User login
Obesity and exercise
Obesity means having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher. Being obese increases your risk of health problems including high blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, arthritis, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases such as stroke and heart attack. You can reduce these risks by losing weight.
The healthy way to lose weight is to eat fewer calories, eat less processed food and more whole foods, and exercise regularly. A dietitian can help you create a flexible and balanced eating plan to help you meet your goals.
When beginning an exercise plan, start slowly with a combination of aerobic, resistance, flexibility, and balance exercises. A combined aerobic and resistance exercise program will likely result in more weight loss than either alone.
Aerobic exercises should be the foundation of your program. Choose exercises that involve large muscle groups, such as walking. Walking is the easiest way for most people to start exercising, but you can also consider other exercises such as stationary bicycling, slow jogging, and water aerobics.
Resistance training involves lifting weights using either weight machines or free weights (dumbbells).
Flexibility exercises are a type of stretching that improves the movements of your muscles, joints, and ligaments.
Balance exercises improve your stability and reduce the chance of falling or other injuries. These exercises can be done without any equipment. For example, with single-leg balance, you balance on one foot for 15 seconds. A stand-sit involves standing up and sitting down without using your hands.
Your provider will design an exercise program for you that includes the frequency, intensity, time, and types of exercise. Typically, you’ll want to lose about 10% of your weight over a 6-month period. Be sure to set SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely) to sustain the self-discipline required for long-term success. Also consider tracking your physical activity using a wearable device (eg, Fitbit) or a smartphone app. It lets you see your progress over time, helps you set new goals, and helps keep you motivated.
This information is provided by your physician and the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. It is not designed to replace a physician’s medical assessment and judgment.
This page may be reproduced noncommercially to share with patients. Any other reproduction is subject to Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine approval. Bulk color reprints available by calling 216-444-2661.
For patient information on hundreds of health topics, visit the Center for Consumer Health Information website, www.clevelandclinic.org/health.
Obesity means having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher. Being obese increases your risk of health problems including high blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, arthritis, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases such as stroke and heart attack. You can reduce these risks by losing weight.
The healthy way to lose weight is to eat fewer calories, eat less processed food and more whole foods, and exercise regularly. A dietitian can help you create a flexible and balanced eating plan to help you meet your goals.
When beginning an exercise plan, start slowly with a combination of aerobic, resistance, flexibility, and balance exercises. A combined aerobic and resistance exercise program will likely result in more weight loss than either alone.
Aerobic exercises should be the foundation of your program. Choose exercises that involve large muscle groups, such as walking. Walking is the easiest way for most people to start exercising, but you can also consider other exercises such as stationary bicycling, slow jogging, and water aerobics.
Resistance training involves lifting weights using either weight machines or free weights (dumbbells).
Flexibility exercises are a type of stretching that improves the movements of your muscles, joints, and ligaments.
Balance exercises improve your stability and reduce the chance of falling or other injuries. These exercises can be done without any equipment. For example, with single-leg balance, you balance on one foot for 15 seconds. A stand-sit involves standing up and sitting down without using your hands.
Your provider will design an exercise program for you that includes the frequency, intensity, time, and types of exercise. Typically, you’ll want to lose about 10% of your weight over a 6-month period. Be sure to set SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely) to sustain the self-discipline required for long-term success. Also consider tracking your physical activity using a wearable device (eg, Fitbit) or a smartphone app. It lets you see your progress over time, helps you set new goals, and helps keep you motivated.
This information is provided by your physician and the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. It is not designed to replace a physician’s medical assessment and judgment.
This page may be reproduced noncommercially to share with patients. Any other reproduction is subject to Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine approval. Bulk color reprints available by calling 216-444-2661.
For patient information on hundreds of health topics, visit the Center for Consumer Health Information website, www.clevelandclinic.org/health.
Obesity means having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher. Being obese increases your risk of health problems including high blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, arthritis, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases such as stroke and heart attack. You can reduce these risks by losing weight.
The healthy way to lose weight is to eat fewer calories, eat less processed food and more whole foods, and exercise regularly. A dietitian can help you create a flexible and balanced eating plan to help you meet your goals.
When beginning an exercise plan, start slowly with a combination of aerobic, resistance, flexibility, and balance exercises. A combined aerobic and resistance exercise program will likely result in more weight loss than either alone.
Aerobic exercises should be the foundation of your program. Choose exercises that involve large muscle groups, such as walking. Walking is the easiest way for most people to start exercising, but you can also consider other exercises such as stationary bicycling, slow jogging, and water aerobics.
Resistance training involves lifting weights using either weight machines or free weights (dumbbells).
Flexibility exercises are a type of stretching that improves the movements of your muscles, joints, and ligaments.
Balance exercises improve your stability and reduce the chance of falling or other injuries. These exercises can be done without any equipment. For example, with single-leg balance, you balance on one foot for 15 seconds. A stand-sit involves standing up and sitting down without using your hands.
Your provider will design an exercise program for you that includes the frequency, intensity, time, and types of exercise. Typically, you’ll want to lose about 10% of your weight over a 6-month period. Be sure to set SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely) to sustain the self-discipline required for long-term success. Also consider tracking your physical activity using a wearable device (eg, Fitbit) or a smartphone app. It lets you see your progress over time, helps you set new goals, and helps keep you motivated.
This information is provided by your physician and the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. It is not designed to replace a physician’s medical assessment and judgment.
This page may be reproduced noncommercially to share with patients. Any other reproduction is subject to Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine approval. Bulk color reprints available by calling 216-444-2661.
For patient information on hundreds of health topics, visit the Center for Consumer Health Information website, www.clevelandclinic.org/health.
Tailor chronic pain interventions to the patient’s clinical profile



February 2016 Digital Edition
Table of Contents
- A Prescription for Music Lessons
- A New View for the VA
- Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Review
- Monitoring Heat Injuries in a Hazmat Environment
- Hyponatremia Secondary to Lisinopril in a Veteran Patient
- Clinical Video Telehealth for Gait and Balance
- Asymptomatic but Time for a Hip Revision
- Impact of Interprofessional Care Teams on Metabolic Parameters in Patients
Table of Contents
- A Prescription for Music Lessons
- A New View for the VA
- Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Review
- Monitoring Heat Injuries in a Hazmat Environment
- Hyponatremia Secondary to Lisinopril in a Veteran Patient
- Clinical Video Telehealth for Gait and Balance
- Asymptomatic but Time for a Hip Revision
- Impact of Interprofessional Care Teams on Metabolic Parameters in Patients
Table of Contents
- A Prescription for Music Lessons
- A New View for the VA
- Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Review
- Monitoring Heat Injuries in a Hazmat Environment
- Hyponatremia Secondary to Lisinopril in a Veteran Patient
- Clinical Video Telehealth for Gait and Balance
- Asymptomatic but Time for a Hip Revision
- Impact of Interprofessional Care Teams on Metabolic Parameters in Patients
Adoption of Choosing Wisely Recommendations Slow to Catch On
Clinical question: Have the Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations led to changes in practice?
Background: The Choosing Wisely campaign aims to reduce the incidence of low-value care by providing evidence-based recommendations for common clinical situations. The rate of adoption of these recommendations is unknown.
Study design: Retrospective review.
Setting: Anthem insurance members.
Synopsis: The study examined the claims data from 25 million Anthem insurance members to compare the rate of services that were targeted by seven Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations before and after the recommendations were published in 2012.
Investigators found the incidence of two of the services declined after the Choosing Wisely recommendations were published; the other five services remained stable or increased slightly. Furthermore, the declines were statistically significant but not a marked absolute difference, with the incidence of head imaging in patients with uncomplicated headaches going down to 13.4% from 14.9% and the use of cardiac imaging in the absence of cardiac disease declining to 9.7% from 10.8%.
The main limitations are the narrow population of Anthem insurance members and the lack of specific data that could help answer why clinical practice has not changed, but that could be the aim of future studies.
Bottom line: Choosing Wisely recommendations have not been adopted on a population level; widespread implementation likely will require financial incentives, provider-level data feedback, and systems interventions.
Citation: Rosenberg A, Agiro A, Gottlieb M, et al. Early trends among seven recommendations from the Choosing Wisely campaign. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(12):1913-1920. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5441.
Clinical question: Have the Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations led to changes in practice?
Background: The Choosing Wisely campaign aims to reduce the incidence of low-value care by providing evidence-based recommendations for common clinical situations. The rate of adoption of these recommendations is unknown.
Study design: Retrospective review.
Setting: Anthem insurance members.
Synopsis: The study examined the claims data from 25 million Anthem insurance members to compare the rate of services that were targeted by seven Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations before and after the recommendations were published in 2012.
Investigators found the incidence of two of the services declined after the Choosing Wisely recommendations were published; the other five services remained stable or increased slightly. Furthermore, the declines were statistically significant but not a marked absolute difference, with the incidence of head imaging in patients with uncomplicated headaches going down to 13.4% from 14.9% and the use of cardiac imaging in the absence of cardiac disease declining to 9.7% from 10.8%.
The main limitations are the narrow population of Anthem insurance members and the lack of specific data that could help answer why clinical practice has not changed, but that could be the aim of future studies.
Bottom line: Choosing Wisely recommendations have not been adopted on a population level; widespread implementation likely will require financial incentives, provider-level data feedback, and systems interventions.
Citation: Rosenberg A, Agiro A, Gottlieb M, et al. Early trends among seven recommendations from the Choosing Wisely campaign. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(12):1913-1920. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5441.
Clinical question: Have the Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations led to changes in practice?
Background: The Choosing Wisely campaign aims to reduce the incidence of low-value care by providing evidence-based recommendations for common clinical situations. The rate of adoption of these recommendations is unknown.
Study design: Retrospective review.
Setting: Anthem insurance members.
Synopsis: The study examined the claims data from 25 million Anthem insurance members to compare the rate of services that were targeted by seven Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations before and after the recommendations were published in 2012.
Investigators found the incidence of two of the services declined after the Choosing Wisely recommendations were published; the other five services remained stable or increased slightly. Furthermore, the declines were statistically significant but not a marked absolute difference, with the incidence of head imaging in patients with uncomplicated headaches going down to 13.4% from 14.9% and the use of cardiac imaging in the absence of cardiac disease declining to 9.7% from 10.8%.
The main limitations are the narrow population of Anthem insurance members and the lack of specific data that could help answer why clinical practice has not changed, but that could be the aim of future studies.
Bottom line: Choosing Wisely recommendations have not been adopted on a population level; widespread implementation likely will require financial incentives, provider-level data feedback, and systems interventions.
Citation: Rosenberg A, Agiro A, Gottlieb M, et al. Early trends among seven recommendations from the Choosing Wisely campaign. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(12):1913-1920. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5441.
Standard BMI inadequate for ALL patients
Photo by Bill Branson
New research suggests that body mass index (BMI) is an inadequate method for estimating changes in body fat and obesity in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).
Investigators found a discrepancy between BMI and body composition in this population, and the cause of this appeared to be increases in body fat with simultaneous loss of lean muscle mass during treatment.
The team reported these findings in Leukemia & Lymphoma.
With previous work, the investigators found that obese children diagnosed with high-risk ALL had a 50% greater risk of their disease recurring compared with children who were not obese.
“In my lab, we’ve seen a direct interaction between fat cells and leukemia cells that may help explain this increased risk of disease relapse,” said study author Steven Mittelman, MD, PhD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles in California.
“It appears that the fat cells ‘protect’ leukemia cells, making them less susceptible to chemotherapy and making an accurate measure of body fat essential.”
To determine if BMI accurately reflects body fat in ALL, the investigators analyzed 50 patients. They were predominantly Hispanic, between the ages of 10 to 21, and had newly diagnosed high-risk B-precursor ALL or T-cell ALL.
The team measured the percentage of total body fat and lean muscle mass at the time of diagnosis, at the end of induction, and at the end of delayed intensification. They also calculated BMI Z-score—a measure of how a given child’s BMI deviates from a population of children of the same age and sex—at these time points.
The investigators said sarcopenic obesity—gain in body fat percentage with loss of lean muscle mass—was “surprisingly common” during ALL treatment.
And sarcopenic obesity resulted in poor correlation between changes in BMI Z-score and body fat percentage overall (r=-0.05), within the time points (r=0.02), and within patients (r=-0.09, all not significant). BMI Z-score and body fat percentage changed in opposite directions in more than 50% of interval assessments.
“We found that change in BMI did not reflect changes in body fat or obesity,” said Etan Orgel, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
“In some patients, reaching a ‘healthy’ BMI was due solely to loss of muscle even while body fat continued to rise. Based on these results, we believe that evaluation of obesity in patients with leukemia should include direct measures of body composition.”
Photo by Bill Branson
New research suggests that body mass index (BMI) is an inadequate method for estimating changes in body fat and obesity in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).
Investigators found a discrepancy between BMI and body composition in this population, and the cause of this appeared to be increases in body fat with simultaneous loss of lean muscle mass during treatment.
The team reported these findings in Leukemia & Lymphoma.
With previous work, the investigators found that obese children diagnosed with high-risk ALL had a 50% greater risk of their disease recurring compared with children who were not obese.
“In my lab, we’ve seen a direct interaction between fat cells and leukemia cells that may help explain this increased risk of disease relapse,” said study author Steven Mittelman, MD, PhD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles in California.
“It appears that the fat cells ‘protect’ leukemia cells, making them less susceptible to chemotherapy and making an accurate measure of body fat essential.”
To determine if BMI accurately reflects body fat in ALL, the investigators analyzed 50 patients. They were predominantly Hispanic, between the ages of 10 to 21, and had newly diagnosed high-risk B-precursor ALL or T-cell ALL.
The team measured the percentage of total body fat and lean muscle mass at the time of diagnosis, at the end of induction, and at the end of delayed intensification. They also calculated BMI Z-score—a measure of how a given child’s BMI deviates from a population of children of the same age and sex—at these time points.
The investigators said sarcopenic obesity—gain in body fat percentage with loss of lean muscle mass—was “surprisingly common” during ALL treatment.
And sarcopenic obesity resulted in poor correlation between changes in BMI Z-score and body fat percentage overall (r=-0.05), within the time points (r=0.02), and within patients (r=-0.09, all not significant). BMI Z-score and body fat percentage changed in opposite directions in more than 50% of interval assessments.
“We found that change in BMI did not reflect changes in body fat or obesity,” said Etan Orgel, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
“In some patients, reaching a ‘healthy’ BMI was due solely to loss of muscle even while body fat continued to rise. Based on these results, we believe that evaluation of obesity in patients with leukemia should include direct measures of body composition.”
Photo by Bill Branson
New research suggests that body mass index (BMI) is an inadequate method for estimating changes in body fat and obesity in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).
Investigators found a discrepancy between BMI and body composition in this population, and the cause of this appeared to be increases in body fat with simultaneous loss of lean muscle mass during treatment.
The team reported these findings in Leukemia & Lymphoma.
With previous work, the investigators found that obese children diagnosed with high-risk ALL had a 50% greater risk of their disease recurring compared with children who were not obese.
“In my lab, we’ve seen a direct interaction between fat cells and leukemia cells that may help explain this increased risk of disease relapse,” said study author Steven Mittelman, MD, PhD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles in California.
“It appears that the fat cells ‘protect’ leukemia cells, making them less susceptible to chemotherapy and making an accurate measure of body fat essential.”
To determine if BMI accurately reflects body fat in ALL, the investigators analyzed 50 patients. They were predominantly Hispanic, between the ages of 10 to 21, and had newly diagnosed high-risk B-precursor ALL or T-cell ALL.
The team measured the percentage of total body fat and lean muscle mass at the time of diagnosis, at the end of induction, and at the end of delayed intensification. They also calculated BMI Z-score—a measure of how a given child’s BMI deviates from a population of children of the same age and sex—at these time points.
The investigators said sarcopenic obesity—gain in body fat percentage with loss of lean muscle mass—was “surprisingly common” during ALL treatment.
And sarcopenic obesity resulted in poor correlation between changes in BMI Z-score and body fat percentage overall (r=-0.05), within the time points (r=0.02), and within patients (r=-0.09, all not significant). BMI Z-score and body fat percentage changed in opposite directions in more than 50% of interval assessments.
“We found that change in BMI did not reflect changes in body fat or obesity,” said Etan Orgel, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
“In some patients, reaching a ‘healthy’ BMI was due solely to loss of muscle even while body fat continued to rise. Based on these results, we believe that evaluation of obesity in patients with leukemia should include direct measures of body composition.”
NICE issues draft guideline for NHL
a cancer patient
Photo courtesy of NCI/
Mathews Media Group
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued a draft guideline for the diagnosis and management of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).
The guideline, which is open for consultation, covers adults and young people who are referred to secondary care with suspected NHL or who have newly diagnosed or relapsed NHL.
It contains recommendations for the management of 6 different NHL subtypes—diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, MALT lymphoma, Burkitt lymphoma, and peripheral T-cell lymphoma.
The guideline considers which method of biopsy is most appropriate, which diagnostic test most suitable, how the stage of disease is best assessed, and what treatment is likely to be most effective.
It also proposes recommendations for how best to support patients who complete their treatment. These include the provision of end-of-treatment summaries to be discussed with the patient and an increase in education on the possible relapse/late side-effects of their treatment.
“This draft guideline is now open for consultation,” said Mark Baker, director of the Centre of Clinical Practice at NICE.
“We want to hear from patients and all those who provide care for people with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the NHS [National Health Service] so that we can produce a guideline which will support everyone who diagnoses, treats, and has to live with this disease.”
The consultation closes on March 11, 2016, with the final guideline expected in the summer.
a cancer patient
Photo courtesy of NCI/
Mathews Media Group
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued a draft guideline for the diagnosis and management of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).
The guideline, which is open for consultation, covers adults and young people who are referred to secondary care with suspected NHL or who have newly diagnosed or relapsed NHL.
It contains recommendations for the management of 6 different NHL subtypes—diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, MALT lymphoma, Burkitt lymphoma, and peripheral T-cell lymphoma.
The guideline considers which method of biopsy is most appropriate, which diagnostic test most suitable, how the stage of disease is best assessed, and what treatment is likely to be most effective.
It also proposes recommendations for how best to support patients who complete their treatment. These include the provision of end-of-treatment summaries to be discussed with the patient and an increase in education on the possible relapse/late side-effects of their treatment.
“This draft guideline is now open for consultation,” said Mark Baker, director of the Centre of Clinical Practice at NICE.
“We want to hear from patients and all those who provide care for people with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the NHS [National Health Service] so that we can produce a guideline which will support everyone who diagnoses, treats, and has to live with this disease.”
The consultation closes on March 11, 2016, with the final guideline expected in the summer.
a cancer patient
Photo courtesy of NCI/
Mathews Media Group
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued a draft guideline for the diagnosis and management of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).
The guideline, which is open for consultation, covers adults and young people who are referred to secondary care with suspected NHL or who have newly diagnosed or relapsed NHL.
It contains recommendations for the management of 6 different NHL subtypes—diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, MALT lymphoma, Burkitt lymphoma, and peripheral T-cell lymphoma.
The guideline considers which method of biopsy is most appropriate, which diagnostic test most suitable, how the stage of disease is best assessed, and what treatment is likely to be most effective.
It also proposes recommendations for how best to support patients who complete their treatment. These include the provision of end-of-treatment summaries to be discussed with the patient and an increase in education on the possible relapse/late side-effects of their treatment.
“This draft guideline is now open for consultation,” said Mark Baker, director of the Centre of Clinical Practice at NICE.
“We want to hear from patients and all those who provide care for people with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the NHS [National Health Service] so that we can produce a guideline which will support everyone who diagnoses, treats, and has to live with this disease.”
The consultation closes on March 11, 2016, with the final guideline expected in the summer.
Minor residual staining found adequate for colonoscopy
A Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of 2 – indicating mild residual staining and small stool fragments – was as good as the optimal preparation score of 3 for visualizing polyps and adenomas larger than 5 mm and advanced adenomas during colonoscopy, researchers said.
A score of 2 might increase the chances of missing smaller polyps, but is adequate for detecting clinically significant masses, Dr. Brian Clark of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and his associates reported in the February issue of Gastroenterology. But a score of 1 – meaning that there is enough staining or stool to obscure the mucosa – significantly increased the chances of missing adenomas larger than 5 mm, they said. Patients should undergo early repeat colonoscopy if their BBPS score is 1 or 0 in any colon segment, they emphasized.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
Bowel preparation for colonoscopy is considered adequate if endoscopists can detect polyps larger than 5 mm, but no prior study had quantified the amount of preparation needed. This prospective observational study assessed adequate preparation in terms of the BBPS, which scores each of three colon segments on a scale of 0 (solid stool covering the mucosa) to 3 points (entire mucosa seen well, with no residual staining). Study participants included 438 men aged 50-75 years who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at a single Veterans Affairs center, followed by repeat colonoscopies within 60 days performed by different blinded endoscopists. The investigators excluded patients who scored 0 in all colon segments or had familial polyposis syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, polyps so large that they could not be completely removed, or a history of colonic or rectal resection. In all, they analyzed 1,161 colon segments (Gastroenterology. 2015 Dec 7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.09.041).
Endoscopists missed about 5% of adenomas greater than 5 mm, regardless of whether BBPS scores were 2 or 3 in a model that accounted for age, reason for colonoscopy, colon segment, number of polyps removed in the first examination, and endoscopist performing the procedure, the researchers said. But when BBPS scores were 1, endoscopists missed 16% of adenomas larger than 5 mm, a difference of about 10%. Furthermore, 43% of screening and surveillance intervals would have been incorrect had they been based solely on an initial examination for which scores were 1 in at least one segment. In contrast, only about 15% of intervals would have been incorrect for patients who scored 2 or 3 in all segments.
In all, 80% of patients were sufficiently prepared, having scored at least 2 in all segments on the first examination. “Determining whether a patient’s preparation quality is adequate is one of the most common and important decisions made by gastroenterologists each day,” the researchers said. Between 25% and 30% of screening and surveillance colonoscopies occur at “inappropriately shortened intervals,” often because of uncertainty about what constitutes adequate visualization, they added. Defining adequate visualization based on bowel preparation could save billions of dollars in health care costs every year, minimize complications from unnecessary procedures, and pinpoint those patients who truly need an early repeat colonoscopy to help prevent interval colorectal cancer, they emphasized.
The National Institutes of Health funded the study. The investigators had no disclosures.
We have seen a dramatic increase in attention to improving the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy because patients of endoscopists with a higher ADR have a lower risk of colorectal cancer after colonoscopy. One major contributor to missed adenomas is inadequate bowel preparation, though little was known about how best to define adequacy.
| Dr. Jason Domonitz |
Clark and colleagues’ elegant tandem colonoscopy study helps address this knowledge gap using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), a validated instrument that is easy to implement. They hypothesized that a BBPS colon-segment score of 2 was noninferior to a score of 3 for identifying adenomas greater than 5 mm, but that a BBPS colon-segment score of 1 would be inferior to scores of 2 or 3. Their findings support this hypothesis and give us long overdue data that we can now use to define an adequate bowel preparation. Given that the adenoma miss rate was 16% when the segment score was 1, but only about 5% with higher scores, it is reasonable to recommend repeat colonoscopy within 12 months if any segment score is less than 2. Otherwise, standard surveillance intervals should be recommended. Finally, unless and until other scoring systems are similarly validated, these findings should encourage the widespread adoption of the BBPS.
Dr. Jason A. Dominitz, AGAF, is the national program director for gastroenterology for the Veterans Health Administration and is professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Washington, Seattle. He has no conflicts of interest.
We have seen a dramatic increase in attention to improving the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy because patients of endoscopists with a higher ADR have a lower risk of colorectal cancer after colonoscopy. One major contributor to missed adenomas is inadequate bowel preparation, though little was known about how best to define adequacy.
| Dr. Jason Domonitz |
Clark and colleagues’ elegant tandem colonoscopy study helps address this knowledge gap using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), a validated instrument that is easy to implement. They hypothesized that a BBPS colon-segment score of 2 was noninferior to a score of 3 for identifying adenomas greater than 5 mm, but that a BBPS colon-segment score of 1 would be inferior to scores of 2 or 3. Their findings support this hypothesis and give us long overdue data that we can now use to define an adequate bowel preparation. Given that the adenoma miss rate was 16% when the segment score was 1, but only about 5% with higher scores, it is reasonable to recommend repeat colonoscopy within 12 months if any segment score is less than 2. Otherwise, standard surveillance intervals should be recommended. Finally, unless and until other scoring systems are similarly validated, these findings should encourage the widespread adoption of the BBPS.
Dr. Jason A. Dominitz, AGAF, is the national program director for gastroenterology for the Veterans Health Administration and is professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Washington, Seattle. He has no conflicts of interest.
We have seen a dramatic increase in attention to improving the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy because patients of endoscopists with a higher ADR have a lower risk of colorectal cancer after colonoscopy. One major contributor to missed adenomas is inadequate bowel preparation, though little was known about how best to define adequacy.
| Dr. Jason Domonitz |
Clark and colleagues’ elegant tandem colonoscopy study helps address this knowledge gap using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), a validated instrument that is easy to implement. They hypothesized that a BBPS colon-segment score of 2 was noninferior to a score of 3 for identifying adenomas greater than 5 mm, but that a BBPS colon-segment score of 1 would be inferior to scores of 2 or 3. Their findings support this hypothesis and give us long overdue data that we can now use to define an adequate bowel preparation. Given that the adenoma miss rate was 16% when the segment score was 1, but only about 5% with higher scores, it is reasonable to recommend repeat colonoscopy within 12 months if any segment score is less than 2. Otherwise, standard surveillance intervals should be recommended. Finally, unless and until other scoring systems are similarly validated, these findings should encourage the widespread adoption of the BBPS.
Dr. Jason A. Dominitz, AGAF, is the national program director for gastroenterology for the Veterans Health Administration and is professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Washington, Seattle. He has no conflicts of interest.
A Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of 2 – indicating mild residual staining and small stool fragments – was as good as the optimal preparation score of 3 for visualizing polyps and adenomas larger than 5 mm and advanced adenomas during colonoscopy, researchers said.
A score of 2 might increase the chances of missing smaller polyps, but is adequate for detecting clinically significant masses, Dr. Brian Clark of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and his associates reported in the February issue of Gastroenterology. But a score of 1 – meaning that there is enough staining or stool to obscure the mucosa – significantly increased the chances of missing adenomas larger than 5 mm, they said. Patients should undergo early repeat colonoscopy if their BBPS score is 1 or 0 in any colon segment, they emphasized.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
Bowel preparation for colonoscopy is considered adequate if endoscopists can detect polyps larger than 5 mm, but no prior study had quantified the amount of preparation needed. This prospective observational study assessed adequate preparation in terms of the BBPS, which scores each of three colon segments on a scale of 0 (solid stool covering the mucosa) to 3 points (entire mucosa seen well, with no residual staining). Study participants included 438 men aged 50-75 years who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at a single Veterans Affairs center, followed by repeat colonoscopies within 60 days performed by different blinded endoscopists. The investigators excluded patients who scored 0 in all colon segments or had familial polyposis syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, polyps so large that they could not be completely removed, or a history of colonic or rectal resection. In all, they analyzed 1,161 colon segments (Gastroenterology. 2015 Dec 7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.09.041).
Endoscopists missed about 5% of adenomas greater than 5 mm, regardless of whether BBPS scores were 2 or 3 in a model that accounted for age, reason for colonoscopy, colon segment, number of polyps removed in the first examination, and endoscopist performing the procedure, the researchers said. But when BBPS scores were 1, endoscopists missed 16% of adenomas larger than 5 mm, a difference of about 10%. Furthermore, 43% of screening and surveillance intervals would have been incorrect had they been based solely on an initial examination for which scores were 1 in at least one segment. In contrast, only about 15% of intervals would have been incorrect for patients who scored 2 or 3 in all segments.
In all, 80% of patients were sufficiently prepared, having scored at least 2 in all segments on the first examination. “Determining whether a patient’s preparation quality is adequate is one of the most common and important decisions made by gastroenterologists each day,” the researchers said. Between 25% and 30% of screening and surveillance colonoscopies occur at “inappropriately shortened intervals,” often because of uncertainty about what constitutes adequate visualization, they added. Defining adequate visualization based on bowel preparation could save billions of dollars in health care costs every year, minimize complications from unnecessary procedures, and pinpoint those patients who truly need an early repeat colonoscopy to help prevent interval colorectal cancer, they emphasized.
The National Institutes of Health funded the study. The investigators had no disclosures.
A Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of 2 – indicating mild residual staining and small stool fragments – was as good as the optimal preparation score of 3 for visualizing polyps and adenomas larger than 5 mm and advanced adenomas during colonoscopy, researchers said.
A score of 2 might increase the chances of missing smaller polyps, but is adequate for detecting clinically significant masses, Dr. Brian Clark of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and his associates reported in the February issue of Gastroenterology. But a score of 1 – meaning that there is enough staining or stool to obscure the mucosa – significantly increased the chances of missing adenomas larger than 5 mm, they said. Patients should undergo early repeat colonoscopy if their BBPS score is 1 or 0 in any colon segment, they emphasized.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
Bowel preparation for colonoscopy is considered adequate if endoscopists can detect polyps larger than 5 mm, but no prior study had quantified the amount of preparation needed. This prospective observational study assessed adequate preparation in terms of the BBPS, which scores each of three colon segments on a scale of 0 (solid stool covering the mucosa) to 3 points (entire mucosa seen well, with no residual staining). Study participants included 438 men aged 50-75 years who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at a single Veterans Affairs center, followed by repeat colonoscopies within 60 days performed by different blinded endoscopists. The investigators excluded patients who scored 0 in all colon segments or had familial polyposis syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, polyps so large that they could not be completely removed, or a history of colonic or rectal resection. In all, they analyzed 1,161 colon segments (Gastroenterology. 2015 Dec 7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.09.041).
Endoscopists missed about 5% of adenomas greater than 5 mm, regardless of whether BBPS scores were 2 or 3 in a model that accounted for age, reason for colonoscopy, colon segment, number of polyps removed in the first examination, and endoscopist performing the procedure, the researchers said. But when BBPS scores were 1, endoscopists missed 16% of adenomas larger than 5 mm, a difference of about 10%. Furthermore, 43% of screening and surveillance intervals would have been incorrect had they been based solely on an initial examination for which scores were 1 in at least one segment. In contrast, only about 15% of intervals would have been incorrect for patients who scored 2 or 3 in all segments.
In all, 80% of patients were sufficiently prepared, having scored at least 2 in all segments on the first examination. “Determining whether a patient’s preparation quality is adequate is one of the most common and important decisions made by gastroenterologists each day,” the researchers said. Between 25% and 30% of screening and surveillance colonoscopies occur at “inappropriately shortened intervals,” often because of uncertainty about what constitutes adequate visualization, they added. Defining adequate visualization based on bowel preparation could save billions of dollars in health care costs every year, minimize complications from unnecessary procedures, and pinpoint those patients who truly need an early repeat colonoscopy to help prevent interval colorectal cancer, they emphasized.
The National Institutes of Health funded the study. The investigators had no disclosures.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Key clinical point: Minor residual staining that does not obscure the bowel mucosa is adequate for detection of adenomas greater than 5 mm during surveillance or screening colonoscopy.
Major finding: Endoscopists missed about 5% of clinically significant adenomas, regardless of whether the Boston Bowel Preparation Score was 2 (minor residual staining) or 3 (entire mucosa seen well).
Data source: A blinded prospective observational study of 438 men at a single Veterans Affairs center.
Disclosures: The National Institutes of Health funded the study. The investigators had no disclosures.
Drug combo held up in real-world HCV study
A 12-week, ribavirin-free regimen achieved sustained virologic response for 85% of patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, researchers reported in the February issue of Gastroenterology.
“This represents one of the first applications of a highly effective HCV regimen outside clinical trials,” said Dr. Mark S. Sulkowski of John Hopkins University in Baltimore and his associates. Adding ribavirin to the simeprevir and sofosbuvir combination regimen did not improve sustained virologic response (SVR), but patients were less likely to achieve it if they had cirrhosis, current or prior hepatic decompensation, or a history of failing other protease inhibitors, the investigators said.
Novel hepatitis C therapies have yielded “substantially lower” rates of SVR and more side effects in everyday practice than in clinical trials, the investigators noted. To better understand how some of newest HCV drugs perform in the real world, they conducted an observational cohort study of the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of simeprevir plus sofosbuvir for treating genotype 1 HCV infections in academic and nonacademic settings (HCV-TARGET) (Gastroenterology 2015 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.10.013).
A total of 836 patients received once-daily simeprevir (150 mg) and sofosbuvir (400 mg), and 169 of them also received ribavirin. Most (61%) patients had genotype 1a infection and were white (76%), male (61%), and cirrhotic (59%); 13% were black. Patients usually were treatment experienced, having failed peginterferon and ribavirin either with (12%) or without (46%) telaprevir or boceprevir, the researchers said.
In all, 675 (84%) patients achieved SVR after 12 weeks of treatment (SVR12; 95% confidence interval, 81%-87%). Adding ribavirin to the combination PI regimen did not improve SVR, regardless of cirrhosis status, genetic subtype, or treatment history. However, crude SVR12 rates were only 75% for patients with hepatic decompensation and 81% for those with cirrhosis, and these patients had significantly lower adjusted odds of achieving SVR, compared with other patients. In hindsight, decompensated and cirrhotic patients might have needed 24 weeks of treatment, as the Food and Drug Administration now recommends based on the COSMOS trial results (Lancet. 2014;384[9956]:1756-65), the investigators said.
The adjusted model did not uncover a link between genotype 1 subtype and SVR, but only about 10% of patients were tested for the Q80K polymorphism, which is more common in genotype 1a infections and is associated with treatment resistance, the investigators noted. Crude SVR12 rates were 92% for patients with genotype 1b infection and 86% for those with 1a infection, they said.
Only 3% of patients stopped treatment; 2% did so because of side effects, and ribavirin did not significantly affect rates of treatment discontinuation, said the investigators. The most common side effects were fatigue, headache, nausea, rash, and insomnia. Serious adverse events affected 5% of patients and included gastrointestinal bleeding (0.5%), hepatic failure or encephalopathy (1.2%), and infections (1.1%).
Taken together, these results show that simeprevir and sofosbuvir effectively translate from the clinical trial setting into clinical practice, said the researchers. “Additional research is needed to understand which patients may benefit from different treatment regimens or longer treatment durations,” they emphasized.
The study was supported by the University of Florida at Gainesville, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Kadmon, Merck, Vertex, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sulkowski reported grants and personal fees from Gilead, Janssen, Achillion, Abbvie, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Of 14 coinvestigators, 13 reported financial relationships with a number of pharmaceutical companies.
A 12-week, ribavirin-free regimen achieved sustained virologic response for 85% of patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, researchers reported in the February issue of Gastroenterology.
“This represents one of the first applications of a highly effective HCV regimen outside clinical trials,” said Dr. Mark S. Sulkowski of John Hopkins University in Baltimore and his associates. Adding ribavirin to the simeprevir and sofosbuvir combination regimen did not improve sustained virologic response (SVR), but patients were less likely to achieve it if they had cirrhosis, current or prior hepatic decompensation, or a history of failing other protease inhibitors, the investigators said.
Novel hepatitis C therapies have yielded “substantially lower” rates of SVR and more side effects in everyday practice than in clinical trials, the investigators noted. To better understand how some of newest HCV drugs perform in the real world, they conducted an observational cohort study of the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of simeprevir plus sofosbuvir for treating genotype 1 HCV infections in academic and nonacademic settings (HCV-TARGET) (Gastroenterology 2015 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.10.013).
A total of 836 patients received once-daily simeprevir (150 mg) and sofosbuvir (400 mg), and 169 of them also received ribavirin. Most (61%) patients had genotype 1a infection and were white (76%), male (61%), and cirrhotic (59%); 13% were black. Patients usually were treatment experienced, having failed peginterferon and ribavirin either with (12%) or without (46%) telaprevir or boceprevir, the researchers said.
In all, 675 (84%) patients achieved SVR after 12 weeks of treatment (SVR12; 95% confidence interval, 81%-87%). Adding ribavirin to the combination PI regimen did not improve SVR, regardless of cirrhosis status, genetic subtype, or treatment history. However, crude SVR12 rates were only 75% for patients with hepatic decompensation and 81% for those with cirrhosis, and these patients had significantly lower adjusted odds of achieving SVR, compared with other patients. In hindsight, decompensated and cirrhotic patients might have needed 24 weeks of treatment, as the Food and Drug Administration now recommends based on the COSMOS trial results (Lancet. 2014;384[9956]:1756-65), the investigators said.
The adjusted model did not uncover a link between genotype 1 subtype and SVR, but only about 10% of patients were tested for the Q80K polymorphism, which is more common in genotype 1a infections and is associated with treatment resistance, the investigators noted. Crude SVR12 rates were 92% for patients with genotype 1b infection and 86% for those with 1a infection, they said.
Only 3% of patients stopped treatment; 2% did so because of side effects, and ribavirin did not significantly affect rates of treatment discontinuation, said the investigators. The most common side effects were fatigue, headache, nausea, rash, and insomnia. Serious adverse events affected 5% of patients and included gastrointestinal bleeding (0.5%), hepatic failure or encephalopathy (1.2%), and infections (1.1%).
Taken together, these results show that simeprevir and sofosbuvir effectively translate from the clinical trial setting into clinical practice, said the researchers. “Additional research is needed to understand which patients may benefit from different treatment regimens or longer treatment durations,” they emphasized.
The study was supported by the University of Florida at Gainesville, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Kadmon, Merck, Vertex, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sulkowski reported grants and personal fees from Gilead, Janssen, Achillion, Abbvie, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Of 14 coinvestigators, 13 reported financial relationships with a number of pharmaceutical companies.
A 12-week, ribavirin-free regimen achieved sustained virologic response for 85% of patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, researchers reported in the February issue of Gastroenterology.
“This represents one of the first applications of a highly effective HCV regimen outside clinical trials,” said Dr. Mark S. Sulkowski of John Hopkins University in Baltimore and his associates. Adding ribavirin to the simeprevir and sofosbuvir combination regimen did not improve sustained virologic response (SVR), but patients were less likely to achieve it if they had cirrhosis, current or prior hepatic decompensation, or a history of failing other protease inhibitors, the investigators said.
Novel hepatitis C therapies have yielded “substantially lower” rates of SVR and more side effects in everyday practice than in clinical trials, the investigators noted. To better understand how some of newest HCV drugs perform in the real world, they conducted an observational cohort study of the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of simeprevir plus sofosbuvir for treating genotype 1 HCV infections in academic and nonacademic settings (HCV-TARGET) (Gastroenterology 2015 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.10.013).
A total of 836 patients received once-daily simeprevir (150 mg) and sofosbuvir (400 mg), and 169 of them also received ribavirin. Most (61%) patients had genotype 1a infection and were white (76%), male (61%), and cirrhotic (59%); 13% were black. Patients usually were treatment experienced, having failed peginterferon and ribavirin either with (12%) or without (46%) telaprevir or boceprevir, the researchers said.
In all, 675 (84%) patients achieved SVR after 12 weeks of treatment (SVR12; 95% confidence interval, 81%-87%). Adding ribavirin to the combination PI regimen did not improve SVR, regardless of cirrhosis status, genetic subtype, or treatment history. However, crude SVR12 rates were only 75% for patients with hepatic decompensation and 81% for those with cirrhosis, and these patients had significantly lower adjusted odds of achieving SVR, compared with other patients. In hindsight, decompensated and cirrhotic patients might have needed 24 weeks of treatment, as the Food and Drug Administration now recommends based on the COSMOS trial results (Lancet. 2014;384[9956]:1756-65), the investigators said.
The adjusted model did not uncover a link between genotype 1 subtype and SVR, but only about 10% of patients were tested for the Q80K polymorphism, which is more common in genotype 1a infections and is associated with treatment resistance, the investigators noted. Crude SVR12 rates were 92% for patients with genotype 1b infection and 86% for those with 1a infection, they said.
Only 3% of patients stopped treatment; 2% did so because of side effects, and ribavirin did not significantly affect rates of treatment discontinuation, said the investigators. The most common side effects were fatigue, headache, nausea, rash, and insomnia. Serious adverse events affected 5% of patients and included gastrointestinal bleeding (0.5%), hepatic failure or encephalopathy (1.2%), and infections (1.1%).
Taken together, these results show that simeprevir and sofosbuvir effectively translate from the clinical trial setting into clinical practice, said the researchers. “Additional research is needed to understand which patients may benefit from different treatment regimens or longer treatment durations,” they emphasized.
The study was supported by the University of Florida at Gainesville, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Kadmon, Merck, Vertex, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sulkowski reported grants and personal fees from Gilead, Janssen, Achillion, Abbvie, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Of 14 coinvestigators, 13 reported financial relationships with a number of pharmaceutical companies.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Key clinical point: Twelve weeks of simeprevir and sofosbuvir cured about 85% of real-world patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection.
Major finding: The unadjusted rate of SVR12 was 85% (95% CI, 82%-88%).
Data source: An analysis of an observational cohort study of protease inhibitor combination regimen with or without ribavirin for 836 patients (HCV-TARGET).
Disclosures: The study was supported by the University of Florida at Gainesville, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Kadmon, Merck, Vertex, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sulkowski reported grants and personal fees from Gilead, Janssen, Achillion, Abbvie, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Of 14 coinvestigators, 13 reported financial relationships with a number of pharmaceutical companies.
Factors within VA control could help prevent missed, canceled appointments
Opt-out scheduling protocols and long appointment lead times contributed significantly to missed and canceled colonoscopy appointments at Veterans Health Administration facilities, researchers reported in the February issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
These factors are within the control of the Veterans Affairs and could be altered to improve productivity and efficiency, said Melissa Partin, Ph.D., of the Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Minneapolis, and her associates.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
Missed and canceled medical appointments are always a concern, but particularly so for colonoscopy clinics, where they incur an average daily net loss of $725, the investigators noted. Most clinics have limited colonoscopy capacity, and even a 30-day wait for diagnostic colonoscopy has been linked to “modest but significantly elevated” chances of detecting cancer on exam, they added. To better understand these problems, they separately examined predictors of missed and canceled appointments among 27,994 patients who had positive fecal occult blood tests with diagnostic colonoscopies scheduled at 69 VA facilities between 2009 and 2011 (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Aug 21. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.07.051).
Having a life expectancy of 6 months or less and no personal history of polyps best predicted missing an appointment, with odds ratios of 2.74 for each factor, the researchers said. However, only 0.47% of patients had such a short life expectancy. Other significant predictors of missed appointments included being seen at the largest and most complex facilities (odds ratio, 2.69; P = .007), having both psychiatric and substance abuse disorders (OR, 1.82; P less than .0001), and the use of opt-out scheduling, in which patients were automatically scheduled rather than having to schedule appointments themselves (OR, 1.57; P = .02). Canceled appointments also were linked to opt-out scheduling, as well as to older age and having no history of polyps.
Most appointment lead times were 28 days, and each 12-day increase in lead time increased the odds of missing or canceling appointments by about 15% (P less than .0001). The problem could be curtailed by the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, which allows those who cannot schedule VA appointments within 30 days to receive care from eligible non–VA providers, the investigators said. “Future research should focus on assessing the effect of the Choice Act on colonoscopy appointment lead time and on developing and evaluating efficient and effective approaches to implementing the other clinic-level changes supported by our findings,” they added.
The study might have oversimplified or missed changes in protocols because it used single-item survey measures at one point in time, the investigators said. For some patients, the first appointment after the fecal occult blood test may have been for another procedure besides colonoscopy, they added. Furthermore, they did not distinguish between appointments canceled by patients versus clinics. “The VHA is a unique context, characterized by a predominantly male, low-income population with high rates of mental health and substance abuse diagnoses. Therefore, our findings may not generalize to other settings,” they added. “However, our findings do have important implications for a substantial population of health providers and consumers in this country, because the VHA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States.”
The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Clinical Science Service and Health Services Research & Development Service. The investigators had no disclosures.
Opt-out scheduling protocols and long appointment lead times contributed significantly to missed and canceled colonoscopy appointments at Veterans Health Administration facilities, researchers reported in the February issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
These factors are within the control of the Veterans Affairs and could be altered to improve productivity and efficiency, said Melissa Partin, Ph.D., of the Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Minneapolis, and her associates.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
Missed and canceled medical appointments are always a concern, but particularly so for colonoscopy clinics, where they incur an average daily net loss of $725, the investigators noted. Most clinics have limited colonoscopy capacity, and even a 30-day wait for diagnostic colonoscopy has been linked to “modest but significantly elevated” chances of detecting cancer on exam, they added. To better understand these problems, they separately examined predictors of missed and canceled appointments among 27,994 patients who had positive fecal occult blood tests with diagnostic colonoscopies scheduled at 69 VA facilities between 2009 and 2011 (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Aug 21. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.07.051).
Having a life expectancy of 6 months or less and no personal history of polyps best predicted missing an appointment, with odds ratios of 2.74 for each factor, the researchers said. However, only 0.47% of patients had such a short life expectancy. Other significant predictors of missed appointments included being seen at the largest and most complex facilities (odds ratio, 2.69; P = .007), having both psychiatric and substance abuse disorders (OR, 1.82; P less than .0001), and the use of opt-out scheduling, in which patients were automatically scheduled rather than having to schedule appointments themselves (OR, 1.57; P = .02). Canceled appointments also were linked to opt-out scheduling, as well as to older age and having no history of polyps.
Most appointment lead times were 28 days, and each 12-day increase in lead time increased the odds of missing or canceling appointments by about 15% (P less than .0001). The problem could be curtailed by the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, which allows those who cannot schedule VA appointments within 30 days to receive care from eligible non–VA providers, the investigators said. “Future research should focus on assessing the effect of the Choice Act on colonoscopy appointment lead time and on developing and evaluating efficient and effective approaches to implementing the other clinic-level changes supported by our findings,” they added.
The study might have oversimplified or missed changes in protocols because it used single-item survey measures at one point in time, the investigators said. For some patients, the first appointment after the fecal occult blood test may have been for another procedure besides colonoscopy, they added. Furthermore, they did not distinguish between appointments canceled by patients versus clinics. “The VHA is a unique context, characterized by a predominantly male, low-income population with high rates of mental health and substance abuse diagnoses. Therefore, our findings may not generalize to other settings,” they added. “However, our findings do have important implications for a substantial population of health providers and consumers in this country, because the VHA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States.”
The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Clinical Science Service and Health Services Research & Development Service. The investigators had no disclosures.
Opt-out scheduling protocols and long appointment lead times contributed significantly to missed and canceled colonoscopy appointments at Veterans Health Administration facilities, researchers reported in the February issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
These factors are within the control of the Veterans Affairs and could be altered to improve productivity and efficiency, said Melissa Partin, Ph.D., of the Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Minneapolis, and her associates.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
Missed and canceled medical appointments are always a concern, but particularly so for colonoscopy clinics, where they incur an average daily net loss of $725, the investigators noted. Most clinics have limited colonoscopy capacity, and even a 30-day wait for diagnostic colonoscopy has been linked to “modest but significantly elevated” chances of detecting cancer on exam, they added. To better understand these problems, they separately examined predictors of missed and canceled appointments among 27,994 patients who had positive fecal occult blood tests with diagnostic colonoscopies scheduled at 69 VA facilities between 2009 and 2011 (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Aug 21. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.07.051).
Having a life expectancy of 6 months or less and no personal history of polyps best predicted missing an appointment, with odds ratios of 2.74 for each factor, the researchers said. However, only 0.47% of patients had such a short life expectancy. Other significant predictors of missed appointments included being seen at the largest and most complex facilities (odds ratio, 2.69; P = .007), having both psychiatric and substance abuse disorders (OR, 1.82; P less than .0001), and the use of opt-out scheduling, in which patients were automatically scheduled rather than having to schedule appointments themselves (OR, 1.57; P = .02). Canceled appointments also were linked to opt-out scheduling, as well as to older age and having no history of polyps.
Most appointment lead times were 28 days, and each 12-day increase in lead time increased the odds of missing or canceling appointments by about 15% (P less than .0001). The problem could be curtailed by the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, which allows those who cannot schedule VA appointments within 30 days to receive care from eligible non–VA providers, the investigators said. “Future research should focus on assessing the effect of the Choice Act on colonoscopy appointment lead time and on developing and evaluating efficient and effective approaches to implementing the other clinic-level changes supported by our findings,” they added.
The study might have oversimplified or missed changes in protocols because it used single-item survey measures at one point in time, the investigators said. For some patients, the first appointment after the fecal occult blood test may have been for another procedure besides colonoscopy, they added. Furthermore, they did not distinguish between appointments canceled by patients versus clinics. “The VHA is a unique context, characterized by a predominantly male, low-income population with high rates of mental health and substance abuse diagnoses. Therefore, our findings may not generalize to other settings,” they added. “However, our findings do have important implications for a substantial population of health providers and consumers in this country, because the VHA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States.”
The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Clinical Science Service and Health Services Research & Development Service. The investigators had no disclosures.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Key clinical point: Opt-out scheduling practices and long appointment lead times predicted missed and canceled colonoscopies at the VA.
Major finding: Estimated ratios for these predictors ranged between 1.12 and 1.57, and all were statistically significant.
Data source: An analysis of data from 27,994 patients who had positive fecal occult blood tests with diagnostic colonoscopies scheduled at 69 VA facilities between 2009 and 2011.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Clinical Science Service and Health Services Research and Development Service. The investigators had no disclosures.