Comparative Effect of Contrast Media Type on the Incidence of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Iodine contrast media are essential components of many imaging procedures. An important potential side effect is contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). PURPOSE: To compare CIN risk for contrast media within and between osmolality classes in patients receiving diagnostic or therapeutic imaging procedures. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, and Scopus through June 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials that reported CIN-related outcomes in patients receiving low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM) or iso-osmolar contrast media for imaging. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent study selection and quality assessment by 2 reviewers and dual extraction of study characteristics and results. DATA SYNTHESIS: None of the 5 studies that compared types of LOCM reported a statistically significant or clinically important difference among study groups, but the strength of evidence was low. Twenty-five randomized, controlled trials found a slight reduction in CIN risk with the iso-osmolar contrast media agent iodixanol compared with a diverse group of LOCM that just reached statistical significance in a meta-analysis (pooled relative risk, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99]; P = 0.045). This comparison's strength of evidence was moderate. In a meta regression of randomized, controlled trials of iodixanol, no relationship was found between route of administration and comparative CIN risk. LIMITATIONS: Few studies compared LOCM. Procedural details about contrast administration were not uniformly reported. Few studies specified clinical indications or severity of baseline renal impairment. CONCLUSION: No differences were found in CIN risk among types of LOCM. Iodixanol had a slightly lower risk for CIN than LOCM, but the lower risk did not exceed a criterion for clinical importance. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Effectiveness of Prevention Strategies for Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: N-acetylcysteine, sodium bicarbonate, statins, and ascorbic acid have been studied for reducing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of interventions to reduce CIN in adults receiving contrast media. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scopus databases through June 2015. Risk of bias and overall strength of evidence (SOE) of studies were assessed. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials of N-acetylcysteine, sodium bicarbonate, statins, or ascorbic acid that used intravenous (IV) or intra-arterial contrast media and defined CIN with enough data for meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Low-dose N-acetylcysteine plus IV saline compared with IV saline (risk ratio [RR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89]; low SOE), N-acetylcysteine plus IV saline compared with IV saline in patients receiving low-osmolar contrast media (RR, 0.69 [CI, 0.58 to 0.84]; moderate SOE), and statins plus N-acetylcysteine plus IV saline versus N-acetylcysteine plus IV saline (RR, 0.52 [CI, 0.29 to 0.93]; low SOE) had clinically important and statistically significant benefits. The following 3 comparisons suggested a clinically important difference that was not statistically significant: sodium bicarbonate versus IV saline in patients receiving low-osmolar contrast media (RR, 0.65 [CI, 0.33 to 1.25]; low SOE), statins plus IV saline versus IV saline (RR, 0.68 [CI, 0.39 to 1.20]; low SOE), and ascorbic acid versus IV saline (RR, 0.72 [CI, 0.48 to 1.01]; low SOE). Strength of evidence was generally insufficient for comparisons of the need for renal replacement, cardiac events, and mortality. LIMITATION: Too few studies were done in patients receiving IV contrast media. CONCLUSION: The greatest reduction in CIN was seen with N-acetylcysteine plus IV saline in patients receiving LOCM and with statins plus N-acetylcysteine plus IV saline. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Systematic Review of Programs Treating High-Need and High-Cost People With Multiple Chronic Diseases or Disabilities in the United States, 2008-2014.

INTRODUCTION: Finding ways to provide better and less expensive health care for people with multiple chronic conditions or disability is a pressing concern. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate different approaches for caring for this high-need and high-cost population. METHODS: We searched Medline for articles published from May 31, 2008, through June 10, 2014, for relevant studies. Articles were considered eligible for this review if they met the following criteria: included people with multiple chronic conditions (behavioral or mental health) or disabilities (2 or more); addressed 1 or more of clinical outcomes, health care use and spending, or patient satisfaction; and compared results from an intervention group with a comparison group or baseline measurements. We extracted information on program characteristics, participant characteristics, and significant (positive and negative) clinical findings, patient satisfaction, and health care use outcomes. For each outcome, the number of significant and positive results was tabulated. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included across 5 models of care. Of the 3 studies reporting patient satisfaction outcomes, 2 reported significant improvements; both were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the 14 studies reporting clinical outcomes, 12 reported improvements (8 were RCTs). Of the 13 studies reporting health care use and spending outcomes, 12 reported significant improvements (2 were RCTs). Two models of care - care and case management and disease management - reported improvements in all 3 outcomes. For care and case management models, most improvements were related to health care use. For the disease management models, most improvements were related to clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Care and case management as well as disease management may be promising models of care for people with multiple chronic conditions or disabilities. More research and consistent methods are needed to understand the most appropriate care for these high-need and high-cost patients.

Uncontrolled Hypertension Is Common in Glaucoma Clinics.

BACKGROUND: To determine the magnitude of uncontrolled hypertension and smoking among patients visiting an eye clinic, and ascertain if referral to care providers is effective. METHODS: Information on smoking status and blood pressure (BP) was collected among patients ≥18 years visiting an eye clinic. Those with high BP (systolic: ≥140 mm Hg and/or diastolic: ≥90 mm Hg) received a pamphlet on harms of hypertension on vision and were referred to a primary care physician. Smokers received a pamphlet on negative effects of smoking on vision and were offered referral to a tobacco quitline. Patients were followed up for referral outcome within 10 weeks from screening. RESULTS: Screening: A total of participants screened included 140 (29.5%) with high BP and 31 (6.6%) current smokers. In the high BP group, 92 (66%) subjects were previously diagnosed with hypertension. Follow-up: Of the 140 participants with elevated BP, 84 (60%) responded to follow-up. Among these 84 participants, 57 (67.9%) had consulted primary care, of whom 5 (8.8%) reported being newly diagnosed with hypertension, and 11 (19.3%) reported a change in their antihypertensive prescription. Among the 31 smokers, 24 (77.4%) were willing for quitline referral. Sixteen (66.7%) of these patients responded to follow-up, 8 (50%) of whom reported participation in a smoking-cessation program with 1 patient (6.3%) successfully quitting smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of patients attending an eye clinic had elevated BP, and a smaller, but substantial, number of patients were current smokers. Eye clinics may serve as point for identification and referral of these patients with unmet needs.

Association of vision loss and work status in the United States.

IMPORTANCE: Working is critical to personal health and well-being. We examine the association of vision measured objectively with work status using a nationally representative sample of working-age Americans. OBSERVATION: A total of 19 849 participants from the 1999-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey completed a vision examination and employment/demographic questionnaires. Employment rates for men with visual impairment, uncorrected refractive error, and normal vision were 58.7%, 66.5%, and 76.2%, respectively; employment rates for women with visual impairment, uncorrected refractive error, and normal vision were 24.5%, 56.0%, and 62.9%, respectively. In multivariable models adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and chronic disease status, both uncorrected refractive error (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.15-1.60) and visual impairment (OR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.93-4.79) were associated with a higher likelihood of not working. Subgroups in which visual impairment was associated with even higher odds of not working included women (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.5-9.6), participants younger than 55 years (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.9-6.5), and diabetic individuals (OR, 14.8; 95% CI, 5.8-37.3). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Decreased vision is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of not working. Visually impaired diabetic individuals, women, and those younger than 55 years have a particularly high risk of not working. Further investigation is warranted to understand barriers for employment in individuals with decreased vision.

Barriers to eye care among people aged 40 years and older with diagnosed diabetes, 2006-2010.

OBJECTIVE We examine barriers to receiving recommended eye care among people aged ≥40 years with diagnosed diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We analyzed 2006-2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 22 states (n = 27,699). Respondents who had not sought eye care in the preceding 12 months were asked the main reason why. We categorized the reasons as cost/lack of insurance, no need, no eye doctor/travel/appointment, and other (meaning everything else). We used multinomial logistic regression to control for race/ethnicity, education, income, and other selected covariates. RESULTS Among adults with diagnosed diabetes, nonadherence to the recommended annual eye examinations was 23.5%. The most commonly reported reasons for not receiving eye care in the preceding 12 months were "no need" and "cost or lack of insurance" (39.7 and 32.3%, respectively). Other reasons were "no eye doctor," "no transportation" or "could not get appointment" (6.4%), and "other" (21.5%). After controlling for covariates, adults aged 40-64 years were more likely than those aged ≥65 years (relative risk ratio [RRR] = 2.79; 95% CI 2.01-3.89) and women were more likely than men (RRR = 2.33; 95% CI 1.75-3.14) to report "cost or lack of insurance" as their main reason. However, people aged 40-64 years were less likely than those aged ≥65 years to report "no need" (RRR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.39-0.67) as their main reason. CONCLUSIONS Addressing concerns about "cost or lack of insurance" for adults under 65 years and "no perceived need" among those 65 years and older could help improve eye care service utilization among people with diabetes.

Beliefs about the health effects of "thirdhand" smoke and home smoking bans.

OBJECTIVE: There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. Thirdhand smoke is residual tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette is extinguished. Children are uniquely susceptible to thirdhand smoke exposure. The objective of this study was to assess health beliefs of adults regarding thirdhand smoke exposure of children and whether smokers and nonsmokers differ in those beliefs. We hypothesized that beliefs about thirdhand smoke would be associated with household smoking bans. METHODS: Data were collected by a national random-digit-dial telephone survey from September to November 2005. The sample was weighted by race and gender within Census region on the basis of US Census data. The study questions assessed the level of agreement with statements that breathing air in a room today where people smoked yesterday can harm the health of children. RESULTS: Of 2000 eligible respondents contacted, 1510 (87%) completed surveys, 1478 (97.9%) answered all questions pertinent to this analysis, and 273 (18.9%) were smokers. Overall, 95.4% of nonsmokers versus 84.1% of smokers agreed that secondhand smoke harms the health of children, and 65.2% of nonsmokers versus 43.3% of smokers agreed that thirdhand smoke harms children. Strict rules prohibiting smoking in the home were more prevalent among nonsmokers: 88.4% vs 26.7%. In multivariate logistic regression, after controlling for certain variables, belief that thirdhand smoke harms the health of children remained independently associated with rules prohibiting smoking in the home. Belief that secondhand smoke harms the health of children was not independently associated with rules prohibiting smoking in the home and car. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that beliefs about the health effects of thirdhand smoke are independently associated with home smoking bans. Emphasizing that thirdhand smoke harms the health of children may be an important element in encouraging home smoking bans.