Comparative effectiveness studies to improve clinical outcomes in end stage renal disease: the DEcIDE patient outcomes in end stage renal disease study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is lacking to inform providers' and patients' decisions about many common treatment strategies for patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). METHODS/DESIGN: The DEcIDE Patient Outcomes in ESRD Study is funded by the United States (US) Agency for Health Care Research and Quality to study the comparative effectiveness of: 1) antihypertensive therapies, 2) early versus later initiation of dialysis, and 3) intravenous iron therapies on clinical outcomes in patients with ESRD. Ongoing studies utilize four existing, nationally representative cohorts of patients with ESRD, including (1) the Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for ESRD study (1041 incident dialysis patients recruited from October 1995 to June 1999 with complete outcome ascertainment through 2009), (2) the Dialysis Clinic Inc (45,124 incident dialysis patients initiating and receiving their care from 2003-2010 with complete outcome ascertainment through 2010), (3) the United States Renal Data System (333,308 incident dialysis patients from 2006-2009 with complete outcome ascertainment through 2010), and (4) the Cleveland Clinic Foundation Chronic Kidney Disease Registry (53,399 patients with chronic kidney disease with outcome ascertainment from 2005 through 2009). We ascertain patient reported outcomes (i.e., health-related quality of life), morbidity, and mortality using clinical and administrative data, and data obtained from national death indices. We use advanced statistical methods (e.g., propensity scoring and marginal structural modeling) to account for potential biases of our study designs. All data are de-identified for analyses. The conduct of studies and dissemination of findings are guided by input from Stakeholders in the ESRD community. DISCUSSION: The DEcIDE Patient Outcomes in ESRD Study will provide needed evidence regarding the effectiveness of common treatments employed for dialysis patients. Carefully planned dissemination strategies to the ESRD community will enhance studies' impact on clinical care and patients' outcomes.

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.

BACKGROUND: When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.

Validation of ICDPIC software injury severity scores using a large regional trauma registry.

BACKGROUND: Administrative or quality improvement registries may or may not contain the elements needed for investigations by trauma researchers. International Classification of Diseases Program for Injury Categorisation (ICDPIC), a statistical program available through Stata, is a powerful tool that can extract injury severity scores from ICD-9-CM codes. We conducted a validation study for use of the ICDPIC in trauma research. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort validation study of 40,418 patients with injury using a large regional trauma registry. ICDPIC-generated AIS scores for each body region were compared with trauma registry AIS scores (gold standard) in adult and paediatric populations. A separate analysis was conducted among patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) comparing the ICDPIC tool with ICD-9-CM embedded severity codes. Performance in characterising overall injury severity, by the ISS, was also assessed. RESULTS: The ICDPIC tool generated substantial correlations in thoracic and abdominal trauma (weighted κ 0.87-0.92), and in head and neck trauma (weighted κ 0.76-0.83). The ICDPIC tool captured TBI severity better than ICD-9-CM code embedded severity and offered the advantage of generating a severity value for every patient (rather than having missing data). Its ability to produce an accurate severity score was consistent within each body region as well as overall. CONCLUSIONS: The ICDPIC tool performs well in classifying injury severity and is superior to ICD-9-CM embedded severity for TBI. Use of ICDPIC demonstrates substantial efficiency and may be a preferred tool in determining injury severity for large trauma datasets, provided researchers understand its limitations and take caution when examining smaller trauma datasets.

Early clopidogrel versus prasugrel use among contemporary STEMI and NSTEMI patients in the US: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

BACKGROUND: P2Y12 antagonist therapy improves outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients. Novel agents in this class are now available in the US. We studied the introduction of prasugrel into contemporary MI practice to understand the appropriateness of its use and assess for changes in antiplatelet management practices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using ACTION Registry-GWTG (Get-with-the-Guidelines), we evaluated patterns of P2Y12 antagonist use within 24 hours of admission in 100 228 ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 158 492 Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients at 548 hospitals between October 2009 and September 2012. Rates of early P2Y12 antagonist use were approximately 90% among STEMI and 57% among NSTEMI patients. From 2009 to 2012, prasugrel use increased significantly from 3% to 18% (5% to 30% in STEMI; 2% to 10% in NSTEMI; P for trend <0.001 for all). During the same period, we observed a decrease in use of early but not discharge P2Y12 antagonist among NSTEMI patients. Although contraindicated, 3.0% of patients with prior stroke received prasugrel. Prasugrel was used in 1.9% of patients ≥75 years and 4.5% of patients with weight <60 kg. In both STEMI and NSTEMI, prasugrel was most frequently used in patients at the lowest predicted risk for bleeding and mortality. Despite lack of supporting evidence, prasugrel was initiated before cardiac catheterization in 18% of NSTEMI patients. CONCLUSIONS: With prasugrel as an antiplatelet treatment option, contemporary practice shows low uptake of prasugrel and delays in P2Y12 antagonist initiation among NSTEMI patients. We also note concerning evidence of inappropriate use of prasugrel, and inadequate targeting of this more potent therapy to maximize the benefit/risk ratio.

The Impact of Worsening Heart Failure in the United States.

In-hospital worsening heart failure represents a clinical scenario wherein a patient hospitalized for acute heart failure experiences a worsening of their condition, requiring escalation of therapy. Worsening heart failure is associated with worse in-hospital and postdischarge outcomes. Worsening heart failure is increasingly being used as an endpoint or combined endpoint in clinical trials, as it is unique to episodes of acute heart failure and captures an important event during the inpatient course. While prediction models have been developed to identify worsening heart failure, there are no known FDA-approved medications associated with decreased worsening heart failure. Continued study is warranted.