Ilana Richman

European genetic ancestry is associated with a decreased risk of lupus nephritis

OBJECTIVE African Americans, East Asians, and Hispanics with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are more likely to develop renal disease than are SLE patients of European descent. This study was undertaken to investigate whether European genetic ancestry protects against the development of lupus nephritis, with the aim of exploring the genetic and socioeconomic factors that might explain this effect. METHODS This was a cross-sectional study of SLE patients from a multiethnic case collection. Participants were genotyped for 126 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) informative for ancestry. A subset of participants was also genotyped for 80 SNPs in 14 candidate genes for renal disease in SLE. Logistic regression was used to test the association between European ancestry and renal disease. Analyses were adjusted for continental ancestries, socioeconomic status (SES), and candidate genes. RESULTS Participants (n = 1,906) had, on average, 62.4% European, 15.8% African, 11.5% East Asian, 6.5% Amerindian, and 3.8% South Asian ancestry. Among the participants, 656 (34%) had renal disease. A 10% increase in the proportion of European ancestry estimated in each participant was associated with a 15% reduction in the odds of having renal disease, after adjustment for disease duration and sex (odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.82-0.87; P = 1.9 × 10(-30) ). Adjustment for other genetic ancestries, measures of SES, or SNPs in the genes most associated with renal disease (IRF5 [rs4728142], BLK [rs2736340], STAT4 [rs3024912], and HLA-DRB1*0301 and DRB1*1501) did not substantively alter this relationship. CONCLUSION European ancestry is protective against the development of renal disease in SLE, an effect that is independent of other genetic ancestries, candidate risk alleles, and socioeconomic factors.

Cost-effectiveness of Intensive Blood Pressure Management

Importance Among high-risk patients with hypertension, targeting a systolic blood pressure of 120 mm Hg reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared with a higher target. However, intensive blood pressure management incurs additional costs from treatment and from adverse events. Objective To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of intensive blood pressure management compared with standard management. Design, Setting, and Participants This cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from September 2015 to August 2016 used a Markov cohort model to estimate cost-effectiveness of intensive blood pressure management among 68-year-old high-risk adults with hypertension but not diabetes. We used the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) to estimate treatment effects and adverse event rates. We used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Life Tables to project age- and cause-specific mortality, calibrated to rates reported in SPRINT. We also used population-based observational data to model development of heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and subsequent mortality. Costs were based on published sources, Medicare data, and the National Inpatient Sample. Interventions Treatment of hypertension to a systolic blood pressure goal of 120 mm Hg (intensive management) or 140 mm Hg (standard management). Main Outcomes and Measures Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3% annually. Results Standard management yielded 9.6 QALYs and accrued

Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Era of the Affordable Care Act

155 261 in lifetime costs, while intensive management yielded 10.5 QALYs and accrued

The State of Medical Student Performance Evaluations: Improved Transparency or Continued Obfuscation?

176 584 in costs. Intensive blood pressure management cost

A National study of burdensome health care costs among non-elderly Americans

23 777 per QALY gained. In a sensitivity analysis, serious adverse events would need to occur at 3 times the rate observed in SPRINT and be 3 times more common in the intensive management arm to prefer standard management. Conclusions and Relevance Intensive blood pressure management is cost-effective at typical thresholds for value in health care and remains so even with substantially higher adverse event rates.

Effect of opioid prescribing guidelines in primary care

BackgroundThe Affordable Care Act (ACA) eliminated cost-sharing for evidence-based preventive services in an effort to encourage use.ObjectiveTo evaluate use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national population-based sample before and after implementation of the ACA.DesignRepeated cross-sectional analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) between 2009 and 2012 comparing CRC screening rates before and after implementation of the ACA.ParticipantsAdults 50–64 with private health insurance and adults 65–75 with Medicare.Main MeasuresSelf-reported receipt of screening colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within the past year among those eligible for screening.Key ResultsOur study included 8617 adults aged 50–64 and 3761 adults aged 65–75. MEPS response rates ranged from 58 to 63%. Among adults aged 50–64, 18.9–20.9% received a colonoscopy in the survey year, 0.59–2.1% received a sigmoidoscopy, and 7.9–10.4% received an FOBT. For adults aged 65–75, 23.6–27.7% received a colonoscopy, 1.3–3.2% a sigmoidoscopy, and 13.5–16.4% an FOBT. In adjusted analyses, among participants aged 50–64, there was no increase in yearly rates of colonoscopy (−0.28 percentage points, 95% CI −2.3 to 1.7, p = 0.78), sigmoidoscopy (−1.1%, 95% CI −1.7 to −0.46, p = <0.001), or FOBT (−1.6%, 95% CI −3.2 to −0.03, p = 0.046) post-ACA. For those aged 65–75, rates of colonoscopy (+2.3%, 95% CI −1.4 to 6.0, p = 0.22), sigmoidoscopy (+0.34%, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.6, p = 0.58) and FOBT (−0.65, 95% CI −4.1 to 2.8, p = 0.72) did not increase. Among those aged 65–75 with Medicare and no additional insurance, the use of colonoscopy rose by 12.0% (95% CI 3.3 to 20.8, p = 0.007). Among participants with Medicare living in poverty, colonoscopy use also increased (+5.7%, 95% CI 0.18 to 11.3, p = 0.043).ConclusionsEliminating cost-sharing for CRC screening has not resulted in changes in the use of CRC screening services for many Americans, although use may have increased in the post-ACA period among some Medicare beneficiaries.

Reversals and limitations on high-intensity, life-sustaining treatments

Purpose The medical student performance evaluation (MSPE), a letter summarizing academic performance, is included in each medical student’s residency application. The extent to which medical schools follow Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recommendations for comparative and transparent data is not known. This study’s purpose was to describe the content, interpretability, and transparency of MSPEs. Method This cross-sectional study examined one randomly selected MSPE from every Liaison Committee on Medical Education–accredited U.S. medical school from which at least one student applied to the Stanford University internal medical residency program during the 2013–2014 application cycle. The authors described the number, distribution, and range of key words and clerkship grades used in the MSPEs and the proportions of schools with missing or incomplete data. Results The sample included MSPEs from 117 (89%) of 131 medical schools. Sixty schools (51%) provided complete information about clerkship grade and key word distributions. Ninety-six (82%) provided comparative data for clerkship grades, and 71 (61%) provided complete key word data. Key words describing overall performance were extremely heterogeneous, with a total of 72 used and great variation in the assignment of the top designation (median: 24% of students; range: 1%–60%). There was also great variation in the proportion of students awarded the top internal medicine clerkship grade (median: 29%; range: 2%–90%). Conclusions The MSPE is a critical component of residency applications, yet data contained within MSPEs are incomplete and variable. Approximately half of U.S. medical schools do not follow AAMC guidelines for MSPEs.

A high value care curriculum for interns: a description of curricular design, implementation and housestaff feedback

BackgroundRising health care costs and increased cost sharing have resulted in significant medical expenses for many Americans. The goal of this study was to describe the prevalence of and risk factors for burdensome health care costs among non-elderly Americans.MethodsThis was a cross sectional study of a nationally representative sample of non-elderly Americans. We used survey data previously collected by the Kaiser Family Foundation. We used logistic regression to identify key risk factors for burdensome health care costs and to assess whether risk factors differ according to age within our study population. For analyses comparing younger and middle-aged adults, we compared participants ages 18–39 (younger Americans) to those ages 40–64 (middle-aged Americans).ResultsOur study population included 5,493 participants. Twenty seven percent of participants reported difficulty paying medical bills, a prevalence that did not differ by age. Low income, lack of health insurance, and poor health were independently associated with difficulty paying medical bills after controlling for demographic covariates. Both younger and middle-aged adults were likely to experience burdensome health care costs at low incomes. At moderate incomes, risk fell for middle-aged adults, but remained high for younger adults (ORmiddle-age 1.40, 95% CI 1.12-1.75, ORyounger 2.48, 95% CI 1.73-3.57, p value for interaction 0.004). Younger adults without insurance were at risk for accruing burdensome costs compared to their insured counterparts (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.96-3.47). Middle-aged adults without insurance, though, had an even higher risk (OR 3.82, 95% CI 2.93-4.97, p value for interaction 0.037).ConclusionsBoth younger and middle-aged adults commonly report difficulty paying medical bills. Younger adults remain vulnerable to burdensome medical costs even when earning moderate incomes. Middle-aged adults, however, are more likely to encounter burdensome costs when uninsured. These findings suggest that younger and middle-aged adults experience distinct vulnerabilities and may benefit differentially from health reform efforts intended to expand coverage and limit out-of-pocket expenses.

Capsule Commentary on Schapira et al., Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice

AbstractLong-term opioid use for noncancer pain is increasingly prevalent yet controversial given the risks of addiction, diversion, and overdose. Prior literature has identified the problem and proposed management guidelines, but limited evidence exists on the actual effectiveness of implementing such guidelines in a primary care setting.A multidisciplinary working group of institutional experts assembled comprehensive guidelines for chronic opioid prescribing, including monitoring and referral recommendations. The guidelines were disseminated in September 2013 to our medical centers primary care clinics via in person and electronic education.We extracted electronic medical records for patients with noncancer pain receiving opioid prescriptions (Rxs) in seasonally matched preintervention (11/1/2012–6/1/2013) and postintervention (11/1/2013–6/1/2014) periods. For patients receiving chronic (3 or more) opioid Rxs, we assessed the rates of drug screening, specialty referrals, clinic visits, emergency room visits, and quantity of opioids prescribed.After disseminating guidelines, the percentage of noncancer clinic patients receiving any opioid Rxs dropped from 3.9% to 3.4% (P = 0.02). The percentage of noncancer patients receiving chronic opioid Rxs decreased from 2.0% to 1.6% (P = 0.03). The rate of urine drug screening increased from 9.2% to 17.3% (P = 0.005) amongst noncancer chronic opioid patients. No significant differences were detected for other metrics or demographics assessed.An educational intervention for primary care opioid prescribing is feasible and was temporally associated with a modest reduction in overall opioid Rx rates. Provider use of routine drug screening increased, but overall rates of screening and specialty referral remained low despite the intervention. Despite national pressures to introduce opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic pain, doing so alone does not necessarily yield substantial changes in clinical practice.

A Profile of US Emergency Departments in 2001

Importance Critically ill patients often receive high-intensity life sustaining treatments (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU), although they can be ineffective and eventually undesired. Determining the risk factors associated with reversals in LST goals can improve patient and provider appreciation for the natural history and epidemiology of critical care and inform decision making around the (continued) use of LSTs. Methods This is a single institution retrospective cohort study of patients receiving life sustaining treatment in an academic tertiary hospital from 2009 to 2013. Deidentified patient electronic medical record data was collected via the clinical data warehouse to study the outcomes of treatment limiting Comfort Care and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Extended multivariable Cox regression models were used to estimate the association of patient and clinical factors with subsequent treatment limiting orders. Results 10,157 patients received life-sustaining treatment while initially Full Code (allowing all resuscitative measures). Of these, 770 (8.0%) transitioned to Comfort Care (with discontinuation of any life-sustaining treatments) while 1,669 (16%) patients received new DNR orders that reflect preferences to limit further life-sustaining treatment options. Patients who were older (Hazard Ratio(HR) 1.37 [95% CI 1.28–1.47] per decade), with cerebrovascular disease (HR 2.18 [95% CI 1.69–2.81]), treated by the Medical ICU (HR 1.92 [95% CI 1.49–2.49]) and Hematology-Oncology (HR 1.87 [95% CI 1.27–2.74]) services, receiving vasoactive infusions (HR 1.76 [95% CI 1.28, 2.43]) or continuous renal replacement (HR 1.83 [95% CI 1.34, 2.48]) were more likely to transition to Comfort Care. Any new DNR orders were more likely for patients who were older (HR 1.43 [95% CI 1.38–1.48] per decade), female (HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.17–1.44]), with cerebrovascular disease (HR 1.45 [95% CI 1.25–1.67]) or metastatic solid cancers (HR 1.92 [95% CI 1.48–2.49]), or treated by Medical ICU (HR 1.63 [95% CI 1.42–1.86]), Hematology-Oncology (HR 1.63 [95% CI 1.33–1.98]) and Cardiac Care Unit-Heart Failure (HR 1.41 [95% CI 1.15–1.72]). Conclusion Decisions to reverse or limit treatment goals occurs after more than 1 in 13 trials of LST, and is associated with older female patients, receiving non-ventilator forms of LST, cerebrovascular disease, and treatment by certain medical specialty services.