General surgery textbooks and surgical disparities.

INTRODUCTION: Some academic textbooks have previously disseminated simplistic or even incorrect conceptions of race. Propagation of such ideas in General Surgery could contribute to gaps in quality of care received by minority patients. This study aims to determine whether General Surgery textbooks provide a thorough understanding of racial disparities. METHODS: General Surgery texts were drawn from Doody's list, an industry-standard list of textbooks for medical education. Technical guides, atlases, and books for non-General Surgery professionals were excluded. Passages mentioning medical differences amongst racial and ethnic groups were extracted. Six binary classifications were made, based on whether passages (a) described interventions to alleviate difference; (b) addressed environmental mediators of difference; (c) described the contribution of racism or discrimination; (d) used causal language to connect race to difference; (e) referred to known, heritable genetic mechanisms; and (f) directly provided a reference. Types of intervention were also extracted. A heuristic scale was calculated granting one point each for classifications a-c and losing one point for classification d. Three authors performed classifications, and raw agreement and Cohen's kappa were used to assess inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: Thirteen textbooks from Doody's list contained 511 passages discussing medical differences among racial/ethnic groups. Among passages, 25% discussed white people, 22% Black people/African Americans, 19% Asians, 9% Latinos, 4% Jewish/Ashkenazi people, 3% Native Americans, and 18% other. Fifteen passages (2.9%) used language indicating race was the cause of medical difference, and only two explicitly discussed racism or discrimination. Most passages (370, 72.3%) received a scale of 0. 120 (23.5%) received a scale of 1, eight (1.2%) received a scale of 2, and zero received a scale of 3. The mean passage scale was 0.24 and is not changing with time (regression coefficient -0.006/year, p = 0.538). Agreement was 91.2% across all categories and overall Kappa was 0.62. CONCLUSIONS: General Surgery textbooks do not provide readers with scientifically thorough understanding of health disparities. Teaching more comprehensive conceptions, including systemic causes and the role of racism, may prevent reflexive association of minority patients with poor outcomes. Future editions should include these details where disparities are discussed in an independent, comprehensive section.

What do Trauma Surgery Textbooks Teach About Racial Disparities and the Roots of Violence?

This study presents a formal text analysis of trauma surgery textbooks. We examine passages that describe disparities or mechanisms of injury, and we report types of underlying causes and preventative interventions discussed. Trauma textbooks were drawn from an industry-standard list used by medical libraries. Chi-square testing was used to determine whether different types of underlying causes or preventative interventions were discussed by disparity type (those affecting racial minorities vs rural populations) and injury mechanism (accidental injuries vs intentional interpersonal injury). 146 passages were extracted from 7 textbooks, totaling 5576 pages of text. Passages discussing rural disadvantages or unintentional injury were substantially more likely to describe structural risk factors or governmental interventions than those discussing racial disadvantages or intentional injury, respectively. Textbook authors should consider enriching discussion of violence prevention or racial disparities to emphasize structural causes and interventions.

What Is the Quality of Surgical Care for Patients with Hip Fractures at Critical Access Hospitals?

BACKGROUND: Critical access hospitals (CAHs) play an important role in providing access to care for many patients in rural communities. Prior studies have shown that these facilities are able to provide timely and quality care for patients who undergo various elective and emergency general surgical procedures. However, little is known about the quality and reimbursement of surgical care for patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures at CAHs compared with non-CAH facilities. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Are there any differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, mortality, and Medicare payments between patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures at CAHs and those undergoing surgery at non-CAHs? METHODS: The 2005 to 2014 Medicare 100% Standard Analytical Files were queried using ICD-9 procedure codes to identify Medicare-eligible beneficiaries undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (79.15, 79.35, and 78.55), hemiarthroplasty (81.52), and THA (81.51) for isolated closed hip fractures. This database was selected because the claims capture inpatient diagnoses, procedures, charged amounts and paid claims, as well as hospital-level information of the care, of Medicare patients across the nation. Patients with concurrent fixation of an upper extremity, lower extremity, and/or polytrauma were excluded from the study to ensure an isolated cohort of hip fractures was captured. The study cohort was divided into two groups based on where the surgery took place: CAHs and non-CAHs. A 1:1 propensity score match, adjusting for baseline demographics (age, gender, Census Bureau-designated region, and Elixhauser comorbidity index), clinical characteristics (fixation type and time to surgery), and hospital characteristics (whether the hospital was located in a rural ZIP code, the average annual procedure volume of the operating facility, hospital bed size, hospital ownership and teaching status), was used to control for the presence of baseline differences in patients presenting at CAHs and those presenting at non-CAHs. A total of 1,467,482 patients with hip fractures were included, 29,058 of whom underwent surgery in a CAH. After propensity score matching, each cohort (CAH and non-CAH) contained 29,058 patients. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess for differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, and mortality between the two matched cohorts. As funding policies of CAHs are regulated by Medicare, an evaluation of costs-of-care (by using Medicare payments as a proxy) was conducted. Generalized linear regression modeling was used to assess the 90-day Medicare payments among patients undergoing surgery in a CAH, while controlling for differences in baseline demographics and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures were less likely to experience many serious complications at a critical access hospital (CAH) than at a non-CAH. In particular, after controlling for patient demographics, hospital-level factors and procedural characteristics, patients treated at a CAH were less likely to experience: myocardial infarction (3% (916 of 29,058) versus 4% (1126 of 29,058); OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.88]; p < 0.001), sepsis (3% (765 of 29,058) versus 4% (1084 of 29,058); OR 0.69 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.78]; p < 0.001), acute renal failure (6% (1605 of 29,058) versus 8% (2353 of 29,058); OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.61 to 0.69]; p < 0.001), and Clostridium difficile infections (1% (367 of 29,058) versus 2% (473 of 29,058); OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.67 to 0.88]; p < 0.001) than undergoing surgery in a non-CAH. CAHs also had lower rates of all-cause 90-day readmissions (18% (5133 of 29,058) versus 20% (5931 of 29,058); OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]; p < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (4% (1273 of 29,058) versus 5% (1437 of 29,058); OR 0.88 [95% CI 0.82 to 0.95]; p = 0.001) than non-CAHs. Further, CAHs also had risk-adjusted lower 90-day Medicare payments than non-CAHs (USD 800, standard error 89; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients who received hip fracture surgical care at CAHs had a lower risk of major medical and surgical complications than those who had surgery at non-CAHs, even though Medicare reimbursements were lower as well. Although there may be some degree of patient selection at CAHs, these facilities appear to provide high-value care to rural communities. These findings provide evidence for policymakers evaluating the impact of the CAH program and allocating funding resources, as well as for community members seeking emergent care at local CAH facilities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Reporting of Cardiovascular Events in Clinical Trials Supporting FDA Approval of Contemporary Cancer Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) has become an increasingly common limitation to effective anticancer therapy. Yet, whether CVD events were consistently reported in pivotal trials supporting contemporary anticancer drugs is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the incidence, consistency, and nature of CVD event reporting in cancer drug trials. METHODS: From the Drugs@FDA, clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE, and publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug reviews, all reported CVD events across latter-phase (II and III) trials supporting FDA approval of anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018 were evaluated. The primary outcome was the report of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as incident myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, coronary revascularization, atrial fibrillation, or CVD death, irrespective of treatment arm. The secondary outcome was report of any CVD event. Pooled reported annualized incidence rates of MACE in those without baseline CVD were compared with reported large contemporary population rates using relative risks. Population risk differences for MACE were estimated. Differences in drug efficacy using pooled binary endpoint hazard ratios on the basis of the presence or absence of reported CVD were also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, there were 189 trials, evaluating 123 drugs, enrolling 97,365 participants (58.5 ± 5 years, 46.0% female, 72.5% on biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies) with 148,138 person-years of follow-up. Over a median follow-up of 30 months, 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 myocardial infarction, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths; 792 in the intervention vs. 356 in the control arm; p < 0.01) were reported from the 62.4% of trials noting any CVD. The overall weighted-average incidence was 542 events per 100,000 person-years (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm), compared with 1,408 among similar-aged non-cancer trial subjects (relative risk: 0.38; p < 0.01), translating into a risk difference of 866. There was no association between reporting CVD events and drug efficacy (hazard ratio: 0.68 vs. 0.67; p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Among pivotal clinical trials linked to contemporary FDA-approved cancer drugs, reported CVD event rates trail expected population rates.

Lessons from the field: the conduct of randomized controlled trials in Botswana.

BACKGROUND: The conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in low-resource settings may present unique financial, logistic, and process-related challenges. Middle-income countries that have comparable disease burdens to low-income countries, but greater availability of resources, may be conducive settings for RCTs. Indeed, the country of Botswana is experiencing a rapid increase in the conduct of RCTs. Our objective was to explore the experiences of individuals conducting RCTs in Botswana to gain an understanding of the challenges and adaptive strategies to their work. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 14 national and international individuals working on RCTs in Botswana. Participants included principal investigators, research coordinators, lab technicians, research assistants, and other healthcare professionals. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and coded for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five primary themes were identified: ethics board relationships (including delays in the process); research staff management (including staff attrition and career development); study recruitment and retention (including the use of reimbursements); resource availability (including challenges accessing laboratory equipment); and capacity-building (including issues of exporting locally sourced samples). These themes were explored to discuss key challenges and adaptive strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a first-hand account of individuals engaged in conducting RCTs in Botswana, a nation that is experiencing a rapid increase in research activities. Findings provide a foundational understanding for researchers in Botswana and trial managers in similar settings when planning RCTs so that the conduct of research does not outpace the ability to manage, support, and regulate it.