E-Cigarette Use Without a History of Combustible Cigarette Smoking Among U.S. Adults: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2016

Should This Woman With Dense Breasts Receive Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 169, No 7

Breast cancer will develop in 12% of women during their lifetime and is the second leading cause of cancer death among U.S. women. Mammography is the most commonly used tool to screen for breast cancer. Considerable uncertainty exists regarding the age at which to begin screening and the optimal screening interval. Breast density is a risk factor for breast cancer. In addition, for women with dense breasts, small tumors may be missed on mammography and the sensitivity of screening is diminished. At the time of publication, 35 states had passed laws mandating that breast density be reported in the letters that radiologists send to women with their mammogram results. The mandated language may be challenging for patients to understand, and such reporting may increase worry for women who are told that their risk for breast cancer is higher than average on the basis of breast density alone. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the American College of Radiology (ACR) have each issued guidelines that address breast cancer screening for women with dense breasts. Both organizations found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against magnetic resonance screening, whereas the ACR advises consideration of ultrasonography for supplemental screening. In this Beyond the Guidelines, 2 experts—a radiologist and a general internist—discuss these controversies. In particular, the discussants review the role of supplemental breast cancer screening, including breast ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging for women with dense breasts. Finally, the experts offer specific advice for a patient who finds her mammography reports confusing.

Hospital Readmission Rates in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare: A Retrospective Population-Based Analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 2

Background: Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program reports risk-standardized readmission rates for traditional Medicare but not Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Objective: To compare readmission rates between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Design: Retrospective cohort study linking the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file with the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS). Setting: 4748 U.S. acute care hospitals. Patients: Patients aged 65 years or older hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (n = 841 613), congestive heart failure (CHF) (n = 1 458 652), or pneumonia (n = 2 020 365) between 2011 and 2014. Measurements: 30-day readmissions. Results: Among admissions for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia identified in MedPAR, 29.2%, 38.0%, and 37.2%, respectively, did not have a corresponding record in HEDIS. Of these, 18.9% for AMI, 23.7% for CHF, and 18.3% for pneumonia resulted in a readmission that was identified in MedPAR. However, among index admissions appearing in HEDIS, 14.4% for AMI, 18.4% for CHF, and 13.9% for pneumonia resulted in a readmission. Patients in Medicare Advantage had lower unadjusted readmission rates than those in traditional Medicare for all 3 conditions (16.6% vs. 17.1% for AMI, 21.4% vs. 21.7% for CHF, and 16.3% vs. 16.4% for pneumonia). However, after standardization, patients in Medicare Advantage had higher readmission rates than patients in traditional Medicare for AMI (17.2% vs. 16.9%; difference, 0.3 percentage point [95% CI, 0.1 to 0.5 percentage point]), CHF (21.7% vs. 21.4%; difference, 0.3 percentage point [CI, 0.2 to 0.5 percentage point]), and pneumonia (16.5% vs. 16.0%; difference, 0.5 percentage point [95% CI, 0.4 to 0.6 percentage point]). Rate differences increased between 2011 and 2014. Limitation: Potential unobserved differences between populations. Conclusion: The HEDIS data underreported hospital admissions for 3 common medical conditions, and readmission rates were higher among patients with underreported admissions. Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had higher risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates than traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Aging.

Cost-Effectiveness of Alirocumab: A Just-in-Time Analysis Based on the ODYSSEY Outcomes Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 170, No 4

Background: The ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) trial included participants with a recent acute coronary syndrome. Compared with participants receiving statins alone, those receiving a statin plus alirocumab had lower rates of a composite outcome including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death. Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of alirocumab in these circumstances. Design: Decision analysis using the Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model. Data Sources: Data sources representative of the United States combined with data from the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial. Target Population: U.S. adults with a recent first MI and a baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of 1.81 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) or greater. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: U.S. health system. Intervention: Alirocumab or ezetimibe added to statin therapy. Outcome Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2018 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Compared with a statin alone, the addition of ezetimibe cost $81 000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], $51 000 to $215 000) per QALY. Compared with a statin alone, the addition of alirocumab cost $308 000 (UI, $197 000 to $678 000) per QALY. Compared with the combination of statin and ezetimibe, replacing ezetimibe with alirocumab cost $997 000 (UI, $254 000 to dominated) per QALY. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The price of alirocumab would have to decrease from its original cost of $14 560 to $1974 annually to be cost-effective relative to ezetimibe. Limitation: Effectiveness estimates were based on a single randomized trial with a median follow-up of 2.8 years and should not be extrapolated to patients with stable coronary heart disease. Conclusion: The price of alirocumab would have to be reduced considerably to be cost-effective. Because substantial reductions already have occurred, we believe that timely, independent cost-effectiveness analyses can inform clinical and policy discussions of new drugs as they enter the market. Primary Funding Source: University of California, San Francisco, and Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

Smoking, Vaping, and Use of Edibles and Other Forms of Marijuana Among U.S. Adults

Self-reported Physical Health of Women Who Did and Did Not Terminate Pregnancy After Seeking Abortion Services: A Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 4

Background: Research demonstrates worse short-term morbidity and mortality associated with childbirth than with abortion, but little research has examined long-term physical health in women with unwanted pregnancies after abortion versus childbirth. Objective: To examine the physical health of women who seek and receive or are denied abortion. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: 30 U.S. abortion facilities from 2008 to 2010. Participants: Of 1132 women seeking abortion who consented to participate, 874 were included in this analysis (328 who had first-trimester abortion, 383 who had second-trimester abortion, and 163 who gave birth). Measurements: Self-reported overall health; chronic abdominal, pelvic, back, and joint pain; chronic headaches or migraines; obesity; asthma; gestational and nongestational hypertension and diabetes; and hyperlipidemia were assessed semiannually for 5 years. Mortality was assessed by using verbal autopsy and public records. Results: No significant differences were observed in self-rated health or chronic pain after first-trimester versus second-trimester abortion. At 5 years, 27% (95% CI, 21% to 34%) of women who gave birth reported fair or poor health compared with 20% (CI, 16% to 24%) of women who had first-trimester abortion and 21% (CI, 18% to 25%) who had second-trimester abortion. Women who gave birth also reported more chronic headaches or migraines and joint pain, but experienced similar levels of other types of chronic pain and obesity. Gestational hypertension was reported by 9.4% of participants who gave birth. Eight of 1132 participants died during follow-up, 2 in the postpartum period. Maternal mortality did not differ statistically by group. Limitation: Self-reported outcome measures, uncertain generalizability, and 41% loss to follow-up at 5 years. Conclusion: Although some argue that abortion is detrimental to women's health, these study data indicate that physical health is no worse in women who sought and underwent abortion than in women who were denied abortion. Indeed, differences emerged suggesting worse health among those who gave birth. Primary Funding Source: An anonymous foundation.

The Next Stage of Buprenorphine Care for Opioid Use Disorder

Buprenorphine has been used internationally for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) since the 1990s and has been available in the United States for more than a decade. Initial practice recommendations were intentionally conservative, were based on expert opinion, and were influenced by methadone regulations. Since 2003, the American crisis of OUD has dramatically worsened, and much related empirical research has been undertaken. The findings in several important areas conflict with initial clinical practice that is still prevalent. This article reviews research findings in the following 7 areas: location of buprenorphine induction, combining buprenorphine with a benzodiazepine, relapse during buprenorphine treatment, requirements for counseling, uses of drug testing, use of other substances during buprenorphine treatment, and duration of buprenorphine treatment. For each area, evidence for needed updates and modifications in practice is provided. These modifications will facilitate more successful, evidence-based treatment and care for patients with OUD.

Dying Healthy: Public Health Priorities for Fixed Population Life Expectancies

Renal Transplantation and Survival Among Patients With Lupus Nephritis: A Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 170, No 4

Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) due to lupus nephritis (LN) have high rates of premature death. Objective: To assess the potential effect on survival of renal transplant among patients with ESRD due to LN (LN-ESRD) in the United States. Design: Nationwide cohort study. Setting: United States Renal Data System, the national database of nearly all patients with ESRD. Participants: Patients with incident LN-ESRD who were waitlisted for a renal transplant. Measurements: First renal transplant was analyzed as a time-varying exposure. The primary outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Time-dependent Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of these outcomes associated with renal transplant in the primary analysis. Sequential cohort matching was used in a secondary analysis limited to patients with Medicare, which allowed assessment of time-varying covariates. Results: During the study period, 9659 patients with LN-ESRD were waitlisted for a renal transplant, of whom 5738 (59%) had a transplant. Most were female (82%) and nonwhite (60%). Transplant was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.27 to 0.33]) among waitlisted patients. Adjusted HRs for cause-specific mortality were 0.26 (CI, 0.23 to 0.30) for cardiovascular disease, 0.30 (CI, 0.19 to 0.48) for coronary heart disease, 0.41 (CI, 0.32 to 0.52) for infection, and 0.41 (CI, 0.31 to 0.53) for sepsis. Limitation: Unmeasured factors may contribute to the observed associations; however, the E-value analysis suggested robustness of the results. Conclusion: Renal transplant was associated with a survival benefit, primarily due to reduced deaths from cardiovascular disease and infection. The findings highlight the benefit of timely referral for transplant to improve outcomes in this population. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Effect of Liraglutide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Elderly Patients: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial