Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Some have recommended against routine screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) among patients >/=75 years of age, while others have suggested that screening colonoscopy (SC) is less beneficial for women than men. We estimated the expected benefits (decreased mortality from CRC) and harms (SC-related mortality) of SC based on sex, age, and comorbidity. OBJECTIVE: To stratify older patients according to expected benefits and harms of SC based on sex, age, and comorbidity. DESIGN: Retrospective study using Medicare claims data. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries 67-94 years old with and without CRC. MAIN MEASURES: Life expectancy, CRC- and colonoscopy-attributable mortality rates across strata of sex, age, and comorbidity, pay-off time (i.e. the minimum time until benefits from SC exceeded harms), and life-years saved for every 100,000 SC. KEY RESULTS: Increasing age and comorbidity were associated with lower CRC-attributable mortality. Due to shorter life expectancy and CRC-attributable mortality, the benefits associated with SC were substantially lower among patients with greater comorbidity. Among men aged 75-79 years with no comorbidity, the number of life-years saved was 459 per 100,000 SC, while men aged 67-69 with >/=3 comorbidities had 81 life-years saved per 100,000 SC. There was no evidence that SC was less effective in women. Among men and women 75-79 with no comorbidity, number of life-years saved was 459 and 509 per 100,000 SC, respectively; among patients with >/=3 comorbidities, there was no benefit for either men or women. CONCLUSIONS: Although the effectiveness of SC was equivalent for men and women, there was substantial variation in SC effectiveness within age groups, arguing against screening recommendations based solely on age

The objective was to investigate the impact of a pay-for-performance program (P4P) on quality care and outcomes among cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients. Claims data were used to identify CVD patients in a commercial plan in 1999-2006. Multivariate analyses were employed to examine the impact of P4P on quality care (lipid monitoring and treatment) and quality care on outcomes (new coronary events, hospitalizations, and lipid control). Patients who were treated by physicians participating in P4P were more likely to receive quality care than patients who were not. Patients who received quality care were less likely to have new coronary events (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69-0.92), be hospitalized (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.69-0.83), or have uncontrolled lipids (OR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.61-0.73) than patients who did not. A P4P program was associated with increased lipid monitoring and treatment. Receipt of this quality care was associated with improved lipid control and reduced likelihood of new coronary events and hospitalizations.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Updated World Health Organization guidelines have amplified debate about how resource constraints should impact monitoring strategies for HIV-infected persons on combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). We estimated the incremental benefit and cost effectiveness of alternative monitoring strategies for east Africans with known HIV infection. METHODS: Using a validated HIV computer simulation based on resource-limited data (USAID and AMPATH) and circumstances (east Africa), we compared alternative monitoring strategies for HIV-infected persons newly started on cART. We evaluated clinical, immunologic and virologic monitoring strategies, including combinations and conditional logic (e.g., only perform virologic testing if immunologic testing is positive). We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) in units of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), using a societal perspective and a lifetime horizon. Costs were measured in 2008 US dollars, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3%. We compared the ICER of monitoring strategies with those of other resource-constrained decisions, in particular earlier cART initiation (at CD4 counts of 350 cells/mm3 rather than 200 cells/mm3). RESULTS: Monitoring strategies employing routine CD4 testing without virologic testing never maximized health benefits, regardless of budget or societal willingness to pay for additional health benefits. Monitoring strategies employing virologic testing conditional upon particular CD4 results delivered the most benefit at willingness-to-pay levels similar to the cost of earlier cART initiation (approximately $2600/QALY). Monitoring strategies employing routine virologic testing alone only maximized health benefits at willingness-to-pay levels (> $4400/QALY) that greatly exceeded the ICER of earlier cART initiation. CONCLUSIONS: CD4 testing alone never maximized health benefits regardless of resource limitations. Programmes routinely performing virologic testing but deferring cART initiation may increase health benefits by reallocating monitoring resources towards earlier cART initiation

OBJECTIVE: To identify cardiovascular health services with a high level of evidence to suggest that they deliver favorable value. STUDY DESIGN: Evidence synthesis using the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. METHODS: We queried the registry to identify published cost-effectiveness analyses of cardiovascular health services in the United States. In addition to searching the registry, we performed supplementary searches of published literature for cost-effectiveness studies of cardiovascular interventions that were endorsed by guidelines of national medical and scientific societies. We defined favorable value as an incremental costeffectiveness ratio of $100,000 or less per qualityadjusted life-year. RESULTS: Our initial review of cardiovascular health services in the United States revealed 174 separate peer-reviewed studies. Of those, 157 studies did not meet our inclusion criteria, leaving 17 studies for further evaluation that covered the following services with potentially high value: statins to prevent myocardial infarction (for primary and secondary prevention), screening for and treatment of high blood pressure (diuretics or beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the case of diabetes) to prevent myocardial infarction and stroke, warfarin sodium and low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent pulmonary emboli, implantable cardiac defibrillators for patients at high risk of sudden death, antiplatelet drugs (aspirin and clopidogrel bisulfate) to prevent future myocardial infarction, beta-blockers for patients who have had myocardial infarction, warfarin to prevent future stroke in persons with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, and percutaneous procedures to relieve claudication symptoms. CONCLUSION: We describe a new way of synthesizing cost-effectiveness evidence for use by consumers, payers, and other decision makers

BACKGROUND: Guidelines with short-term harms and long-term benefits are often applied to chronically ill patients who may not benefit. The payoff time framework has been proposed (i.e., do not apply a guideline if a patient's life expectancy (LE) is shorter than when a guideline's cumulative incremental benefits first exceed its cumulative incremental harms), but its health impact is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the payoff time framework improves LE and/or quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) for chronically ill patients. METHODS: I evaluate impact of the payoff time framework on LE and QALYs, assuming (1) high and constant background mortality rate from chronic illness (>/= 10% per year), (2) immediate guideline-related harm with probability < 1, and (3) constant guideline-related benefit that occurs over an extended time. I apply the framework to questions of whether to screen chronically ill 50-year-old women for colorectal cancer using colonoscopy, and whether to advocate intensive glucose control for chronically ill diabetics. RESULTS: If a guideline's payoff time is greater than a patient's LE, then withholding that guideline will increase LE and QALYs for that patient. For a 50-year-old chronically ill woman with background mortality > 0.15 per year (corresponding to LE < 6.5 years), withholding CR screening will increase LE. For a diabetic with background mortality > 0.11 per year (corresponding to LE < 9.4 years), withholding CR screening will increase QALYs. CONCLUSION: The payoff time framework may indicate when withholding a guideline with short-term harms and long-term benefits may increase LE and/or QALY

Brief physician interventions can reduce alcohol consumption. Physicians may not have the time to provide brief interventions, and it is unclear whether nonphysicians can do so effectively. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of brief interventions by nonphysician clinicians for unhealthy alcohol use. We searched the English-language literature in MEDLINE and other databases covering the domains of alcohol problems, primary care, nonphysician, and brief interventions. Studies of brief interventions delivered at least in part by nonphysicians in primary care and examining drinking outcomes were included. Sensitivity analyses examined the effect of excluding studies that contributed disproportionately to the heterogeneity of results. Thirteen studies, conducted 1996-2008, met our criteria. Seven studies with a total of 2,633 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Nonphysician interventions were associated with 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]=-.03 to -3.5) fewer standard drinks per week than control conditions (p = .054). Excluding the one study that increased heterogeneity, the effect was smaller but reached statistical significance; nonphysician counseling was associated with 1.4 (95% CI = .3- 2.4) fewer standard drinks per week compared to control (p = .012). Nonphysician brief interventions are modestly effective at reducing drinking in primary care patients with unhealthy alcohol use. (Am J Addict 2011;00:1-14)

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) have been shown to decrease morbidity and mortality in heart failure (HF) patients in randomized-controlled trials; observational studies have confirmed this benefit among patients discharged with HF. Investigating the benefit of ACEIs or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) among general HF patients has important implications for quality-of-care measurement and quality initiatives. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of receipt of ACEIs/ARBs among patients with HF on hospitalization, emergency care, and healthcare cost during the following year. Using administrative data, we identified HF patients between 2000 and 2005 in a large health plan (n=2,396 patients). We conducted multivariate analysis to assess the impact of receipt of an ACEI/ARB on likelihood of hospitalization and emergency care, and on total healthcare cost. We found that patients who received ACEIs/ARBs were less likely to be hospitalized (odds ratio [OR]=0.82, p<.05) or use emergency care (OR=0.82, p<.05) in the following year. Receipt of ACEIs/ARBs was not associated with significantly increased cost. Incentivizing the receipt of ACEIs/ARBs in a general population with HF may be a suitable target for pay-for-performance programs, disease management programs, or newer complementary frameworks, such as value-based insurance design.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the literature addressing the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and prognosis of early undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review of the performance characteristics of MRI for diagnosing and prognosticating RA. We searched Ovid, supplementing this with manual searches of bibliographies, journals, meeting proceedings, and the ClinicalTrials.gov web site. To identify diagnostic studies, we included studies of any duration that prospectively examined whether MRI findings predicted RA diagnosis and reported adequate information to calculate sensitivity and specificity. To identify prognostic studies, we included prospective studies with at least a 12-month followup period that measured both baseline MRI findings and clinical and/or radiographic outcomes. RESULTS: For diagnostic studies (n = 11), sensitivity and specificity of MRI findings for RA diagnosis ranged from 20-100% and 0-100%, respectively, depending upon the criteria used. Diagnostic performance of MRI improved when lower-quality studies or studies with longer disease duration were excluded. For prognostic studies (n = 17), MRI findings did not predict clinical remission, and the ability to predict radiographic progression varied significantly (range 18-100% for sensitivity and 5.9-97% for specificity). Restricting the analysis to specific MRI findings or earlier disease improved MRI prognostic performance. The only prognostic study reporting 100% of a priori quality criteria found MRI bone edema to be the strongest predictor of radiographic progression. CONCLUSION: Data evaluating MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of early RA are currently inadequate to justify widespread use of this technology for these purposes, although MRI bone edema may be predictive of progression in certain RA populations

While some media reports offer accurate interpretations of clinical research, other reports are misleading. The uneven accuracy of medical reporting may act in concert with its sheer volume to confuse the lay public about which health messages are most important and evidence-based. I outline one possible step towards a solution: medical journals can embed quality of evidence ratings in article summaries and create incentives for inclusion of these ratings in lay media reports

BACKGROUND: Early, aggressive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improves outcomes but confers increased risk. Risk stratification to target aggressive treatment of high-risk individuals with early RA is considered important to optimize outcomes while minimizing clinical and monetary costs. Some advocate the addition of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to standard RA risk stratification with clinical markers for patients early in the disease course. Our objective was to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of adding MRI to standard risk stratification in early RA. METHODS: Using a decision analysis model of standard risk stratification with or without MRI, followed by escalated standard treatment protocols based on treatment response, we estimated 1-year and lifetime quality-adjusted life-years, RA-related costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (with MRI vs without MRI) for RA patients with fewer than 12 months of disease and no baseline radiographic erosions. Inputs were derived from the published literature. We assumed a societal perspective with 3.0% discounting. RESULTS: One-year and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adding MRI to standard testing were $204,103 and $167,783 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, model results were insensitive to plausible ranges for every variable except MRI specificity, which published data suggest is below the threshold for MRI cost-effectiveness. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, most simulations produced lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in excess of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, a commonly cited threshold. CONCLUSION: Under plausible clinical conditions, adding MRI is not cost-effective compared with standard risk stratification in early-RA patients