Evidence-Based Assessment of Genes in Dilated Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Each of the cardiomyopathies, classically categorized as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, has a signature genetic theme. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy are largely understood as genetic diseases of sarcomere or desmosome proteins, respectively. In contrast, >250 genes spanning >10 gene ontologies have been implicated in DCM, representing a complex and diverse genetic architecture. To clarify this, a systematic curation of evidence to establish the relationship of genes with DCM was conducted. METHODS: An international panel with clinical and scientific expertise in DCM genetics evaluated evidence supporting monogenic relationships of genes with idiopathic DCM. The panel used the Clinical Genome Resource semiquantitative gene-disease clinical validity classification framework with modifications for DCM genetics to classify genes into categories on the basis of the strength of currently available evidence. Representation of DCM genes on clinically available genetic testing panels was evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-one genes with human genetic evidence were curated. Twelve genes (23%) from 8 gene ontologies were classified as having definitive (BAG3, DES, FLNC, LMNA, MYH7, PLN, RBM20, SCN5A, TNNC1, TNNT2, TTN) or strong (DSP) evidence. Seven genes (14%; ACTC1, ACTN2, JPH2, NEXN, TNNI3, TPM1, VCL) including 2 additional ontologies were classified as moderate evidence; these genes are likely to emerge as strong or definitive with additional evidence. Of these 19 genes, 6 were similarly classified for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and 3 for arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Of the remaining 32 genes (63%), 25 (49%) had limited evidence, 4 (8%) were disputed, 2 (4%) had no disease relationship, and 1 (2%) was supported by animal model data only. Of the 16 evaluated clinical genetic testing panels, most definitive genes were included, but panels also included numerous genes with minimal human evidence. CONCLUSIONS: In the curation of 51 genes, 19 had high evidence (12 definitive/strong, 7 moderate). It is notable that these 19 genes explain only a minority of cases, leaving the remainder of DCM genetic architecture incompletely addressed. Clinical genetic testing panels include most high-evidence genes; however, genes lacking robust evidence are also commonly included. We recommend that high-evidence DCM genes be used for clinical practice and that caution be exercised in the interpretation of variants in variable-evidence DCM genes.

Development and Validation of an Algorithm to Identify Planned Readmissions From Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: It is desirable not to include planned readmissions in readmission measures because they represent deliberate, scheduled care. OBJECTIVES: To develop an algorithm to identify planned readmissions, describe its performance characteristics, and identify improvements. DESIGN: Consensus-driven algorithm development and chart review validation study at 7 acute-care hospitals in 2 health systems. PATIENTS: For development, all discharges qualifying for the publicly reported hospital-wide readmission measure. For validation, all qualifying same-hospital readmissions that were characterized by the algorithm as planned, and a random sampling of same-hospital readmissions that were characterized as unplanned. MEASUREMENTS: We calculated weighted sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the algorithm (version 2.1), compared to gold standard chart review. RESULTS: In consultation with 27 experts, we developed an algorithm that characterizes 7.8% of readmissions as planned. For validation we reviewed 634 readmissions. The weighted sensitivity of the algorithm was 45.1% overall, 50.9% in large teaching centers and 40.2% in smaller community hospitals. The weighted specificity was 95.9%, positive predictive value was 51.6%, and negative predictive value was 94.7%. We identified 4 minor changes to improve algorithm performance. The revised algorithm had a weighted sensitivity 49.8% (57.1% at large hospitals), weighted specificity 96.5%, positive predictive value 58.7%, and negative predictive value 94.5%. Positive predictive value was poor for the 2 most common potentially planned procedures: diagnostic cardiac catheterization (25%) and procedures involving cardiac devices (33%). CONCLUSIONS: An administrative claims-based algorithm to identify planned readmissions is feasible and can facilitate public reporting of primarily unplanned readmissions.

Local knowledge, state power, and the science of industrial labor relations: William Leiserson, David Saposs, and American labor economics in the interwar years.

Recent scholarship has frequently emphasized modern states' use of social science to impose universalized conceptions of rationality and order upon diverse, highly localized settings. The New Deal era experiences of William M. Leiserson and David J. Saposs, however, provide an analytical alternative. As students of the pioneering labor economist John R. Commons, Leiserson and Saposs sought to create mechanisms for state oversight of industrial labor relations that recognized local practices and arrangements. Although their approach failed to take hold within the National Labor Relations Board, localized institutional and political contingencies, and not a hegemonic modernism, account best for their frustrated aspirations in the late 1930s.