Hazard of Cervical, Oropharyngeal, and Anal Cancers in HIV-Infected and HIV-Uninfected Medicaid Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus-infected (HIV+) individuals are disproportionately at risk for human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers, but the magnitude of risk estimates varies widely. We conducted a retrospective study using a large U.S.-based cohort to describe the relationship between HIV infection and incident cervical, oropharyngeal, and anal cancers. METHODS: Using 2001-2012 U.S. Medicaid data from 14 states, we matched one HIV+ to three HIV-uninfected (HIV-) enrollees on sex, race, state, age, and year, and followed persons for up to 10 years. We developed Cox proportional hazards models comparing HIV+ to HIV- for time to cancer diagnosis adjusted for demographic and comorbidity attributes. RESULTS: Our cohorts included 443,592 women for the cervical cancer analysis, and 907,348 and 906,616 persons for the oropharyngeal and anal cancer analyses. The cervical cancer cohort had a mean age of 39 years and was 55% Black. The oropharyngeal and anal cancer cohorts were 50% male, had a mean age of 41 years, and were 51% Black. We estimated the following HRs: cervical cancer, 3.27 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.82-3.80]; oropharyngeal cancer, 1.90 (95% CI, 1.62-2.23; both sexes), 1.69 (95% CI, 1.39-2.04; males), and 2.55 (95% CI, 1.86-3.50; females); and anal cancer, 18.42 (95% CI, 14.65-23.16; both sexes), 20.73 (95% CI, 15.60-27.56; males), and 12.88 (95% CI, 8.69-19.07; females). CONCLUSIONS: HIV+ persons were at an elevated risk for HPV-associated cancers, especially anal cancer. IMPACT: Medicaid claims data corroborate previous estimates based on registries and clinical cohorts.

Comparison of Electronic Health Record-Based and Claims-Based Diabetes Care Quality Measures: Causes of Discrepancies.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate magnitude and sources of discrepancy in quality metrics using claims versus electronic health record (EHR) data. STUDY DESIGN: Assessment of proportions of HbA1c and LDL testing for people ascertained as diabetic from the respective sources. Qualitative interviews and review of EHRs of discrepant cases. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION: Claims submitted to Rhode Island Medicaid by three practice sites in 2013; program-coded EHR extraction; manual review of selected EHRs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 21,030 adult Medicaid beneficiaries attributed to a primary care patient at a site by claims or EHR data, concordance on assignment ranged from 0.30 to 0.41. Of patients with concordant assignment, the ratio of patients ascertained as diabetic by EHR versus claims ranged from 1.06 to 1.14. For patients with concordant assignment and diagnosis, the ratio based on EHR versus claims ranged from 1.08 to 18.34 for HbA1c testing, and from 1.29 to 14.18 for lipid testing. Manual record review of 264 patients discrepant on diagnosis or testing identified problems such as misuse of ICD-9 codes, failure to submit claims, and others. CONCLUSIONS: Claims data underestimate performance on these metrics compared to EHR documentation, by varying amounts. Use of claims data for these metrics is problematic.

Validation of a New Three-Item Self-Report Measure for Medication Adherence.

Few self-report measures of medication adherence have been rigorously developed and validated against electronic drug monitoring (EDM). Assess the validity of the 3-item self-report scale by comparing it with a contemporaneous EDM measure. We conducted an observational study in which adherence assessments were done monthly for up to 4 months for 81 patients with HIV who were taking antiretroviral medications. We report results for both HIV antiretroviral medications, and also for other, non-HIV-related medications. Raw and calibrated self-report adherence measures, electronic drug monitoring adherence measures, and sociodemographic variables. The mean age of patients was 46 years, 37 % were female, 49 % had some education beyond high school, 22 % were Black, and 22 % were Hispanic. Cronbach's alphas for the 3-item scale for HIV and non-HIV medications were 0.83 and 0.87, respectively. The mean differences (raw/uncalibrated self-report scale minus EDM) for HIV and non-HIV medications were 7.5 and 5.2 points on a 100-point scale (p < 0.05 for both). Pearson correlation coefficients between the calibrated 3-item scale and the EDM for HIV and non-HIV medications were 0.47 and 0.59, respectively. The c-statistics for the ROC curves for the calibrated scale, using cut-offs of 0.8 and 0.9 for the EDM gold standard measure to define non-adherence, were between 0.74 and 0.76 for HIV and non-HIV medications. This 3-item adherence self-report scale showed good psychometric characteristics and good construct validity when compared with an EDM standard, for both HIV and non-HIV medications. In clinical care it can be a useful first-stage screener for non-adherence. In clinical research and quality improvement settings it can be a useful tool when more complex and expensive methods such as EDM or pharmacy claims are impractical or unavailable.

Cognitive and field testing of a new set of medication adherence self-report items for HIV care.

We conducted four rounds of cognitive testing of self-report items that included 66 sociodemographically diverse participants, then field tested the three best items from the cognitive testing in a clinic waiting room (N = 351) and in an online social networking site for men who have sex with men (N = 6,485). As part of the online survey we conducted a randomized assessment of two versions of the adherence questionnaire-one which asked about adherence to a specific antiretroviral medication, and a second which asked about adherence to their "HIV medicines" as a group. Participants were better able to respond using adjectival and adverbial scales than visual analogue or percent items. The internal consistency reliability of the three item adherence scale was 0.89. Mean scores for the two different versions of the online survey were similar (91.0 vs. 90.2, p < 0.05), suggesting that it is not necessary, in general, to ask about individual medications in an antiretroviral therapy regimen when attempting to describe overall adherence.