US cholesterol guidelines use original and simplified versions of the Framingham model to estimate future coronary risk and thereby classify patients into risk groups with different treatment strategies. We sought to compare risk estimates and risk group classification generated by the original, complex Framingham model and the simplified, point-based version. We assessed 2,543 subjects age 20–79 from the 2001–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) for whom Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III) guidelines recommend formal risk stratification. For each subject, we calculated the 10-year risk of major coronary events using the original and point-based Framingham models, and then compared differences in these risk estimates and whether these differences would place subjects into different ATP-III risk groups (<10% risk, 10–20% risk, or >20% risk). Using standard procedures, all analyses were adjusted for survey weights, clustering, and stratification to make our results nationally representative. Among 39 million eligible adults, the original Framingham model categorized 71% of subjects as having “moderate” risk (<10% risk of a major coronary event in the next 10 years), 22% as having “moderately high” (10–20%) risk, and 7% as having “high” (>20%) risk. Estimates of coronary risk by the original and point-based models often differed substantially. The point-based system classified 15% of adults (5.7 million) into different risk groups than the original model, with 10% (3.9 million) misclassified into higher risk groups and 5% (1.8 million) into lower risk groups, for a net impact of classifying 2.1 million adults into higher risk groups. These risk group misclassifications would impact guideline-recommended drug treatment strategies for 25–46% of affected subjects. Patterns of misclassifications varied significantly by gender, age, and underlying CHD risk. Compared to the original Framingham model, the point-based version misclassifies millions of Americans into risk groups for which guidelines recommend different treatment strategies.

Objectives

To establish the prevalence and correlates of disability during the 2 years before hip fracture.

Design

Data from participants who experienced hip fracture in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) with hip fracture identified using linked Medicare claims. Each participant was interviewed at varying time points in the 2 years before hip fracture. Disability was defined as self-report of the need for assistance in any activity of daily living (walking across the room, eating, bathing, dressing, using the toilet, transferring). Based on the timing between interview and hip fracture, prevalence of disability was calculated in the cohort as a whole over the 2 years before hip fracture and in subgroups defined according to demographic and clinical characteristics.

Setting

The HRS is a nationally representative longitudinal study (1992-2010).

Participants

HRS participants aged ≥65 with hip fracture (mean age at fracture 84, 77% female).

Results

The adjusted prevalence of disability was 20% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 14-25%) 2 years before hip fracture, with little change until approximately 10 months before fracture, when it started to rise, reaching 44% (95% CI = 33-55%) in the month before hip fracture. The prevalence of disability was highest in the last month before fracture for persons aged 85 and older (53%) and for those with dementia (60%).

Conclusion

Care models for hip fracture need to consider not only the acute medical and surgical needs, but also the high level of need for supportive care and caregiver assistance that chronically disabled individuals require.

AIMS: There is limited evidence to support the efficacy of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) for older adults with overactive bladder (OAB). This study aims to report outcomes following SNM among nursing home (NH) residents, a vulnerable population with high rates of frailty and comorbidity. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of long-stay NH residents who underwent a trial of percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE) or Stage 1 permanent lead placement (Stage 1) between 2014 and 2016. Residents were identified using the Minimum Data Set linked to Medicare claims. The primary outcome of this study was successful progression from trial to implant. Rates of 1-year device explant/revisions were also investigated. RESULTS: Trial of SNM was observed in 1089 residents (mean age: 77.9 years). PNE was performed in 66.9% of residents and 33.2% underwent Stage 1. Of Stage 1 procedures, 23.8% were performed with simultaneous device implant (single-stage). Overall, 53.1% of PNEs and 72.4% of Stage 1 progressed to device implant, which was associated with Stage 1 procedure versus PNE (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 1.34; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.21-1.49) and female versus male sex (aRR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.09-1.46). One-year explant/revision was observed in 9.3% of residents (6.3% for PNE, 10.5% for Stage 1, 20.3% single-stage). Single stage procedure versus PNE was significantly associated with device explant/revision (aRR: 3.4; 95% CI: 1.9-6.2). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of NH residents, outcomes following SNM were similar to previous reports of younger healthier cohorts. Surgeons managing older patients with OAB should use caution when selecting patients for single stage SNM procedures.

PURPOSE: To test the efficacy of two interventions to reduce alcohol use and increase viral suppression compared to a control in persons with HIV (PWH). METHODS: In a three-arm (1:1:1) randomized controlled trial (N = 269), we compared in-person counselling (45-70 minutes, two sessions over three months) with interim monthly booster phone calls (live call arm) or twice-weekly automated booster sessions (technology arm) to a brief advice control arm. We enrolled PWH self-reporting unhealthy alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test - Consumption, prior three months, women ≥3, men ≥4). Primary outcomes were number of self-reported drinking days (NDD) in the prior 21 and biomarker phosphatidylethanol (PEth) at six and nine months and viral suppression (<40 copies/mL) at nine months; we adjusted for sex and baseline outcomes. RESULTS: At baseline, mean 21-day NDDs were 9.4 (95 % CI: 9.1-9.8), mean PEth was 407.8 ng/mL (95 % CI: 340.7-474.8), and 89.2 % were virally suppressed. At follow-up, there were significant reductions in mean NDDs for the live call versus control arm (3.5, 95 % CI:2.1-4.9, p < 0.001) and for the technology versus control arm (3.6, 95 % CI: 2.2-5.1, p < 0.001). The mean PEth differences compared to the control arm were not significant, i.e. 36.4 ng/mL (95 % CI: -117.5 to 190.3, p = 0.643) for the live call and -30.9 ng/mL (95 % CI: -194.8 to 132.9, p = 0.711) for the technology arm. Nine-month viral suppression compared to the control was similar in the live call and in the technology arm. CONCLUSION: Intervention effects were found on self-reported NDD but not PEth or viral suppression, suggesting no treatment effect. (NCT #03928418).

To determine the relationship between 25(OH) vitamin D levels and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), we performed a nested case–control study in ambulatory, elderly men enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study. Health habit and medical history, including self-reported history of NMSC were recorded and 25(OH)D levels were measured on serum collected at baseline from a random sample of Caucasian MrOS subjects. Mean age (73 ± 5), BMI, daily vitamin D and calcium intake were similar in the men with (n = 178) and without NMSC (n = 930), but higher levels of 25(OH)D were associated with a decreased risk of having a history of NMSC (P trend  = 0.04). Men in the highest quintile of 25(OH)D (>30 ng/mL) had 47% lower odds of NMSC (95% CI: 0.30–0.93, p = 0.026) compared to those in the lowest quintile. Our results suggest that a diagnosis of NMSC is not a surrogate for adequate 25(OH)D levels or increased UV exposure, and high 25(OH)D levels may be associated with a reduced risk of NMSC.

BACKGROUND: Few hospitals have built surveillance for diagnostic errors into usual care or used comparative quantitative and qualitative data to understand their diagnostic processes and implement interventions designed to reduce these errors. OBJECTIVES: To build surveillance for diagnostic errors into usual care, benchmark diagnostic performance across sites, pilot test interventions, and evaluate the programs impact on diagnostic error rates. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Achieving diagnostic excellence through prevention and teamwork (ADEPT) is a multicenter, real-world quality and safety program utilizing interrupted time-series techniques to evaluate outcomes. Study subjects will be a randomly sampled population of medical patients hospitalized at 16 US hospitals who died, were transferred to intensive care, or had a rapid response during the hospitalization. Surveillance for diagnostic errors will occur on 10 events per month per site using a previously established two-person adjudication process. Concurrent reviews of patients who had a qualifying event in the previous week will allow for surveys of clinicians to better understand contributors to diagnostic error, or conversely, examples of diagnostic excellence, which cannot be gleaned from medical record review alone. With guidance from national experts in quality and safety, sites will report and benchmark diagnostic error rates, share lessons regarding underlying causes, and design, implement, and pilot test interventions using both Safety I and Safety II approaches aimed at patients, providers, and health systems. Safety II approaches will focus on cases where diagnostic error did not occur, applying theories of how people and systems are able to succeed under varying conditions. The primary outcome will be the number of diagnostic errors per patient, using segmented multivariable regression to evaluate change in y-intercept and change in slope after initiation of the program. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the University of California, San Francisco Institutional Review Board (IRB), which is serving as the single IRB. Intervention toolkits and study findings will be disseminated through partners including Vizient, The Joint Commission, and Press-Ganey, and through national meetings, scientific journals, and publications aimed at the general public.