

Clinical utility of a novel test for assessing cardiovascular disease risk in type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The risk for and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is often incorrect and delayed. We wished to determine if a novel test improved physicians' ability to risk stratify, diagnose, and treat patients with T2DM. METHODS: In a 2-phase randomized controlled trial comparing the clinical workup, diagnosis, and management of online, simulated patients with T2DM in a nationwide sample of cardiologists and primary care physicians, participants were randomly assigned to control or one of two intervention groups. Intervention participants had access to standard of care diagnostic tools plus a novel diagnostic CVD risk stratification test. RESULTS: In control, there was no change in CV risk stratification of simulated patients between baseline and round 2 (37.1 to 38.3%, p = 0.778). Pre-post analysis showed significant improvements in risk stratification in both Intervention 1 (38.7 to 65.3%) and Intervention 2 (41.9 to 65.8%) (p < 0.01) compared to controls. Both intervention groups significantly increased prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors/GLP1 receptor agonists versus control, + 18.9% for Intervention 1 (p = 0.020) and 1 + 9.4% for Intervention 2 (p = 0.014). Non-pharmacologic treatment improved significantly compared to control (+ 30.0% in Intervention 1 (p < 0.001) and + 22.8% in Intervention 2 (p = 0.001). Finally, monitoring HgbA1C, blood pressure, and follow-up visit frequency improved by + 20.3% (p = 0.004) in Intervention 1 and + 29.8% (p < 0.001) in Intervention 2 compared with control. CONCLUSION: Use of the novel test significantly improved CV risk stratification among T2DM patients. Statistically significant increases treatments were demonstrated, specifically SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor antagonists and recommendations of evidence-based non-pharmacologic treatments. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05237271.

Randomized prospective trial to detect and distinguish between medication nonadherence, drug-drug interactions, and disease progression in chronic cardiometabolic disease.

BACKGROUND: Disentangling nonadherence (NA), drug-drug interactions (DDIs), and disease progression from each other is an important clinical challenge for providers caring for patients with cardiometabolic diseases. NAs and DDIs are both ubiquitous and often overlooked. We studied a novel chronic disease management (CDM) test to detect medication adherence and the presence and severity of DDIs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial of 236 primary care physicians using computer-based, simulated patients, measuring clinical care with and without access to the CDM test. The primary outcomes were whether use of the CDM test increased the accuracy of diagnoses and ordering better treatments and how effective the intervention materials were in getting participants to order the CDM test. RESULTS: Physicians given the CDM test results showed a + 13.2% improvement in their diagnosis and treatment quality-of-care scores (p < 0.001) in the NA patient cases and a + 13.6% improvement in the DDI cases (p < 0.001). The difference-in-difference calculations between the intervention and control groups were + 10.4% for NA and + 10.8% for DDI (p < 0.01 for both). After controlling for physician and practice co-factors, intervention, compared to control, was 50.4x more likely to recognize medication NA and 3.3x more likely to correctly treat it. Intervention was 26.9x more likely to identify the DDI and 15.7x more likely to stop/switch the interacting medication compared to control. We found no significant improvements for the disease progression patient cases. CONCLUSION: Distinguishing between nonadherence, drug-drug interactions, and disease progression is greatly improved using a reliable test, like the CDM test; improved diagnostic accuracy and treatment has the potential to improve patient quality of life, medication safety, clinical outcomes, and efficiency of health delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05192590).

Clinical variation in surveillance and management of Barrett's esophagus: A cross-sectional study of gastroenterologists and gastrointestinal surgeons.

Appropriate surveillance and treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is vital to prevent disease progression and decrease esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC)-related mortality. We sought to determine the variation in BE care and identify improvement opportunities. 275 physicians (113 general gastroenterologists, 128 interventional gastroenterologists, 34 gastrointestinal surgeons) cared for 3 simulated patients, one each from 3 BE clinical scenarios: non-dysplastic BE (NDBE), BE indefinite for dysplasia (IND), and BE with low grade dysplasia (LGD), and care scores were measured against societal guidelines. Overall quality-of-care scores ranged from 17% to 85% with mean of 47.9% ± 11.8% for NDBE, 50.8% ± 11.7% for IND, and 52.7% ± 12.2% for LGD. Participants appropriately determined risk of progression 20.3% of the time: 14.4% for NDBE cases, 19.9% for LGD cases, and 26.8% for IND cases (P = .001). Treatment and follow-up care scores averaged 12.9% ± 17.5% overall. For the LGD cases, guideline-recommended twice-daily PPI treatment was ordered only 24.7% of the time. Guideline-based follow-up endoscopic surveillance was done in only 27.7% of NDBE cases and 32.7% of IND cases. For the LGD cases, 45.4% ordered endoscopic eradication therapy while 25.1% chose annual endoscopic surveillance. Finally, participants provided counseling on lifestyle modifications in just 20% of cases. Overall care of patients diagnosed with BE varied widely and showed room for improvement. Specific opportunities for improvement were adherence to guideline recommended surveillance intervals, patient counseling, and treatment selection for LGD. Physicians would potentially benefit from additional BE education, endoscopic advances, and better methods for risk stratification.

Randomized clinical trial of a novel donor-derived cfDNA test to detect rejection in CPV-simulated renal transplant patients.

PURPOSE: Five-year kidney graft loss currently stands at about 30%. We evaluate the clinical utility of a blood test measuring donor-derived cell-free DNA that detects rejection earlier and, potentially, improves diagnostic and therapeutic accuracy. METHODS: In a randomized controlled experiment, we measured the clinical practice of 175 practicing nephrologists, both with and without the use of dd-cfDNA testing. Providers cared for six simulated post-renal transplant patient cases whose ages ranged from 30 to 75 years and were 3-24 months post-transplant with typical presentations. RESULTS: 154 nephrologists completed two rounds of simulated cases. At baseline, the study arms performed similarly, demonstrating no significant differences either in primary diagnosis (p = 0.853), decisions to biopsy or refer to transplant center (p = 1.000), or therapeutic management (p = 0.488). After introduction of the dd-cfDNA test, intervention nephrologists were more likely to arrive at the diagnosis of rejection (OR 4.00, 95% CI 1.93-8.30), make a correct decision on biopsy/transplant center referral (OR 11.07, 95% CI 4.87-25.16), and properly adjust therapeutic management (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.07-5.24). CONCLUSION: A sample of nationally representative, practicing nephrologists given dd-cfDNA to evaluate post-transplant patients were more likely to correctly diagnose early and subclinical allograft rejection, to send for biopsy or refer to transplant center, and to appropriately change treatment than those nephrologists without dd-cfDNA access.

Reducing Unwarranted Oncology Care Variation Across a Clinically Integrated Network: A Collaborative Physician Engagement Strategy.

PURPOSE: Addressing unwarranted clinical variation in oncology is a high priority for health systems that aspire to ensure consistent levels of high-quality and cost-effective care. Efforts to improve clinical practice and standardize care have proven challenging. Advocate Physician Partners undertook a patient simulation-based practice measurement and feedback project that was focused on breast and lung cancer to engage oncologists in the care standardization process. METHODS: One hundred three medical oncologists cared for online simulated patients using the Clinical Performance and Value platform, receiving feedback on how their care decisions compared with evidence-based guidelines and their peers. We repeated this process every 4 months over six rounds, measuring changes in quality-of-care scores. We then compared simulated patient results with available patient-level claims data. RESULTS: Over the course of the project, overall quality-of-care scores improved 11.9% (P < .001). Diagnostic accuracy increased 6.7% (P < .001) and correlated with improved treatment scores, including a nearly 10-percentage point increase in evidence-based chemotherapy regimens (P = .009) and a 56% increase in addressing palliative needs for patients with late-stage disease (P < .001). Unnecessary test ordering declined 25% (P < .001). We compared these results with available patient data and observed concordance with the metastatic imaging workup order rate for early-stage breast cancer. As unnecessary workups declined in the simulations and became more closely aligned with evidence-based guidelines, we saw similar rates of decline in the patient-level data. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that an oncology care standardization system that combines simulated patients with serial feedback increases evidence-based and cost-effective clinical decisions in patient simulations and patient-level data.

Clinical Utility of a Blood-based Protein Assay on Diagnostic Colonoscopy Referrals for Elevated-risk Colorectal Cancer Patients in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopies are effective in finding early stage colorectal cancer (CRC), which when found in a timely manner, dramatically improve survival rates. A significant number of at-risk patients are still not screened. We investigated the utility of a blood-based protein assay to assess for CRC in patients with elevated risk on the quality of preventive care delivered by board-certified primary care physicians (PCPs) in the United States. METHODS: We report on the results of a 3-part, longitudinal, randomized controlled trial. Part 1 assessed physicians' ability to identify simulated patients at risk for CRC and found PCPs missed colonoscopy referrals for high-risk patients ~40% of the time. Part 2 randomized PCPs into control and intervention arms and demonstrated that a novel blood-based protein assay increased referral rates for a diagnostic colonoscopy when caring for simulated patients. Part 3, reported herein, compares real-world colonoscopy rates of actual patients cared for by control versus intervention physicians. Part 3 was executed to confirm whether the use of the assay demonstrated the same utility in their real world, high-risk patients as found in part 2 using simulated patients. RESULTS: In the simulations, physicians with access to the assay were significantly more likely to order diagnostic colonoscopies. Similarly, in real-world practice, patients were also more likely to be referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy (odds ratio, 4.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-17.57). CONCLUSIONS: An increase in CRC risk, as indicated by the assay in simulated and real-life patients, was associated with a higher likelihood of appropriate patients being referred to diagnostic colonoscopy.

Variation in Assessing Renal Allograft Rejection: A National Assessment of Nephrology Practice.

BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of early detection and treatment of allograft rejection is well-established. Despite frequent testing called for by standard of care protocols, the five-year kidney allograft survival rate is estimated to be as low as 71%. Herein, we report on posttransplant care provided to kidney allograft recipients by board-certified nephrologists in the United States. METHODS: We measured clinical practice in a representative sample of 175 practicing nephrologists. All providers cared for simulated patients' status after renal transplant ranging from 30-75 years in age and 3-24 months after transplant. Our sample of nephrologists cared for a total of 525 allograft cases. Provider responses to the cases were reviewed by trained clinicians, and care was compared to evidence-based care standards and accepted standard of care protocols. RESULTS: Among nephrologists, practicing in settings ranging from transplant centers to community practice, we found that the clinical workup of kidney injury in posttransplant patients is highly variable and frequently deviates from evidence-based care. In cases with pathologic evidence of rejection, only 29.1% (102/350) received an appropriate, evidence-based biopsy, whereas, in cases with no pathological evidence of rejection, 41.3% (45/109) received low-value, unnecessary biopsies. CONCLUSION: Clinical care in the posttransplant setting is highly variable. Biopsies are often ordered in cases where their results do not alter treatment. Additionally, we found that misdiagnosis was common as were opportunities for earlier biopsy and detection of rejection. This evidence suggests that better diagnostic tools may be helpful to determine which transplant patients should be biopsied and which should not. This study suggests that nephrologists and transplant patients need better tests than creatinine and proteinuria and less invasive approaches than routine biopsies to determine when transplant patients should be investigated for rejection and additional treatment.

A Direct Comparison of the Clinical Practice Patterns of Advanced Practice Providers and Doctors.

BACKGROUND: Rising health care costs, physician shortages, and an aging patient population have increased the demand and utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs). Despite their expanding role in care delivery, little research has evaluated the care delivered by APPs compared with physicians. METHODS: We used clinical patient simulations to measure and compare the clinical care offered by APPs and physicians, collecting data from 4 distinct health care systems/hospitals in the United States between 2013 and 2017. Specialties ranged from primary care to hospital medicine and oncology. Primary study outcomes were to 1) measure any differences in practice patterns between APPs and physicians, and 2) determine whether the use of serial measurement and feedback could mitigate any such differences. RESULTS: At baseline, we found no major differences in overall performance of APPs compared with physicians (P = .337). APPs performed 3.2% better in history taking (P = .013) and made 10.5% fewer unnecessary referrals (P = .025), whereas physicians ordered 17.6% fewer low-value tests per case (P = .042). Regardless of specialty or site, after 4 rounds of serial measurement and provider-specific feedback, APPs and physicians had similar increases in average overall scores-7.4% and 7.6%, respectively (P < .001 for both). Not only did both groups improve, but practice differences between the groups disappeared, leading to a 9.1% decrease in overall practice variation. CONCLUSIONS: We found only modest differences in quality of care provided by APPs and physicians. Importantly, both groups improved their performance with serial measurement and feedback so that after 4 rounds, the original differences were mitigated entirely and overall variation significantly reduced. Our data suggest that APPs can provide high quality care in multiple clinical settings.

A Better Pathway? Building Consensus and Engaging Providers with Feedback to Improve and Standardize Cancer Care.

INTRODUCTION: Unwanted clinical variation is common across the United States health care system and is particularly vexing in oncology owing to the complexity, morbidity, and high cost of the disease. Efforts to standardize care including guidelines and continuing medical education have had only limited impact. Disease-specific oncology clinical pathways hold the promise of reducing variation but have been hampered by a lack of ownership and accountability among oncology providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We describe the utility of combining a patient simulation-based clinical variation measurement with the in-house development of multidisciplinary breast cancer pathways at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. RESULTS: At baseline, we found high variation in care decisions across the multidisciplinary team and within individual specialties in the management of simulated patients. Development and introduction of breast cancer clinical pathways combined with individual and group feedback on pathway adherence led to significant increases in pathway-aligned care decisions and decreases in measured variation. Overall quality scores increased from 47.5% to 61.1% (P < .001), with the largest improvement in diagnostic accuracy (+22.1%). Providers also ordered fewer unnecessary tests, saving an estimated $305 per patient case. Adherence to preferred chemotherapy regimens increased for both medical oncologists (+16%) and other members of the multidisciplinary team (+19%). CONCLUSION: Our work shows that a structured process to measure clinical variation and provide personalized feedback to an oncology multidisciplinary team drives adoption of evidence-based pathways, less unneeded spending, and higher quality care for patients.

Engaging Primary Care Providers to Reduce Unwanted Clinical Variation and Support ACO Cost and Quality Goals: A Unique Provider-Payer Collaboration.

This project was undertaken to reduce unneeded variation among practicing primary care clinicians participating in an accountable care organization (ACO) and to raise quality and reduce costs. This real-world, quasi-controlled experiment compared ACO target improvements between 3 participating geographic regions and members within the ProHealth ACO against nonparticipating regions and members. The authors used a novel care standardization initiative to engage participating providers. This was a 2-year longitudinal study with 6 rounds of serially measured provider care decisions and customized individual and group improvement feedback. Participating providers cared for online patient simulations as they would actual patients, and their care decisions were scored against evidence-based guidelines. This approach generated significant increases in evidence-based quality scores (+27%) and reductions in unneeded testing (-55%) in the patient simulations. Improvements in the online simulated patients correlated with improvements in patient-level ACO quality measures, which showed gains above and beyond the quasi-control group. Reductions calculated for spending on unneeded tests and specialist referrals exceeded $4.8 million. This study found that supporting practicing physicians in ACOs with evidence-based feedback significantly improved care and cost-efficiency.

Drug-Drug Interaction Assessment and Identification in the Primary Care Setting.

BACKGROUND: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are ubiquitous, harmful and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. With an aging population, growth in polypharmacy, widespread use of supplements, and the rising opioid abuse epidemic, primary care physicians (PCPs) are increasingly challenged with identifying and preventing DDIs. We set out to evaluate current clinical practices related to identifying and treating DDIs and to determine if opportunities to increase prevention of DDIs and their adverse events could be identified. METHODS: In a nationally representative sample of 330 board-certified family and internal medicine practitioners, we evaluated whether PCPs assessed DDIs in the care they provided for three simulated patients. The patients were taking common prescription medications (e.g. opioids and psychiatric medications) along with other common ingestants (e.g. supplements and food) and presented with symptoms of DDIs. Physicians were scored on their ability to inquire about the patient's medications, investigate possible DDIs, evaluate the patient, and provide treatment recommendations. We scored the physicians' care recommendations against evidence-based criteria, including overall care quality and treatment for DDIs. RESULTS: Average overall quality of care score was 50.5% ± 12.0%. Despite >99% self-reported use of medication reconciliation practices and tools, physicians identified DDIs in only 15.3% of patients, with 15.5% ± 20.3% of DDI-specific treatment by the physicians. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs in this study did not recognize or adequately treat DDIs. Better methods are needed to screen for DDIs in the primary care setting.

Primary care variability in patients at higher risk for colorectal cancer: evaluation of screening and preventive care practices.

OBJECTIVE: Sub-optimal colorectal cancer (CRC) evaluations have been attributed to both physician and patient factors. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate physician practice variation in patients with a higher risk of CRC. We wanted to identify the physician characteristics and the types of patients that were associated with missed screening opportunities; we also explored whether screening for CRC served as a proxy for better preventive care practices. METHODS: A total of 213 board-certified family and internal medicine physicians participated in the study, conducted between September and December 2016. We used Clinical Performance and Value (CPV®) vignettes, simulated patients, to collect data on CRC screening. The CPV patients presented with a typical range of signs and symptoms of potential CRC. The care provided to the simulated patients was scored against explicit evidence-based criteria. The main outcome measure was rate a diagnostic CRC workup was ordered. This data quantified the clinical practice variability for CRC screening in high risk patients and other preventive and screening practices. RESULTS: A total of 81% of participants ordered appropriate CRC workup in patients at risk for CRC, with a majority (71%) selecting diagnostic colonoscopy over FIT/FOBT. Only 6% of physicians ordering CRC workup, however, counseled patients on their higher risk for CRC. The most commonly recognized symptoms prompting testing were unexplained weight loss or inadequate screening history, while the least recognized symptoms of CRC risk were abdominal discomfort found on review of systems. CONCLUSION: This study shows that primary care physician screening of CRC varies widely. Those physicians who successfully screened for CRC were more likely to complete other prevention and screening practices.

Clinical utility of a blood-based protein assay to increase screening of elevated-risk patients for colorectal cancer in the primary care setting.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in finding early stage CRC and dramatically improves survival rates. Despite this, the number of eligible patients who do not obtain CRC screening is unacceptably high. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal, randomized controlled trial investigating the utility of a blood-based protein assay on the quality of care delivered by practicing PCPs in the United States. We used standardized simulated patients (CPVs), presenting with symptoms suggestive of a higher likelihood of CRC, to measure how frequently these PCPs ordered diagnostic colonoscopy. 190 PCPs cared for three patients at baseline and three patients post-intervention. The PCPs were randomized into one of two study arms: control and intervention. The intervention arm consisted of educational materials about the blood-based protein assay and positive test results. Each simulated patient in the intervention arm had a positive test result that was given to the doctor. The controls were given neither intervention materials nor blood-based protein assay results. Physician responses in both groups were scored against evidence-based criteria. Data were collected at baseline and post-intervention. RESULTS: At baseline, we found that 71% of physicians ordered diagnostic colonoscopy. In round 2, 23% of physicians in the intervention arm adopted the new blood-based protein assay. Ordering physicians were 3.88 (95% CI 1.67-9.03) times more likely to order a diagnostic colonoscopy. In percentage terms, those who ordered the assay were more likely to order colonoscopy (92%) than either intervention physicians who did not order the assay (77%) or control physicians (66%) (p < 0.001). A marginal effects estimation showed that use of the assay would increase ordering colonoscopy to nearly 95%. CONCLUSION: Over one-third of adults in the United States do not follow the recommended screening guidelines for CRC. The introduction of a blood-based protein assay significantly increased the likelihood that physicians would order diagnostic colonoscopies in elevated-risk patients compared to those without access to the assay results. The overall change in clinical utility observed here has the potential to significantly improve clinical care.

Improving Clinical Practice Using a Novel Engagement Approach: Measurement, Benchmarking and Feedback, A Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Poor clinical outcomes are caused by multiple factors such as disease progression, patient behavior, and structural elements of care. One other important factor that affects outcome is the quality of care delivered by a provider at the bedside. Guidelines and pathways have been developed with the promise of advancing evidence-based practice. Yet, these alone have shown mixed results or fallen short in increasing adherence to quality of care. Thus, effective, novel tools are required for sustainable practice change and raising the quality of care. METHODS: The study focused on benchmarking and measuring variation and improving care quality for common types of breast cancer at four sites across the United States, using a set of 12 Clinical Performance and Value(®) (CPV(®)) vignettes per site. The vignettes simulated online cases that replicate a typical visit by a patient as the tool to engage breast cancer providers and to identify and assess variation in adherence to evidence-based practice guidelines and pathways. RESULTS: Following multiple rounds of CPV measurement, benchmarking and feedback, we found that scores had increased significantly between the baseline round and the final round (P < 0.001) overall and for all domains. By round 4 of the study, the overall score increased by 14% (P < 0.001), and the diagnosis with treatment plan domain had an increase of 12% (P < 0.001) versus baseline. CONCLUSION: We found that serially engaging breast cancer providers with a validated clinical practice engagement and measurement tool, the CPVs, markedly increased quality scores and adherence to clinical guidelines in the simulated patients. CPVs were able to measure differences in clinical skill improvement and detect how fast improvements were made.

Life expectancy and years of life lost in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: findings from the NHANES III Follow-up Study.

RATIONALE: Previous studies have demonstrated that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) causes increased mortality in the general population. But life expectancy and the years of life lost have not been reported. OBJECTIVES: To quantify mortality, examine how it varies with age, sex, and other risk factors, and determine how life expectancy is affected. METHODS: We constructed mortality models using the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, adjusting for age, sex, race, and major medical conditions. We used these to compute life expectancy and the years of life lost. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pulmonary function testing classified patients as having Global Initiative on Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 COPD or restriction. COPD is associated with only a modest reduction in life expectancy for never smokers, but with a very large reduction for current and former smokers. At age 65, the reductions in male life expectancy for stage 1, stage 2, and stages 3 or 4 disease in current smokers are 0.3 years, 2.2 years, and 5.8 years. These are in addition to the 3.5 years lost due to smoking. In former smokers the reductions are 1.4 years and 5.6 years for stage 2 and stages 3 or 4 disease, and in never smokers they are 0.7 and 1.3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Persons with COPD have an increased risk of mortality compared to those who do not, with consequent reduction in life expectancy. The effect is most marked in current smokers, and this is further reason for smokers to quit.

Smoking habit and mortality: a meta-analysis.

Cigarette smoking leads to excess mortality risk. Although it is well known that the risk increases with the number of pack-years of smoking--that is, how much a person smokes, or "habit"--there is apparently no published studies that organize and synthesize the evidence on this topic. This paper provides a meta-analysis of the latest published findings relating to cigarette smoking habit and excess mortality. A combined estimate of the relative risk (RR) of death for smokers, stratified by habit (light, medium, or heavy smoking), compared with non-smokers is provided.