Effect of Financial Incentives for Process, Outcomes, or Both on Cholesterol Level Change: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Financial incentives may improve health behaviors. It is unknown whether incentives are more effective if they target a key process (eg, medication adherence), an outcome (eg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] levels), or both. Objective: To determine whether financial incentives awarded daily for process (adherence to statins), awarded quarterly for outcomes (personalized LDL-C level targets), or awarded for process plus outcomes induce reductions in LDL-C levels compared with control. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 12, 2015, to October 3, 2018; data analysis was performed from October 4, 2018, to May 27, 2021, at the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia. Participants included 764 adults with an active statin prescription, elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, suboptimal LDL-C level, and evidence of imperfect adherence to statin medication. Interventions: Interventions lasted 12 months. All participants received a smart pill bottle to measure adherence and underwent LDL-C measurement every 3 months. In the process group, daily financial incentives were awarded for statin adherence. In the outcomes group, participants received incentives for achieving or sustaining at least a quarterly 10-mg/dL LDL-C level reduction. The process plus outcomes group participants were eligible for incentives split between statin adherence and quarterly LDL-C level targets. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in LDL-C level from baseline to 12 months, determined using intention-to-treat analysis. Results: Of the 764 participants, 390 were women (51.2%); mean (SD) age was 62.4 (10.0) years, 310 (40.6%) had diabetes, 298 (39.0%) had hypertension, and mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 138.8 (37.6) mg/dL. Mean LDL-C level reductions from baseline to 12 months were -36.9 mg/dL (95% CI, -42.0 to -31.9 mg/dL) among control participants, -40.0 mg/dL (95% CI, -44.7 to -35.4 mg/dL) among process participants, -41.6 mg/dL (95% CI, -46.3 to -37.0 mg/dL) among outcomes participants, and -42.8 mg/dL (95% CI, -47.4 to -38.1 mg/dL) among process plus outcomes participants. In exploratory analysis among participants with diabetes and hypertension, no spillover effects of incentives were detected compared with the control group on hemoglobin A1c level and blood pressure over 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, process-, outcomes-, or process plus outcomes-based financial incentives did not improve LDL-C levels vs control. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02246959.

Outcomes for individuals turned down for living kidney donation.

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of the consequences of being turned down for living kidney donation could help transplant professionals to counsel individuals considering donation. METHODS: In this exploratory study, we used survey instruments and qualitative interviews to characterize nonmedical outcomes among individuals turned down for living kidney donation between July 1, 2010 and December 31, 2013. We assembled a comparator group of kidney donors. RESULTS: Among 83 turned-down donors with contact information at a single center, 43 (52%) participated in the study (median age 53 years; 53% female; 19% black). Quality of life, depression, financial stress, and provider empathy scores were similar between individuals turned down for donation (n = 43) and donors (n = 128). Participants selected a discrete choice response to a statement about the overall quality of their lives; 32% of turned-down donors versus 7% of donors (P < 0.01) assessed that their lives were worse after the center's decision about whether they could donate a kidney. Among turned-down donors who reported that life had worsened, 77% had an intended recipient who was never transplanted, versus 36% among individuals who assessed life as the same or better (P = 0.02). In interviews, the majority of turned-down donors reported emotional impact, including empathy, stress, and other challenges, related to having someone in their lives with end-stage kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Generic instruments measuring quality of life, depression, financial stress, and provider empathy revealed no significant differences between kidney donors and turned-down donors. However, qualitative interviews revealed preliminary evidence that some turned-down donors experienced emotional consequences. These findings warrant confirmation in larger studies.

Measures of Global Health Status on Dialysis Signal Early Rehospitalization Risk after Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Early rehospitalization (<30 days) after discharge from kidney transplantation (KT) is associated with poor outcomes. We explored summary metrics of pre-transplant health status that may improve the identification of KT recipients at risk for early rehospitalization and mortality after transplant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 8,870 adult (≥ 18 years) patients on hemodialysis who received KT between 2000 and 2010 at United States transplant centers. We linked Medicare data to United Network for Organ Sharing data and data from a national dialysis provider to examine pre-KT (1) Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, (2) physical function (PF) measured by the Short Form 36 Health Survey, and (3) the number of hospitalizations during the 12 months before KT as potential predictors of early rehospitalization after KT. We also explored whether these metrics are confounders of the known association between early rehospitalization and post-transplant mortality. RESULTS: The median age was 52 years (interquartile range [IQR] 41, 60) and 63% were male. 29% were rehospitalized in <30 days, and 20% died during a median follow-up time of five years (IQR 3.6-6.5). In a multivariable logistic model, kidney recipients with more pre-KT Elixhauser comorbidities (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.09 per comorbidity, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.07-1.11), the poorest pre-KT PF (aOR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.43), or >1 pre-KT hospitalizations (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.17-1.49) were more likely to be rehospitalized. All three health status metrics and early rehospitalization were independently associated with post-KT mortality in a multivariable Cox model (adjusted hazard ratio for rehospitalization: 1.41, 95% CI 1.28-1.56). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-transplant metrics of health status, measured by dialysis providers or administrative data, are independently associated with early rehospitalization and mortality risk after KT. Transplant providers may consider utilizing metrics of pre-KT global health status as early signals of vulnerability when transitioning care after KT.

Two Randomized Controlled Pilot Trials of Social Forces to Improve Statin Adherence among Patients with Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Medication nonadherence is an important obstacle to cardiovascular disease management. OBJECTIVE: To improve adherence through real-time feedback based on theories of how social forces influence behavior. DESIGN: Two randomized controlled pilot trials called PROMOTE and SUPPORT. Participants stored statin medication in wireless-enabled pill bottles that transmitted adherence data to researchers. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with diabetes and a history of low statin adherence based on pharmacy refills (i.e., Medication Possession Ratio [MPR] <80% in the pre-randomization screening period). INTERVENTION: In PROMOTE, each participant was randomized to 1) weekly messages in which that participant's statin adherence was compared to that of other participants (comparison), 2) weekly summaries of that participant's statin adherence (summary), or 3) control. In SUPPORT, each participant identified another person (the Medication Adherence Partner [MAP]) to receive reports about that participant's adherence, and was randomized to 1) daily reports to MAP, 2) weekly reports to MAP, 3) reports to MAP only if dose was missed, or 4) control. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE: Adherence measured by pill bottle. KEY RESULTS: Among 45,000 health plan members contacted by mail, <1% joined the trial. Participants had low baseline MPRs (median = 60%, IQR 41-72%) but high pill-bottle adherence (90% in PROMOTE, 92% in SUPPORT) during the trial. In PROMOTE (n = 201) and SUPPORT (n = 200), no intervention demonstrated significantly better adherence vs. CONTROL: In a subgroup of PROMOTE participants with the lowest pre-study MPR, pill-bottle-measured adherence in the comparison arm (89%) was higher than the control (86%) and summary (76%) arms, but differences were non-significant (p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions based on social forces did not improve medication adherence vs. control over a 3-month period. Given the low percentage of invited individuals who enrolled, the studies may have attracted participants who required little encouragement to improve adherence other than study participation.