COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage and Factors Associated With Vaccine Uptake Among People With HIV.

Importance: People with HIV (PWH) may be at increased risk for severe outcomes with COVID-19 illness compared with people without HIV. Little is known about COVID-19 vaccination coverage and factors associated with primary series completion among PWH. Objectives: To evaluate COVID-19 vaccination coverage among PWH and examine sociodemographic, clinical, and community-level factors associated with completion of the primary series and an additional primary dose. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health record data to assess COVID-19 vaccination information from December 14, 2020, through April 30, 2022, from 8 health care organizations of the Vaccine Safety Datalink project in the US. Participants were adults diagnosed with HIV on or before December 14, 2020, enrolled in a participating site. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentage of PWH with at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine and PWH who completed the COVID-19 vaccine primary series by December 31, 2021, and an additional primary dose by April 30, 2022. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% CIs were estimated using Poisson regression models for factors associated with completing the COVID-19 vaccine primary series and receiving an additional primary dose. Results: Among 22 058 adult PWH (mean [SD] age, 52.1 [13.3] years; 88.8% male), 90.5% completed the primary series by December 31, 2021. Among 18 374 eligible PWH who completed the primary series by August 12, 2021, 15 982 (87.0%) received an additional primary dose, and 4318 (23.5%) received a booster dose by April 30, 2022. Receipt of influenza vaccines in the last 2 years was associated with completion of the primary series (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.15-1.20) and an additional primary dose (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.54-1.69). PWH with uncontrolled viremia (HIV viral load ≥200 copies/mL) (eg, RR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.85-0.95] for viral load 200-10 000 copies/mL vs undetected or <200 copies/mL for completing the primary series) and Medicaid insurance (eg, RR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.87-0.90] for completing the primary series) were less likely to be fully vaccinated. By contrast, greater outpatient utilization (eg, RR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.05-1.09] for ≥7 vs 0 visits for primary series completion) and residence in counties with higher COVID-19 vaccine coverage (eg, RR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.08] for fourth vs first quartiles for primary series completion) were associated with primary series and additional dose completion (RRs ranging from 1.01 to 1.21). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this cohort study suggest that, while COVID-19 vaccination coverage was high among PWH, outreach efforts should focus on those who did not complete vaccine series and those who have uncontrolled viremia.

Cardiovascular and mortality benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists as third-step glucose-lowering medicine in patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have found that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1) have cardiovascular benefits for patients with type 2 diabetes (DM2) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or heart failure (HF). The literature does not provide evidence specifically for patients with these conditions who are adding one of these medicines to two glucose-lowering medications (ie, as "third-step" therapy). We explored the effects of different third-step medications on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes and these comorbid conditions. Specifically, we compared third-step SGLT2 or GLP1 to third-step dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4), insulin, or thiazolidinediones (TZD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We assembled a retrospective cohort of adults at five Kaiser Permanente sites with DM2 and ASCVD, CKD, or HF, initiating third-step treatment between 2016 and 2020. Propensity score weighted Poisson models were used to calculate adjusted rate ratios (ARRs) for all-cause mortality, incident major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and incident HF hospitalization in patients initiating SGLT2 or GLP1 compared with DPP4, insulin, or TZD. RESULTS: We identified 27 542 patients initiating third-step treatment with one or more of these conditions (19 958 with ASCVD, 14 577 with CKD, and 3919 with HF). ARRs for GLP1 and SGLT2 versus DPP4, insulin, and TZD in the patient subgroups ranged between 0.22 and 0.55 for all-cause mortality, 0.38 and 0.81 for MACE, and 0.46 and 1.05 for HF hospitalization. Many ARRs were statistically significant, and all significant ARRs showed a benefit (ARR <1) for GLP1 or SGLT2 when compared with DPP4, insulin, or TZD. CONCLUSIONS: Third-step SGLT2 and GLP1 are generally associated with a benefit for these outcomes in these patient groups when compared with third-step DPP4, insulin, or TZD. Our results add to evidence of a cardiovascular benefit of SGLT2 and GLP1 and could inform clinical guidelines for choosing third-step diabetes treatment.

Longitudinal adherence to breast cancer surveillance following cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.

PURPOSE: Screening with mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important risk management strategy for individuals with inherited pathogenic variants (PVs) in genes associated with increased breast cancer risk. We describe longitudinal screening adherence in individuals who underwent cancer genetic testing as part of usual care in a vertically integrated health system. METHODS: We determined the proportion time covered (PTC) by annual mammography and breast MRI for individuals with PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, and ATM. We determined time covered by biennial mammography beginning at age 50 years for individuals who received negative results, uncertain results, or with PVs in genes without specific breast cancer screening recommendations. RESULTS: One hundred and forty individuals had PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, or ATM. Among these individuals, average PTC was 48% (range 0-99%) for annual screening mammography and 34% (range 0-100%) for annual breast MRI. Average PTC was highest for individuals with PVs in CHEK2 (N = 14) and lowest for individuals with PVs in TP53 (N = 3). Average PTC for biennial mammography (N = 1,027) was 49% (0-100%). CONCLUSION: Longitudinal screening adherence in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes, as measured by the proportion of time covered, is low; adherence to annual breast MRI falls below that of annual mammography. Additional research should examine screening behavior in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes with a goal of developing interventions to improve adherence to recommended risk management.

A safety study evaluating non-COVID-19 mortality risk following COVID-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: The safety of COVID-19 vaccines plays an important role in addressing vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a large cohort study to evaluate the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality after COVID-19 vaccination while adjusting for confounders including individual-level demographics, clinical risk factors, health care utilization, and community-level socioeconomic risk factors. METHODS: The retrospective cohort study consisted of members from seven Vaccine Safety Datalink sites from December 14, 2020 through August 31, 2021. We conducted three separate analyses for each of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US. Crude non-COVID-19 mortality rates were reported by vaccine type, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The counting process model for survival analyses was used to analyze non-COVID-19 mortality where a new observation period began when the vaccination status changed upon receipt of the first dose and the second dose. We used calendar time as the basic time scale in survival analyses to implicitly adjust for season and other temporal trend factors. A propensity score approach was used to adjust for the potential imbalance in confounders between the vaccinated and comparison groups. RESULTS: For each vaccine type and across age, sex, and race/ethnicity groups, crude non-COVID-19 mortality rates among COVID-19 vaccinees were lower than those among comparators. After adjusting for confounders with the propensity score approach, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.49) after dose 1 and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.46-0.50) after dose 2 of the BNT162b2 vaccine, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.39-0.44) after dose 1 and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.37-0.40) after dose 2 of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51-0.59) after receipt of Ad26.COV2.S. CONCLUSION: While residual confounding bias remained after adjusting for several individual-level and community-level risk factors, no increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality among recipients of three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.

ORCA, a values-based decision aid for selecting additional findings from genomic sequencing in adults: Efficacy results from a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Individuals having genomic sequencing can choose to be notified about pathogenic variants in genes unrelated to the testing indication. A decision aid can facilitate weighing one's values before making a choice about these additional results. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial (N = 231) comparing informed values-choice congruence among adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome who viewed either the Optional Results Choice Aid (ORCA) or web-based additional findings information alone. ORCA is values-focused with a low-literacy design. RESULTS: Individuals in both arms had informed values-choice congruence (75% and 73% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.58-2.08). Most participants had adequate knowledge (79% and 76% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.61-2.34), with no significant difference between groups. Most had information-seeking values (97% and 98% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.10-3.61) and chose to receive additional findings. CONCLUSION: The ORCA decision aid did not significantly improve informed values-choice congruence over web-based information in this cohort of adults deciding about genomic results. Both web-based approaches may be effective for adults to decide about receiving medically actionable additional results.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Non-COVID-19 Mortality Risk - Seven Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 14, 2020-July 31, 2021.

By September 21, 2021, an estimated 182 million persons in the United States were fully vaccinated against COVID-19.* Clinical trials indicate that Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson; Ad.26.COV2.S) vaccines are effective and generally well tolerated (1-3). However, daily vaccination rates have declined approximately 78% since April 13, 2021†; vaccine safety concerns have contributed to vaccine hesitancy (4). A cohort study of 19,625 nursing home residents found that those who received an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) had lower all-cause mortality than did unvaccinated residents (5), but no studies comparing mortality rates within the general population of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons have been conducted. To assess mortality not associated with COVID-19 (non-COVID-19 mortality) after COVID-19 vaccination in a general population setting, a cohort study was conducted during December 2020-July 2021 among approximately 11 million persons enrolled in seven Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) sites.§ After standardizing mortality rates by age and sex, this study found that COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower non-COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons. After adjusting for demographic characteristics and VSD site, this study found that adjusted relative risk (aRR) of non-COVID-19 mortality for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.44) after dose 1 and 0.34 (95% CI = 0.33-0.36) after dose 2. The aRRs of non-COVID-19 mortality for the Moderna vaccine were 0.34 (95% CI = 0.32-0.37) after dose 1 and 0.31 (95% CI = 0.30-0.33) after dose 2. The aRR after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 0.54 (95% CI = 0.49-0.59). There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States.

Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM): A clinical trial assessing a multimodal cancer genetics services delivery program and its impact on diverse populations.

Advances in the application of genomic technologies in clinical care have the potential to increase existing healthcare disparities. Studies have consistently shown that only a fraction of eligible patients with a family history of cancer receive recommended cancer genetic counseling and subsequent genetic testing. Care delivery models using pre-test and post-test counseling are not scalable, which contributes to barriers in accessing genetics services. These barriers are even more pronounced for patients in historically underserved populations. We have designed a multimodal intervention to improve subsequent cancer surveillance, by improving the identification of patients at risk for familial cancer syndromes, reducing barriers to genetic counseling/testing, and increasing patient understanding of complex genetic results. We are evaluating this intervention in two large, integrated healthcare systems that serve diverse patient populations (NCT03426878). The primary outcome is the number of diagnostic (hereditary cancer syndrome) findings. We are examining the clinical and personal utility of streamlined pathways to genetic testing using electronic medical record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews. We will assess downstream care utilization of individuals receiving usual clinical care vs. genetic testing through the study. We will evaluate the impacts of a literacy-focused genetic counseling approach versus usual care genetic counseling on care utilization and participant understanding, satisfaction, and family communication. By recruiting participants belonging to historically underserved populations, this study is uniquely positioned to evaluate the potential of a novel genetics care delivery program to reduce care disparities.

A decision aid for additional findings in genomic sequencing: Development and pilot testing.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of a web-based, patient-facing decision aid to support patients and research participants to make an informed, values-based decision about whether to receive additional results from genomic sequencing. METHODS: We developed the decision aid following the multi-step process described in the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. This utilized literature review, focus groups, and alpha testing with research participants undergoing clinical genomic sequencing. RESULTS: The decision aid, the Optional Results Choice Aid (ORCA), includes a seven-question "values clarification exercise," illustrative patient quotes, and summative guidance for the user. The decision aid was found to be highly readable, acceptable and relevant in alpha testing. CONCLUSION: We developed a decision aid to support informed, values-based decision making for patients and research participants considering whether to receive additional results from genomic sequencing. ORCA is being implemented in the NHGRI-funded Cancer Health Assessment Reaching Many (CHARM) study, where we are measuring informed values-choice congruence. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: ORCA was designed to support patients and research participants to make an informed, values-based decision about whether to receive additional results from genomic sequencing.

Balancing Adherence and Expense: The Cost-Effectiveness of Two-Sample vs One-Sample Fecal Immunochemical Test.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) causes more than 50,000 deaths each year in the United States but early detection through screening yields survival gains; those diagnosed with early stage disease have a 5-year survival greater than 90%, compared to 12% for those diagnosed with late stage disease. Using data from a large integrated health system, this study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), a common CRC screening tool. A probabilistic decision-analytic model was used to examine the costs and outcomes of positive test results from a 1-FIT regimen compared with a 2-FIT regimen. The authors compared 5 diagnostic cutoffs of hemoglobin concentration for each test (for a total of 10 screening options). The principal outcome from the analysis was the cost per additional advanced neoplasia (AN) detected. The authors also estimated the number of cancers detected and life-years gained from detecting AN. The following costs were included: program management of the screening program, patient identification, FIT kits and their processing, and diagnostic colonoscopy following a positive FIT. Per-person costs ranged from $33 (1-FIT at 150ng/ml) to $92 (2-FIT at 50ng/ml) across screening options. Depending on willingness to pay, the 1-FIT 50 ng/ml and the 2-FIT 50 ng/ml are the dominant strategies with cost-effectiveness of $11,198 and $28,389, respectively, for an additional AN detected. The estimates of cancers avoided per 1000 screens ranged from 1.46 to 4.86, depending on the strategy and the assumptions of AN to cancer progression.

Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine Safety in Elderly Adults.

BACKGROUND: The 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) were both recommended to adults aged ≥65 years. The study examines adults ≥65 years for risk of adverse events (AEs) requiring medical attention following vaccination with PCV13 as compared with vaccination with PPSV23, a long-standing vaccine with a satisfactory safety profile. METHODS: The cohort study included 6 Vaccine Safety Datalink sites. The exposed person-time included follow-up time of the first PCV13 received by subjects age ≥65 years from January 1 to August 15, 2015. The comparator person-time included follow-up time after the first PPSV23 received by subjects of the same age during Janaury 1 to August 15 of each year of 2011-2015. The prespecified AEs included cardiovascular events, Bell's palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, syncope, erythema multiforme, thrombocytopenia, cellulitis and infection, allergic reaction, and anaphylaxis. Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted Poisson regression models was used to estimate the relative risk (RR) of each AE. RESULTS: A total of 313 136 doses of PCV13 and 232 591 doses of PPSV23 were included. The adjusted RRs comparing the incidence of AEs following PCV13 vs PPSV23 were all <1, except for anaphylaxis, which was insignificant with an RR of 1.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.30-5.79). Only 1 patient who received PCV13 and 4 other vaccines concomitantly was confirmed by medical chart review as having experienced anaphylaxis after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: These data do not support an increased rate of adverse events following PCV13 administration in elders compared with PPSV23 and should provide reassurance regarding continued use of PCV13.

Performance of a quantitative fecal immunochemical test for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is easier to use and more sensitive than the guaiac fecal occult blood test, but it is unclear how to optimize FIT performance. We compared the sensitivity and specificity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia between single-sample (1-FIT) and two-sample (2-FIT) FIT protocols at a range of hemoglobin concentration cutoffs for a positive test. METHODS: We recruited 2,761 average-risk men and women ages 49-75 referred for colonoscopy within a large nonprofit, group-model health maintenance organization (HMO), and asked them to complete two separate single-sample FITs. We generated receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves to compare sensitivity and specificity estimates for 1-FIT and 2-FIT protocols among those who completed both FIT kits and colonoscopy. We similarly compared sensitivity and specificity between hemoglobin concentration cutoffs for a single-sample FIT. RESULTS: Differences in sensitivity and specificity between the 1-FIT and 2-FIT protocols were not statistically significant at any of the pre-specified hemoglobin concentration cutoffs (10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 µg/g). There was a significant difference in test performance of the one-sample FIT between 50 ng/ml (10 µg/g) and each of the higher pre-specified cutoffs. Disease prevalence was low. CONCLUSIONS: A two-sample FIT is not superior to a one-sample FIT in detection of advanced adenomas; the one-sample FIT at a hemoglobin concentration cutoff of 50 ng/ml (10 µg/g) is significantly more sensitive for advanced adenomas than at higher cutoffs. These findings apply to a population of younger, average-risk patients in a U.S. integrated care system with high rates of prior screening.

Correction to: Early Colorectal Cancer Detected by Machine Learning Model Using Gender, Age, and Complete Blood Count Data.

The article Early Colorectal Cancer Detected by Machine Learning Model Using Gender, Age, and Complete Blood Count Data, written by Mark C. Hornbrook, Ran Goshen, Eran Choman, Maureen O'Keeffe-Rosetti, Yaron Kinar, Elizabeth G. Liles, and Kristal C. Rust, was originally published Online First without open access.

Early Colorectal Cancer Detected by Machine Learning Model Using Gender, Age, and Complete Blood Count Data.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning tools identify patients with blood counts indicating greater likelihood of colorectal cancer and warranting colonoscopy referral. AIMS: To validate a machine learning colorectal cancer detection model on a US community-based insured adult population. METHODS: Eligible colorectal cancer cases (439 females, 461 males) with complete blood counts before diagnosis were identified from Kaiser Permanente Northwest Region's Tumor Registry. Control patients (n = 9108) were randomly selected from KPNW's population who had no cancers, received at ≥1 blood count, had continuous enrollment from 180 days prior to the blood count through 24 months after the count, and were aged 40-89. For each control, one blood count was randomly selected as the pseudo-colorectal cancer diagnosis date for matching to cases, and assigned a "calendar year" based on the count date. For each calendar year, 18 controls were randomly selected to match the general enrollment's 10-year age groups and lengths of continuous enrollment. Prediction performance was evaluated by area under the curve, specificity, and odds ratios. RESULTS: Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for detecting colorectal cancer was 0.80 ± 0.01. At 99% specificity, the odds ratio for association of a high-risk detection score with colorectal cancer was 34.7 (95% CI 28.9-40.4). The detection model had the highest accuracy in identifying right-sided colorectal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: ColonFlag® identifies individuals with tenfold higher risk of undiagnosed colorectal cancer at curable stages (0/I/II), flags colorectal tumors 180-360 days prior to usual clinical diagnosis, and is more accurate at identifying right-sided (compared to left-sided) colorectal cancers.

Implementation challenges and successes of a population-based colorectal cancer screening program: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Few studies describe system-level challenges or facilitators to implementing population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening outreach programs. Our qualitative study explored viewpoints of multilevel stakeholders before, during, and after implementation of a centralized outreach program. Program implementation was part of a broader quality-improvement initiative. METHODS: During 2008-2010, we conducted semi-structured, open-ended individual interviews and focus groups at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW), a not-for-profit group model health maintenance organization using the practical robust implementation and sustainability model to explore external and internal barriers to CRC screening. We interviewed 55 stakeholders: 8 health plan leaders, 20 primary care providers, 4 program managers, and 23 endoscopy specialists (15 gastroenterologists, 8 general surgeons), and analyzed interview transcripts to identify common as well as divergent opinions expressed by stakeholders. RESULTS: The majority of stakeholders at various levels consistently reported that an automated telephone-reminder system to contact patients and coordinate mailing fecal tests alleviated organizational constraints on staff's time and resources. Changing to a single-sample fecal immunochemical test (FIT) lessened patient and provider concerns about feasibility and accuracy of fecal testing. The centralized telephonic outreach program did, however, result in some screening duplication and overuse. Higher rates of FIT completion and a higher proportion of positive results with FIT required more colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing barriers at multiple levels of a health system by changing the delivery system design to add a centralized outreach program, switching to a more accurate and easier-to-use fecal test, and providing educational and electronic support had both benefits and problematic consequences. Other health care organizations can use our results to understand the complexities of implementing centralized screening programs.

Participant uptake of the fecal immunochemical test decreases with the two-sample regimen compared with one-sample FIT.

BACKGROUND: Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are recommended to screen average-risk adults for colorectal cancer (CRC). Little research has examined whether a two-sample FIT affects participant uptake, compared with a one-sample FIT. Examining participant uptake is important, as evidence suggests that a two-sample FIT may increase the sensitivity to detect CRC. OBJECTIVE: This study had two objectives: (i) to evaluate FIT completion in a population that received either a one-sample FIT kit (1-FIT) or a two-sample FIT kit (2-FIT) and (ii) to understand whether uptake varies by age, sex, or receipt of prior CRC screening. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in which 3081 participants who were aged between 50 and 75 years and were at an average risk for CRC, and who had requested FITs, randomly received 1-FIT (n=1540) or 2-FIT (n=1541) kits. FIT completion was defined as the completion and return of a one-sample test by the patients in the 1-FIT group or of both sample tests by those in the 2-FIT group. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to determine the independent effect of group type (2-FIT vs. 1-FIT) on the completion of the FIT, adjusting for age, sex, and receipt of prior CRC screening. RESULTS: The 2-FIT group had lower test completion rates (hazard ratio=0.87; 95% confidence interval=0.78-0.97; P=0.01) after adjusting for age, sex, and receipt of prior CRC screening. Participant uptake did not vary by age, sex, or receipt of prior CRC screening. CONCLUSION: This unique, rigorous randomized controlled trial found that the 2-FIT regimen decreases completion of FIT. Further research is needed to understand whether decreases in participant uptake are offset by increased gains in test sensitivity.

Accuracy of fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Performance characteristics of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC) have been inconsistent. PURPOSE: To synthesize data about the diagnostic accuracy of FITs for CRC and identify factors affecting its performance characteristics. DATA SOURCES: Online databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, and bibliographies of included studies from 1996 to 2013. STUDY SELECTION: All studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of FITs for CRC in asymptomatic, average-risk adults. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and critiqued study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nineteen eligible studies were included and meta-analyzed. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of FITs for CRC were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.86), 0.94 (CI, 0.92 to 0.95), 13.10 (CI, 10.49 to 16.35), 0.23 (CI, 0.15 to 0.33), respectively, with an overall diagnostic accuracy of 95% (CI, 93% to 97%). There was substantial heterogeneity between studies in both the pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates. Stratifying by cutoff value for a positive test result or removal of discontinued FIT brands resulted in homogeneous sensitivity estimates. Sensitivity for CRC improved with lower assay cutoff values for a positive test result (for example, 0.89 [CI, 0.80 to 0.95] at a cutoff value less than 20 µg/g vs. 0.70 [CI, 0.55 to 0.81] at cutoff values of 20 to 50 µg/g) but with a corresponding decrease in specificity. A single-sample FIT had similar sensitivity and specificity as several samples, independent of FIT brand. LIMITATIONS: Only English-language articles were included. Lack of data prevented complete subgroup analyses by FIT brand. CONCLUSION: Fecal immunochemical tests are moderately sensitive, are highly specific, and have high overall diagnostic accuracy for detecting CRC. Diagnostic performance of FITs depends on the cutoff value for a positive test result. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and National Cancer Institute.

More comprehensive discussion of CRC screening associated with higher screening.

OBJECTIVES: Examine association of comprehensiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussion by primary care physicians (PCPs) with completion of CRC screening. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study in Kaiser Permanente Northwest, a group-model health maintenance organization. METHODS: A total of 883 participants overdue for CRC screening received an automated telephone call (ATC) between April and June 2009 encouraging CRC screening. Between January and March 2010, participants completed a survey on PCPs' discussion of CRC screening and patient beliefs regarding screening. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: receipt of CRC screening (assessed by electronic medical record [EMR], 9 months after ATC). Primary independent variable: comprehensiveness of CRC screening discussion by PCPs (7-item scale). Secondary independent variables: perceived benefits of screening (4-item scale assessing respondents' agreement with benefits of timely screening) and primary care utilization (EMR; 9 months after ATC). The independent association of variables with CRC screening was assessed with logistic regression. RESULTS: Average scores for comprehensiveness of CRC discussion and perceived benefits were 0.4 (range 0-1) and 4.0 (range 1-5), respectively. A total of 28.2% (n = 249) completed screening, 84% of whom had survey assessments after their screening date. Of screeners, 95.2% completed the fecal immunochemical test. More comprehensive discussion of CRC screening was associated with increased screening (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-2.21). Higher perceived benefits (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.13-1.90) and 1 or more PCP visits (OR = 5.82, 95% CI = 3.87-8.74) were also associated with increased screening. CONCLUSIONS: More comprehensive discussion of CRC screening was independently associated with increased CRC screening. Primary care utilization was even more strongly associated with CRC screening, irrespective of discussion of CRC screening.

Automated telephone calls to enhance colorectal cancer screening: economic analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of an automated telephone intervention for colorectal cancer screening from a managed care perspective, using data from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Intervention patients received calls for fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) screening. We searched patients' electronic medical records for any screening (defined as FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, double-contrast barium enema, or colonoscopy) during follow-up. Intervention costs included project implementation and management, telephone calls, patient identification, and tracking. Screening costs included FOBT (kits, mailing, and processing) and any completed screening tests during follow-up. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the cost per additional screen. RESULTS: At 6 months, average costs for intervention and control patients were $37 (25% screened) and $34 (19% screened), respectively. The ICER at 6 months was $42 per additional screen, less than half what other studies have reported. Cost-effectiveness probability was 0.49, 0.84, and 0.99 for willingness-to-pay thresholds of $40, $100, and $200, respectively. Similar results were seen at 9 months. A greater increase in FOBT testing was seen for patients aged >70 years (45/100 intervention, 33/100 control) compared with younger patients (25/100 intervention, 21/100 control). The intervention was dominant for patients aged >70 years and was $73 per additional screen for younger patients. It increased screening rates by about 6% and costs by $3 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: At willingness to pay of $100 or more per additional screening test, an automated telephone reminder intervention can be an optimal use of resources.