Feasibility of Collecting Saliva for Biological Verification of Tobacco Use Status in Dental Practices and Patients' Homes: Results from the National Dental PBRN.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of collecting and analyzing saliva samples from dental practices and patients' homes for biochemical verification of tobacco use status. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: Sub-study within single-arm, multi-center, longitudinal clinical study. CLINICAL SETTING: Dental practices in the South Central region of the United States National Dental Practice-Based Research Network and patients' homes. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-five patients recruited from 30 dental practices. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the sub-study were instructed on saliva collection for cotinine analysis in dental practices where they enrolled in the primary study. Saliva was collected at the practices and then from patients' homes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility for dental practice collection was define as 80% of enrolled participants having analyzable samples. For patients' home collection, feasibility was defined as 70%. RESULTS: Forty-seven samples (i.e., 86% of those enrolled) collected in dental practices were analyzable. Twenty-one samples (i.e. 38% of those enrolled) collected in patients' homes were analyzable. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting saliva samples for cotinine analysis from dental practices, but not from patients' homes, was feasible. Dental practices may provide an advantageous setting for biochemically verifying tobacco use status as part of clinical trials for tobacco cessation.

"Pathologic" fractures: should these be included in epidemiologic studies of osteoporotic fractures?

UNLABELLED: Pathologic fractures are often excluded in epidemiologic studies of osteoporosis. Using Medicare administrative data, we identified persons with vertebral and hip fractures. Among these, 48% (vertebral) and 3% (hip) of the fractures were coded as pathologic. Only 25% and 66% of persons with these pathologic fractures had evidence for malignancy. INTRODUCTION: Analyses of osteoporosis-related fractures that use administrative data often exclude pathologic fractures (ICD-9 733.1x) due to concern that these are caused by cancer. We examined "pathologic" fractures of the vertebrae and hip to evaluate their contribution to fracture incidence and assessed the evidence for a malignancy. METHODS: We studied US Medicare beneficiaries age > or =65 with new fractures identified using ICD-9 diagnosis codes 733.13 (pathologic vert), 805.0, 805.2, 805.4, 805.8 (nonpathologic vert); and 733.14 (pathologic hip), 820.0, 820.2, 820.8 (nonpathologic hip). We further examined the proportion of cases with a diagnosis of a malignancy proximate to the fracture. RESULTS: We identified 44,120 individuals with a vertebral fracture and 60,354 with a hip fracture. Approximately 48% of vertebral fractures and 3% of hip fractures were coded as pathologic. For only approximately 25% of persons with a "pathologic" vertebral fracture ICD-9 code, but 66% of persons with a "pathologic" hip fracture, there was evidence of a possible cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Among US Medicare beneficiaries, one fourth of pathologic vertebral fracture and two thirds of pathologic hip fracture cases had evidence for a malignancy. Particularly for vertebral fractures, excluding persons with pathologic fractures in epidemiologic analyses that utilize administrative claims data substantially underestimates the burden of fractures due to osteoporosis.