Fan, Jiaquan

5 Background: The 11/2009 USPSTF breast cancer screening update recommended against routine screening mammography for women age 40-49, created confusion and prompted organizations to release opposing statements. We aimed to determine if the USPSTF update for breast cancer screening impacted screening mammography utilization in women age 40-49. Methods: We conducted a time-series analysis utilizing administrative claims data from over 100 health plans. Women ages 40-64 with at least one month of enrollment from 01/2006-12/2010 were included. Medicare claims are not included and thus women ≥65 were excluded. The start date of 01/2006 was chosen to account for possible effects of the recent recession. We developed claims-based algorithms to identify the number of monthly screening mammograms. Time series models were fit using SAS PROC AUTOREG; strong seasonal fluctuations were adjusted by including an autoregressive error of order 12. Results: Over 7.9 million women were included. Prior to the intervention, the baseline monthly mammography rate was 40.9/1,000 women for the 40-49 group and 47.4/1,000 women for the 50-64 group. Based on projections from pre-intervention trends, the update was associated with a 5.72% (1.27,10.18) and 4.97% (1.11,8.84) decrease in mammography rate at 3 and 10 months post-intervention, respectively in the 40-49 group. The intervention had no effect on mammography rates in the 50-64 group. This translates to 53,969 fewer mammograms performed in the year following the update for women ages 40-49 in this dataset. Conclusions: We present the first estimates of the impact of the USPSTF breast cancer screening update using a large nationally representative database. The update was associated with a small but significant decrease in mammography rates for women ages 40-49, while no change was seen for women ages 50-64, which is consistent with the context of the guideline change. A modest effect is also in line with public backlash and the release of numerous conflicting guidelines. These findings underscore the need for further research on benefits and risks of screening mammography as it is difficult to act on numerous sources of contradictory information.

Background and Purpose— Endovascular therapy has increasingly become the most common treatment for unruptured cerebral aneurysms in the United States. We evaluated a national, multi-hospital database to examine recent utilization trends and compare periprocedural outcomes between clipping and coiling treatments of unruptured aneurysms. Methods— The Premier Perspective database was used to identify patients hospitalized between 2006 to 2011 for unruptured cerebral aneurysm who underwent clipping or coiling therapy. A logistic propensity score was generated for each patient using relevant patient, procedure, and hospital variables, representing the probability of receiving clipping. Covariate balance was assessed using conditional logistic regression. Following propensity score adjustment using 1:1 matching methods, the risk of in-hospital mortality and morbidity was compared between clipping and coiling cohorts. Results— A total of 4899 unruptured aneurysm patients (1388 clipping, 3551 coiling) treated at 120 hospitals were identified. Following propensity score adjustment, clipping patients had a similar likelihood of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49–4.44; P =0.47) but a significantly higher likelihood of unfavorable outcomes, including discharge to long-term care (OR, 4.78; 95% CI, 3.51–6.58; P <0.0001), ischemic complications (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 2.39–4.99; P <0.0001), hemorrhagic complications (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.33–3.57; P <0.0001), postoperative neurological complications (OR, 3.39; 95% CI, 2.25–5.22; P <0.0001), and ventriculostomy (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.01–4.61; P =0.0320) compared with coiling patients. Conclusions— Among patients treated for unruptured intracranial aneurysms in a large sample of hospitals in the United States, clipping was associated with similar mortality risk but significantly higher periprocedural morbidity risk compared with coiling.

Surveys of physicians are an important tool to assess opinions and self-reported behaviors of this policy-relevant population. However, this population is notoriously difficult to survey and plagued with low and falling response rates. In order to evaluate the potential import of response rate, we examine the presence of nonresponse bias in a survey of physicians providing diabetes care that achieved a 36% response rate. Unlike other studies examining differences in individual characteristics for responding and nonresponding physicians, we also assess differences with respect to aggregate patient demographic, clinical, and behavioral characteristics. We are unable to demonstrate nonresponse bias, even with what could be construed as a relative low response rate. Nonetheless as the threat of nonresponse bias can never be completely assuaged, we believe that it should be monitored as a matter of course in physician surveys and offer a new dimension by which it can be evaluated.