Deep caries removal strategies: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

BACKGROUND: The International Caries Consensus Collaboration (ICCC) has published recommendations on carious tissue removal to treat cavitated carious lesions in a manner that preserves hard tissue and retains teeth long term. This study quantifies The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network dentists' use of selective caries removal. METHODS: This cross-sectional questionnaire study assessed reported use of selective caries removal when treating deep caries in asymptomatic and symptomatic teeth in response to clinical case scenarios. Statistical methods included the proportion of respondents concordant with ICCC guidelines at various thresholds and logistic regression to model factors associated with concordance. RESULTS: A total of 500 dentists responded. The study sample was 57% male, mean (SD) age was 50.9 (12.6) years, and 60% worked in private practice settings. Higher levels of concordance for choosing selective caries removal 50% or greater of the time were found for asymptomatic (62.4%; 95% CI, 57.6 to 67.2) than for symptomatic caries (49.3%; 95% CI, 44.4 to 54.2). These differences were significantly associated with type of practice setting. CONCLUSIONS: The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network dentists reported using selective caries removal strategies when managing deep carious lesions more often than in previous US and Japanese practice-based research network studies and from results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nonetheless, substantive discordance with the ICCC guidelines was seen by the authors of this study. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: More dissemination and continuing education activities, as well as implementation studies, may further encourage use of selective caries removal to soft or firm dentin when indicated.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Implementing a Digital Diabetes Prevention Program in a Large, Integrated Health System.

BackgroundThe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) has been translated into digital formats. We report an economic evaluation of a digital DPP implemented in a large, integrated health care system. MethodsPatients (n = 4148) were invited to participate in digital DPP based on clinical characteristics (HbA1c 5.7%-6.4% and body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) assessed using electronic medical record data. Using a propensity score we matched (1:1) enrolled and not enrolled patients for a total of 784. We identified high-risk patients (ie, above the 50th percentile of risk; n = 202) by calculating each patient's 2-year of developing diabetes. We report the cost of the intervention and the costs of medical care over 12- and 24-month follow-up, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the cost per additional kilogram weight loss at 24 months. ResultsAt 12 months, enrolled patients had lower total costs ($6,926, 95% CI $5,681-$8,171) than not enrolled patients ($7,538, 95% CI $6,293-$8,783). This pattern attenuated slightly at 24 months (enrolled = $16,255, 95% CI $14,097-$18,412; not enrolled = $16,688, 95% CI $14,531-$18,846). We found an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $81.92 per additional kilogram weight loss. For high-risk patients, the digital DPP group had, on average, lower costs and greater weight loss. We found a 55% chance of the digital DPP program being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $150 per additional kilogram of weight loss; at the same willingness-to-pay, there is a 60% chance in the high-risk subgroup. Limitations include the nonrandomized design and potential volunteer bias. ConclusionDigital DPP had a favorable cost-effectiveness profile compared to other lifestyle interventions.

Evaluating the Implementation of a Digital Diabetes Prevention Program in an Integrated Health Care Delivery System Among Older Adults: Results of a Natural Experiment.

The purpose of this natural experiment study was to assess the effectiveness of a 12-month digital Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) for adults aged 65-75 years with prediabetes and obesity within a large, integrated health care system. Adjusting for propensity scores and covariates, patients who enrolled and participated in the digital DPP had a mean weight loss of 8.6 lb over 12 months and 5.7 lb by 24 months, compared with a steady, minimal weight loss of 1.3 lb over 12 months and 2.8 lb by 24 months among patients not enrolled. There was a significant difference in mean change in A1C between enrolled and nonenrolled patients over 12 months (-0.10%), but not by 24 months (-0.06%). Digital DPP appears to be an effective weight loss option and potential diabetes prevention intervention for older adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes.

Economic Evaluation: A Randomized Pragmatic Trial of a Primary Care-based Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Adults Receiving Long-term Opioids for Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is prevalent and costly; cost-effective nonpharmacological approaches that reduce pain and improve patient functioning are needed. OBJECTIVE: Report the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), compared with usual care, of cognitive behavioral therapy aimed at improving functioning and pain among patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment. DESIGN: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster randomized trial. SUBJECTS: Adults with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment (N=814). INTERVENTION: A cognitive behavioral therapy intervention teaching pain self-management skills in 12 weekly, 90-minute groups delivered by an interdisciplinary team (behaviorists, nurses) with additional support from physical therapists, and pharmacists. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and cost per additional responder (≥30% improvement on standard scale assessment of Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity, and Sleep). Costs were estimated as-delivered, and replication. RESULTS: Per patient intervention replication costs were $2145 ($2574 as-delivered). Those costs were completely offset by lower medical care costs; inclusive of the intervention, total medical care over follow-up was $1841 lower for intervention patients. Intervention group patients also had greater QALY and responder gains than did controls. Supplemental analyses using pain-related medical care costs revealed ICERs of $35,000, and $53,000 per QALY (for replication, and as-delivered intervention costs, respectively); the ICER when excluding patients with outlier follow-up costs was $106,000. LIMITATIONS: Limited to 1-year follow-up; identification of pain-related utilization potentially incomplete. CONCLUSION: The intervention was the optimal choice at commonly accepted levels of willingness-to-pay for QALY gains; this finding was robust to sensitivity analyses.

Restricted spirometry and cardiometabolic comorbidities: results from the international population based BOLD study.

BACKGROUND: Whether restricted spirometry, i.e. low Forced Vital Capacity (FVC), predicts chronic cardiometabolic disease is not definitely known. In this international population-based study, we assessed the relationship between restricted spirometry and cardiometabolic comorbidities. METHODS: A total of 23,623 subjects (47.5% males, 19.0% current smokers, age: 55.1 ± 10.8 years) from five continents (33 sites in 29 countries) participating in the Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) study were included. Restricted spirometry was defined as post-bronchodilator FVC < 5th percentile of reference values. Self-reports of physician-diagnosed cardiovascular disease (CVD; heart disease or stroke), hypertension, and diabetes were obtained through questionnaires. RESULTS: Overall 31.7% of participants had restricted spirometry. However, prevalence of restricted spirometry varied approximately ten-fold, and was lowest (8.5%) in Vancouver (Canada) and highest in Sri Lanka (81.3%). Crude odds ratios for the association with restricted spirometry were 1.60 (95% CI 1.37-1.86) for CVD, 1.53 (95% CI 1.40-1.66) for hypertension, and 1.98 (95% CI 1.71-2.29) for diabetes. After adjustment for age, sex, education, Body Mass Index (BMI) and smoking, the odds ratios were 1.54 (95% CI 1.33-1.79) for CVD, 1.50 (95% CI 1.39-1.63) for hypertension, and 1.86 (95% CI 1.59-2.17) for diabetes. CONCLUSION: In this population-based, international, multi-site study, restricted spirometry associates with cardiometabolic diseases. The magnitude of these associations appears unattenuated when cardiometabolic risk factors are taken into account.

A Primary Care-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Intervention for Long-Term Opioid Users With Chronic Pain : A Randomized Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common, disabling, and costly. Few clinical trials have examined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions embedded in primary care settings to improve chronic pain among those receiving long-term opioid therapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a group-based CBT intervention for chronic pain. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02113592). SETTING: Kaiser Permanente health care systems in Georgia, Hawaii, and the Northwest. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged ≥18 years) with mixed chronic pain conditions receiving long-term opioid therapy. INTERVENTION: A CBT intervention teaching pain self-management skills in 12 weekly, 90-minute groups delivered by an interdisciplinary team (behaviorist, nurse, physical therapist, and pharmacist) versus usual care. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported pain impact (primary outcome, as measured by the PEGS scale [pain intensity and interference with enjoyment of life, general activity, and sleep]) was assessed quarterly over 12 months. Pain-related disability, satisfaction with care, and opioid and benzodiazepine use based on electronic health care data were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients participated, representing 106 clusters of primary care providers (mean age, 60.3 years; 67.4% women); 816 (96.0%) completed follow-up assessments. Intervention patients sustained larger reductions on all self-reported outcomes from baseline to 12-month follow-up; the change in PEGS score was -0.434 point (95% CI, -0.690 to -0.178 point) for pain impact, and the change in pain-related disability was -0.060 point (CI, -0.084 to -0.035 point). At 6 months, intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with primary care (difference, 0.230 point [CI, 0.053 to 0.406 point]) and pain services (difference, 0.336 point [CI, 0.129 to 0.543 point]). Benzodiazepine use decreased more in the intervention group (absolute risk difference, -0.055 [CI, -0.099 to -0.011]), but opioid use did not differ significantly between groups. LIMITATION: The inclusion of only patients with insurance in large integrated health care systems limited generalizability, and the clinical effect of change in scores is unclear. CONCLUSION: Primary care-based CBT, using frontline clinicians, produced modest but sustained reductions in measures of pain and pain-related disability compared with usual care but did not reduce use of opioid medication. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Health plan-based mailed fecal testing for colorectal cancer screening among dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees: Outcomes of 2 program models.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies). METHODS: This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan-based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six-month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program-related health plan costs for each program are described. RESULTS: All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt-in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%-17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%-16.2%]) in 2018 (P = .36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126). CONCLUSIONS: An opt-in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees. LAY SUMMARY: Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing.

Evaluating the Implementation of Digital and In-Person Diabetes Prevention Program in a Large, Integrated Health System: Natural Experiment Study Design.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of a Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) in both in-person and digital health-care settings has been increasing. The purpose of this article is to describe the protocol of a mixed-methods, natural experiment study designed to evaluate the implementation of DPP in a large, integrated health system. METHODS: Kaiser Permanente Northwest patients who were 19 to 75 years with prediabetes (hemoglobin A1c or glycated hemoglobin, 5.7-6.4) and obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) were invited, via the Kaiser Permanente Northwest patient portal, to participate in the digital (n = 4124) and in-person (n = 2669) DPP during 2016 through 2018. Primary (weight) and secondary (hemoglobin A1c or glycated hemoglobin level) outcome data will be obtained from electronic health records. A cost-effectiveness analysis as well as qualitative interviews with patients (enrolled and not enrolled in the DPP) and stakeholders will be conducted to examine further implementation, acceptability, and sustainability. CONCLUSION: The mixed-methods, natural experiment design we will use to evaluate Kaiser Permanente Northwest's implementation of the digital and in-person DPP builds on existing evidence related to the effectiveness of these two DPP delivery modes and will contribute new knowledge related to best practices for implementing and sustaining the DPP within large health systems over the long term.

Costs incurred by patients with drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis in semi-urban and rural settings of Western India.

BACKGROUND: India reports the highest number of tuberculosis (TB) cases worldwide. Poverty has a dual impact as it increases the risk of TB and exposes the poor to economic hardship when they develop TB. Our objective was to estimate the costs incurred by patients with drug-susceptible TB in Bhavnagar (western India) using an adapted World Health Organization costing tool. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study of adults, notified in the public sector and being treated for drug-susceptible pulmonary TB during January-June 2019, in six urban and three rural blocks of Bhavnagar region, Gujarat state, India. The direct and indirect TB-related costs, as well as patients' coping strategies, were assessed for the overall care of TB till treatment completion. Catastrophic costs were defined as total costs > 20% of annual household income (excluding any amount received from cash transfer programs or borrowed). Median and interquartile range (IQR) was used to summarize patient costs. The median costs between any two groups were compared using the median test. The association between any two categorical variables was tested by the Pearson chi-squared test. All costs were described in US dollars (USD). During the study period, on average, one USD equalled 70 Indian Rupees. RESULTS: Of 458 patients included, 70% were male, 62% had no formal education, 71% lived in urban areas, and 96% completed TB treatment. The median (IQR) total costs were USD 8 (5-28), direct medical costs were USD 0 (0-0), direct non-medical costs were USD 3 (2-4) and indirect costs were USD 6 (3-13). Among direct non-medical costs, travel cost (median = USD 3, IQR: 2-4) to attend health facilities were the most prominent, whereas the indirect costs were mainly contributed by the patient's loss of wages (median = USD 3, IQR: 0-6). Four percent of patients faced catastrophic costs, 11% borrowed money to cover costs and 7% lost their employment; the median working days lost to TB was 30 (IQR: 15-45). A majority (88%) of patients received a median USD 43 (IQR: 41-43) as part of a cash transfer program for TB patients. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment completion was high and the costs incurred by TB patients were low in this setting. However, negative financial consequences occur even in low-cost settings. The role of universal cash transfer programs in such settings requires further study.

Interactive group-based orientation sessions: A method to improve adherence and retention in pragmatic clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Intervention adherence and trial retention are challenging for clinical trials testing intensive behavioral interventions. Operational constraints or trial designs may preclude using effective retention strategies such as financial incentives. We examined whether implementing pre-enrollment orientation sessions was associated with higher intervention adherence and retention in a pragmatic clinical trial. METHODS: The trial tested an intensive behavioral intervention for patients with chronic pain on long-term opioids. Orientation sessions were implemented two years into trial recruitment at one site. Held before informed consent and randomization, these mandatory, group-based orientation sessions provided trial specifics, explained research methods principles, and leveraged motivational interviewing techniques. Using a pre-post design and multivariate models, we assessed adherence (number of intervention meetings attended) and retention (completed quarterly pain assessments over 12 months) before (04/2014-12/2015; n = 209) and after (01/2016-02/2017; n = 258) implementation. Also, we evaluated whether session implementation affected the proportion and characteristics of enrolled patients. RESULTS: After implementing orientation sessions, patients had higher intervention adherence than before (M = 7.6, SD = 3.8 vs. M = 5.6, SD = 4.5, respectively; mean difference = 2.0, 95% CI [0.9, 3.2], p = .001), and 2.8 times greater odds of completing quarterly assessments (95% CI [1.3, 5.8], p = .007). Fewer patients enrolled after implementing sessions than before (38.1% vs. 70.8%, 95% CI [26.4, 39.1], p < .001), with no differences in patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing orientation sessions during recruitment may be useful for promoting trial adherence and retention. To ensure enrollment goals are met, target population size and barriers affecting patients' ability to attend orientation sessions should be considered, especially for patients with complex medical conditions. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02113592.

Moderators of the effectiveness of an intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening through mailed fecal immunochemical test kits: results from a pragmatic randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain suboptimal, particularly in low-income and underserved populations. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) may overcome common barriers to screening; however, the effect of mailed FIT kits may differ across important subpopulations. The goal of the current study was to examine sociodemographic and health-related factors that moderate the effect of an intervention of automated direct mail of FIT kits at health clinics serving low-income populations. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of the Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) study, a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial to increase uptake of CRC screening in patients seen at federally qualified health centers. The intervention involved tools embedded in the electronic medical records to enable participating clinics to mail FIT kits and related materials to eligible participants. We examined the rate of FIT completion by potential moderating characteristics using electronic health record data supplemented by the American Community Survey and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Geographic Variation datasets, linked via geocoding to patients' addresses. All patients aged 50-75 seen in participating health clinics who were eligible for CRC screening were included. RESULTS: Although not always statistically significant, we saw a consistent pattern of increased FIT return rates among intervention participants compared to control participants across all subgroups studied, with incidence rate ratios (IRRs) generally ranging from 1.25 to 1.50. FIT completion in the intervention group ranged from 15 and 20% across subpopulations, typically three to six percentage points higher than the control group participants. The only moderator with a statistically significant interaction was race: persons of Asian descent showed a twofold response to the intervention (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.41 to 3.00). CONCLUSIONS: Response to a mailed FIT intervention was generally consistent across a wide range of individual and neighborhood-level patient characteristics, including typically underserved patients and those in low-resource communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01742065. Registered on 5 December 2012.

Direct-to-member mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach for Medicaid and Medicare enrollees: Implementation and effectiveness outcomes from the BeneFIT study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening uptake is low, particularly among individuals enrolled in Medicaid. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the effectiveness of direct-to-member outreach by Medicaid health insurance plans to raise colorectal cancer screening use, nor how best to deliver such outreach. METHODS: BeneFIT is a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study of 2 program models that health plans developed for a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) intervention. The programs differed with regard to whether they used a centralized approach (Health Plan Washington) or collaborated with health centers (Health Plan Oregon). The primary implementation outcome of the current study was the percentage of eligible enrollees to whom the plans delivered each intervention component. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of FIT completion within 6 months of mailing of the introductory letter. RESULTS: The health plans identified 12,000 eligible enrollees (8551 in Health Plan Washington and 3449 in Health Plan Oregon). Health Plan Washington mailed an introductory letter and FIT kit to 8551 enrollees (100%) and delivered a reminder call to 839 (10.3% of the 8132 attempted). Health Plan Oregon mailed an introductory letter, and a letter and FIT kit plus a reminder postcard to 2812 enrollees (81.5%) and 2650 enrollees (76.8%), respectively. FIT completion rates were 18.2% (1557 of 8551 enrollees) in Health Plan Washington. In Health Plan Oregon, completion rates were 17.4% (488 of 2812 enrollees) among enrollees who were mailed an introductory letter and 18.3% (484 of 2650 enrollees) among enrollees who also were mailed a FIT kit plus reminder postcard. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of mailed FIT outreach by health plans may be effective and could reach many individuals at risk of developing colorectal cancer.

A Survey of Provider Attitudes, Beliefs, and Perceived Barriers Regarding a Centralized Direct-Mail Colorectal Cancer Screening Approach at Community Health Centers.

Background: Colorectal cancer screening (CRC) rates are low, particularly among individuals with low socioeconomic status. Organized CRC screening programs have demonstrated success in increasing screening rates. Little is known about provider attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to CRC screening or how they are influenced by an organized CRC screening program. Methods: In 2014 and 2016, providers from 26 safety net clinics in Oregon and Northern California were invited to complete baseline and follow-up online surveys for the Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) study. The provider survey link was sent electronically to primary care providers serving adult patients. Providers were sent reminders every 2 weeks via email to complete the survey, up to 3 reminders total. In this article, we describe learnings about provider attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to CRC screening after implementation of the STOP CRC program. Results: A total of 166 unique providers completed baseline and/or follow-up surveys, representing 228 responses. Main themes included (1) favorable shifts in attitude toward fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and direct-mail cancer screening programs, (2) changes in provider perception of key barriers, and (3) growing interest in centralized automated systems for identifying patients due for CRC screening and eligible for population-based outreach. Discussion: Providers are interested in improved information systems for identifying patients due for CRC screening and delivering population-based outreach (ie, to distribute FIT kits outside of the clinic visit) to help reduce health system- and patient-level barriers to screening. Trial Registration: National Clinical Trial (NCT) Identifier NCT01742065.

Challenges in assessing population reach in a pragmatic trial.

Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) was a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial conducted at federally qualified health centers and designed to "Reach" as many unscreened patients as possible by directly mailing them fecal screening tests. STOP CRC used an electronic health record registry to identify individuals' needing CRC screening and mail interventions to them. The registry was updated daily removing individuals completing CRC screening or those who no longer were clinic patients. Reach, a component RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance), is defined as the absolute number, percent, and representativeness of individuals "willing to participate in" or "exposed to" an initiative. We describe the complexities of measuring Reach in a pragmatic trial. Overall 21,134 patients were on the registry list for at least one day, with 18,226 remaining after removing patients completing screening before any mailings. Observed Reached (the percent of individuals exposed to the intervention) using each denominator was 30.7% and 35.6% respectively. Reach improved only modestly after accounting for factors that made it impossible for clinics to send mailings. Few differences were observed in demographic and health care utilization factors among individuals Reached versus not Reached, suggesting that health center Implementation was more influential than patients' willingness or ability to participate. A pragmatic definition of Reach that accounted for dynamic changes the absolute number eligible and the proportion exposed was more useful than traditional definitions of Reach. Actual Reach was dependent on Implementation and not patient level characteristics. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ClincalTrials.gov (NCT01742065).

Airflow Obstruction and Cardio-metabolic Comorbidities.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by airflow obstruction and often co-exists with cardiovascular disease (CVD), hypertension and diabetes. This international study assessed the association between airflow obstruction and these comorbidities. 23,623 participants (47.5% males, 19.0% current smokers, age: 55.1 ± 10.8 years) in 33 centers in the Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) initiative were included. 10.4% of subjects had airflow obstruction. Self-reports of physician-diagnosed CVD (heart disease or stroke), hypertension and diabetes were regressed against airflow obstruction (post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC < 5th percentile of reference values), adjusting for age, sex, smoking (including pack-years), body mass index and education. Analyses were undertaken within center and meta-analyzed across centers checking heterogeneity using the I2-statistic. Crude odds ratios for the association with airflow obstruction were 1.42 (95% CI: 1.20-1.69) for CVD, 1.24 (1.02-1.51) for hypertension, and 0.93 (0.76-1.15) for diabetes. After adjustment these were 1.00 (0.86-1.16) (I2:6%) for CVD, 1.14 (0.99-1.31) (I2:53%) for hypertension, and 0.76 (0.64-0.89) (I2:1%) for diabetes with similar results for men and women, smokers and nonsmokers, in richer and poorer centers. Alternatively defining airflow obstruction by FEV1/FVC < 2.5th percentile or 0.70, did not yield significant other results. In conclusion, the associations of CVD and hypertension with airflow obstruction in the general population are largely explained by age and smoking habits. The adjusted risk for diabetes is lower in subjects with airflow obstruction. These findings emphasize the role of common risk factors in explaining the coexistence of cardio-metabolic comorbidities and COPD.

Factors Affecting Adherence in a Pragmatic Trial of Annual Fecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test (FIT) reduces the burden of colorectal cancer. However, effectiveness relies on annual adherence, which presents challenges for clinic staff and patients. OBJECTIVE: Describe FIT return rates and identify factors associated with FIT adherence over 2 years in a mailed FIT outreach program in federally qualified health centers. DESIGN: Observational study nested in the Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) trial. Five thousand one hundred ninety-five patients had an initial FIT order and were followed for ≥ 2 years (3574 also had a FIT order in the second year). MAIN MEASURES: FIT return percent in each year and patient- and neighborhood-level characteristics associated with FIT adherence. KEY RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of FIT orders that were completed was 46% in the patients' first year and 41% in the patients' second year. Of the 5195 patients with a FIT order in year 1, 3574 (69%) also had a FIT order in year 2 (71% of year 1 adherers and 67% of year 1 non-adherers, p = 0.009). Among those with a FIT order in the second year, the FIT return rate was about twice as high among those who were adherent in the first year (952/1674, or 57%) as among those who were not (531/1900, or 28%, p < 0.0001). Patient-level characteristics associated with higher odds of FIT return were a history of FIT screening at baseline, age over 65 (vs 50-65), no current tobacco use, recent receipt of a mammogram or flu vaccine, Asian ancestry (compared to non-Hispanic white), and non-English preference. The only neighborhood factor associated with lower FIT return rate was patient's larger residential city size. CONCLUSION: Our findings can inform the customization of programs to promote FIT return among patients who receive care at federally qualified health centers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Effectiveness of a Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach Program in Community Health Clinics: The STOP CRC Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Approximately 24 million US individuals receive care at federally qualified health centers, which historically have low rates of colorectal cancer screening. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine colorectal cancer screening for individuals aged 50 to 75 years. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program implemented in health centers as part of standard care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial was conducted in 26 federally qualified health center clinics, representing 8 health centers in Oregon and California, randomized to intervention (n = 13) or usual care (n = 13). All participants were overdue for colorectal cancer screening during the accrual interval (February 4, 2014 to February 3, 2015). Interventions: Electronic health record-embedded tools to identify eligible adults and to facilitate implementation of a stepwise mailed intervention involving (1) an introductory letter, (2) a mailed FIT, and (3) a reminder letter; training, collaborative learning, and facilitation through a practice improvement process. Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who completed a FIT, and secondarily, any colorectal cancer screening within 12 months of accrual or by August 3, 2015. Implementation was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who were mailed an introductory letter and ordered a FIT. Results: Twenty-six clinics with 41 193 adults (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [6.3] years; 22 994 women) were randomized to receive the direct mail colorectal screening intervention (13 clinics; 21 134 patients) or usual care (13 clinics; 20 059 patients). Compared with usual care clinics, intervention clinics had significantly higher adjusted clinic-level proportion of participants who completed a FIT (13.9% vs 10.4%; difference, 3.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1%-6.8%) and any colorectal cancer screening (18.3% vs 14.5%; difference, 3.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6%-7.0%). We observed large variation across health centers in effectiveness (FIT completion differences range, -7.4 percentage points to 17.6 percentage points) and implementation (proportion who were mailed a FIT range, 6.5% to 68.2%). The number needed to mail to achieve a completed FIT was 4.8 overall, and 4.0 in clinics that mailed a FIT reminder. Conclusions and Relevance: An EHR-embedded mailed FIT outreach intervention significantly improved rates of FIT completion and rates of any colorectal cancer screening. Higher rates of colorectal cancer screening occurred in clinics that successfully implemented the mailed outreach program. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01742065.

Positive predictive values of fecal immunochemical tests used in the STOP CRC pragmatic trial.

Annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is cost-effective for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, FIT positivity rates and positive predictive value (PPV) can vary substantially, with false-positive (FP) results adding to colonoscopy burden without improving cancer detection. Our objective was to describe FIT PPV and the factors associated with FP results among patients undergoing CRC screening. In an ongoing pragmatic clinical trial of mailed-FIT outreach, clinics delivered one of three FIT brands (InSure, OC-Micro, and Hemosure). Patients who had a positive FIT result and a follow-up colonoscopy were included in this analysis (N = 1130). Patients' demographic and medical histories were abstracted from electronic health records (EHR). Associations with a FP result (ie, a positive FIT result with no evidence of advanced neoplasia during follow-up colonoscopy) were evaluated for FIT brand and patient factors using mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression. The mean proportion of FIT-positive results ranged from 8% in centers using the OC-Micro test to 21% for Hemosure. PPVs for advanced neoplasia were 0.30 to 0.17, respectively (P for χ2  = 0.08). In multivariable-adjusted models, use of Hemosure was associated with greater odds of a FP result than OC-Micro (OR = 2.00, 95% CI: 0.47-8.56) or InSure (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 0.44-6.68). However, only female sex (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.19-2.10) and history of a colorectal condition (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.13-4.15) were significantly associated with FP. In conclusion, FIT positivity varied by brand, and FP results differed by patient factors available through the EHR. These results can be used to minimize the frequency of FP results, reducing patient distress and colonoscopy burden.

Comparative Effectiveness of Usual Care With or Without Chiropractic Care in Patients with Recurrent Musculoskeletal Back and Neck Pain.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractic care is a popular alternative for back and neck pain, with efficacy comparable to usual care in randomized trials. However, the effectiveness of chiropractic care as delivered through conventional care settings remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of usual care with or without chiropractic care for patients with chronic recurrent musculoskeletal back and neck pain. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study using propensity score-matched controls. PARTICIPANTS: Using retrospective electronic health record data, we developed a propensity score model predicting likelihood of chiropractic referral. Eligible patients with back or neck pain were then contacted upon referral for chiropractic care and enrolled in a prospective study. For each referred patient, two propensity score-matched non-referred patients were contacted and enrolled. We followed the participants prospectively for 6 months. MAIN MEASURES: Main outcomes included pain severity, interference, and symptom bothersomeness. Secondary outcomes included expenditures for pain-related health care. KEY RESULTS: Both groups' (N = 70 referred, 139 non-referred) pain scores improved significantly over the first 3 months, with less change between months 3 and 6. No significant between-group difference was observed. (severity - 0.10 (95% CI - 0.30, 0.10), interference - 0.07 (- 0.31, 0.16), bothersomeness - 0.1 (- 0.39, 0.19)). After controlling for variances in baseline costs, total costs during the 6-month post-enrollment follow-up were significantly higher on average in the non-referred versus referred group ($1996 [SD = 3874] vs $1086 [SD = 1212], p = .034). Adjusting for differences in age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index attenuated this finding, which was no longer statistically significant (p = .072). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either patient-reported or economic outcomes. As clinical outcomes were similar, and the provision of chiropractic care did not increase costs, making chiropractic services available provided an additional viable option for patients who prefer this type of care, at no additional expense.

Interdisciplinary team-based care for patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment in primary care (PPACT) - Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is one of the most common, disabling, and expensive public health problems in the United States. Interdisciplinary pain management treatments that employ behavioral approaches have been successful in helping patients with chronic pain reduce symptoms and regain functioning. However, most patients lack access to such treatments. We are conducting a pragmatic clinical trial to test the hypothesis that patients who receive an interdisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention, the Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT), at their primary care clinic will have a greater reduction in pain impact in the year following than patients receiving usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid pragmatic clinical trial in which we randomize clusters of primary care providers and their patients with chronic pain who are on long-term opioid therapy to 1) receive an interdisciplinary behavioral intervention in conjunction with their current health care or 2) continue with current health care services. Our primary outcome is pain impact (a composite of pain intensity and pain-related interference) measured using the PEG, a validated three-item assessment. Secondary outcomes include pain-related disability, patient satisfaction, opioids dispensed and health care utilization. An economic evaluation assesses the resources and costs necessary to deliver the intervention and its cost-effectiveness compared with usual care. A formative evaluation employs mixed methods to understand the context for implementation in the participating health care systems. DISCUSSION: This trial will inform the feasibility of implementing interdisciplinary behavioral approaches to pain management in the primary care setting, potentially providing a more effective, safer, and more satisfactory alternative to opioid-based chronic pain treatment. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT02113592.