McCoy, Rozalina Grubina

Objective Diagnostic error is a key healthcare concern and can result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Yet no study has investigated the relationship between adverse outcomes resulting from diagnostic errors and one potentially large contributor to these errors: deficiencies in diagnostic knowledge. Our objective was to measure that associations between diagnostic knowledge and adverse outcomes after visits to primary care physicians that were at risk for diagnostic errors. Setting/participants 1410 US general internists who recently took their American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification (ABIM-IM-MOC) exam treating 42 407 Medicare beneficiaries who experienced 48 632 ‘index’ outpatient visits for new problems at risk for diagnostic error because the presenting problem (eg, dizziness) was related to prespecified diagnostic error sensitive conditions (eg, stroke). Outcome measures 90-day risk of all-cause death, and, for outcome conditions related to the index visits diagnosis, emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalisations. Design Using retrospective cohort study design, we related physician performance on ABIM-IM-MOC diagnostic exam questions to patient outcomes during the 90-day period following an index visit at risk for diagnostic error after controlling for practice characteristics, patient sociodemographic and baseline clinical characteristics. Results Rates of 90-day adverse outcomes per 1000 index visits were 7 for death, 11 for hospitalisations and 14 for ED visits. Being seen by a physician in the top versus bottom third of diagnostic knowledge during an index visit for a new problem at risk for diagnostic error was associated with 2.9 fewer all-cause deaths (95% CI −5.0 to −0.7, p=0.008), 4.1 fewer hospitalisations (95% CI −6.9 to −1.2, p=0.006) and 4.9 fewer ED visits (95% CI −8.1% to −1.6%, p=0.003) per 1000 visits. Conclusion Higher diagnostic knowledge was associated with lower risk of adverse outcomes after visits for problems at heightened risk for diagnostic error.

Introduction Current diabetes quality measures are agnostic to patient clinical complexity and type of treatment required to achieve it. Our objective was to introduce a patient-centered indicator of appropriate diabetes therapy indicator (ADTI), designed for patients with type 2 diabetes, which is based on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) but is also contextualized by patient complexity and treatment intensity. Research design and methods A draft indicator was iteratively refined by a multidisciplinary Delphi panel using existing quality measures, guidelines, and published literature. ADTI performance was then assessed using OptumLabs Data Warehouse data for 2015. Included adults (n=206 279) with type 2 diabetes were categorized as clinically complex based on comorbidities, then categorized as treated appropriately, overtreated, or undertreated based on a matrix of clinical complexity, HbA1c level, and medications used. Associations between ADTI and emergency department/hospital visits for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia were assessed by calculating event rates for each treatment intensity subset. Results Overall, 7.4% of patients with type 2 diabetes were overtreated and 21.1% were undertreated. Patients with high complexity were more likely to be overtreated (OR 5.60, 95% CI 5.37 to 5.83) and less likely to be undertreated (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.68) than patients with low complexity. Overtreated patients had higher rates of hypoglycemia than appropriately treated patients (22.0 vs 6.2 per 1000 people/year), whereas undertreated patients had higher rates of hyperglycemia (8.4 vs 1.9 per 1000 people/year). Conclusions The ADTI may facilitate timely, patient-centered treatment intensification/deintensification with the goal of achieving safer evidence-based care.

Objective To identify the relationships between county-level area deprivation and patterns of both opioid prescriptions and drug-poisoning mortality. Design, setting and participants For this retrospective cross-sectional study, we used the IQVIA Xponent data to capture opioid prescriptions and Centres for Disease Control and Prevention National Vital Statistics System to assess drug-poisoning mortality. The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) is a composite measure of social determinants of health comprised of 17 US census indicators, spanning four socioeconomic domains. For all US counties with available opioid prescription (2712 counties) and drug-poisoning mortality (3133 counties) data between 2012 and 2017, we used negative binomial regression to examine the association between quintiles of county-level ADI and the rates of opioid prescriptions and drug-poisoning mortality adjusted for year, age, race and sex. Primary outcome measures County-level opioid prescription fills and drug-poisoning mortality. Results Between 2012 and 2017, overall rates of opioid prescriptions decreased from 96.6 to 72.2 per 100 people, while the rates of drug-poisoning mortality increased from 14.3 to 22.8 per 100 000 people. Opioid prescription and drug-poisoning mortality rates were consistently higher with greater levels of deprivation. The risk of filling an opioid prescription was 72% higher, and the risk of drug-poisoning mortality was 36% higher, for most deprived compared with the least deprived counties (both p<0.001). Discussion Counties with greater area-level deprivation have higher rates of filled opioid prescriptions and drug-poisoning mortality. Although opioid prescription rates declined across all ADI quintiles, the rates of drug-poisoning mortality continued to rise proportionately in each ADI quintile. This underscores the need for individualised and targeted interventions that consider the deprivation of communities where people live.

Introduction Glycemic targets and glucose-lowering regimens should be individualized based on multiple factors, including the presence of comorbidities. We examined contemporary patterns of glycemic control and use of medications known to cause hypoglycemia among adults with diabetes across age and multimorbidity. Research design and methods We retrospectively examined glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and rates of insulin/sulfonylurea use as a function of age and multimorbidity using administrative claims and laboratory data for adults with type 2 diabetes included in OptumLabs Data Warehouse, 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016. Comorbidity burden was assessed by counts of any of 16 comorbidities specified by guidelines as warranting relaxation of HbA1c targets, classified as being diabetes concordant (diabetes complications or risk factors), discordant (unrelated to diabetes), or advanced (life limiting). Results Among 194 157 patients with type 2 diabetes included in the study, 45.2% had only concordant comorbidities, 30.6% concordant and discordant, 2.7% only discordant, and 13.0% had ≥1 advanced comorbidity. Mean HbA1c was 7.7% among 18–44 year-olds versus 6.9% among ≥75 year-olds, and was higher among patients with comorbidities: 7.3% with concordant only, 7.1% with discordant only, 7.1% with concordant and discordant, and 7.0% with advanced comorbidities compared with 7.4% among patients without comorbidities. The odds of insulin use decreased with age (OR 0.51 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.54) for age ≥75 vs 18–44 years) but increased with accumulation of concordant (OR 5.50 (95% CI 5.22 to 5.79) for ≥3 vs none), discordant (OR 1.72 (95% CI 1.60 to 1.86) for ≥3 vs none), and advanced (OR 1.45 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.68) for ≥2 vs none) comorbidities. Conversely, sulfonylurea use increased with age (OR 1.36 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.44) for age ≥75 vs 18–44 years) but decreased with accumulation of concordant (OR 0.76 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.79) for ≥3 vs none), discordant (OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.76) for ≥3 vs none), but not advanced (OR 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.01) for ≥2 vs none) comorbidities. Conclusions The proportion of patients achieving low HbA1c levels was highest among older and multimorbid patients. Older patients and patients with higher comorbidity burden were more likely to be treated with insulin to achieve these HbA1c levels despite potential for hypoglycemia and uncertain long-term benefit.

Objective Activin A, an inflammatory mediator implicated in cellular senescence-induced adipose tissue dysfunction and profibrotic kidney injury, may become a new target for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and chronic kidney diseases. We tested the hypothesis that human DKD-related injury leads to upregulation of activin A in blood and urine and in a human kidney cell model. We further hypothesized that circulating activin A parallels kidney injury markers in DKD. Research design and methods In two adult diabetes cohorts and controls (Minnesota, USA; Galway, Ireland), the relationships between plasma (or urine) activin A, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and DKD injury biomarkers were tested with logistic regression and correlation coefficients. Activin A, inflammatory, epithelial-mesenchymal-transition (EMT) and senescence markers were assayed in human kidney (HK-2) cells incubated in high glucose plus transforming growth factor-β1 or albumin. Results Plasma activin A levels were elevated in diabetes (n=206) compared with controls (n=76; 418.1 vs 259.3 pg/mL; p<0.001) and correlated inversely with eGFR (r s =−0.61; p<0.001; diabetes). After eGFR adjustment, only albuminuria (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.09) and tumor necrosis factor receptor-1 (OR 6.40, 95% CI 1.08 to 38.00) associated with the highest activin tertile. Albuminuria also related to urinary activin (r s =0.65; p<0.001). Following in vitro HK-2 injury, activin, inflammatory, EMT genes and supernatant activin levels were increased. Conclusions Circulating activin A is increased in human DKD and correlates with reduced kidney function and kidney injury markers. DKD-injured human renal tubule cells develop a profibrotic and inflammatory phenotype with activin A upregulation. These findings underscore the role of inflammation and provide a basis for further exploration of activin A as a diagnostic marker and therapeutic target in DKD.

Introduction There is a considerable implementation gap in managing early stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care despite the high prevalence and risk for increased morbidity and mortality associated with CKD. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence of efficacy of implementation interventions aimed at primary care practitioners (PCPs) to improve CKD identification and management. We further aim to describe the interventions’ behavioural change components. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of studies from 2000 to October 2017 that evaluate implementation interventions targeting PCPs and which include at least one clinically meaningful CKD outcome. We will search several electronic data bases and conduct reference mining of related systematic reviews and publications. An interdisciplinary team will independently and in duplicate, screen publications, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Clinical outcomes will include all clinically meaningful medical management outcomes relevant to CKD management in primary care such as blood pressure, chronic heart disease and diabetes target achievements. Quantitative evidence synthesis will be performed, where possible. Planned subgroup analyses include by (1) study design, (2) length of follow-up, (3) type of intervention, (4) type of implementation strategy, (5) whether a behavioural or implementation theory was used to guide study, (6) baseline CKD severity, (7) patient minority status, (8) study location and (9) academic setting or not. Ethics and dissemination Approval by research ethics board is not required since the review will only include published and publicly accessible data. Review findings will inform a future trial of an intervention to promote uptake of CKD diagnosis and treatment guidelines in our primary care setting and the development of complementary tools to support its successful adoption and implementation. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and develop accessible summaries of the results. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018102441.