Publications

OBJECTIVE

Osteoporosis and fragility fractures are associated with significant morbidity for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). New quality indicators (QIs) for SLE advise bone mineral density testing, calcium and vitamin D use, and antiresorptive or anabolic treatment for specific subgroups of patients receiving high-dose steroids.

METHODS

Subjects were participants in the University of California, San Francisco Lupus Outcomes Study, an ongoing longitudinal study of patients with physician-confirmed SLE, in 2007-2008. Patients responded to an annual telephone survey and were queried regarding demographic, clinical, and other health care-related variables. Multiple logistic regression was used to predict receipt of care per the QIs described above.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-seven patients met the criteria for the formal definitions of the denominators for QI I (screening) and QI II (calcium and vitamin D); 91 met the formal criteria for QI III (treatment). The proportions of patients receiving care consistent with the QIs were 74%, 58%, and 56% for QIs I, II, and III, respectively. In a sensitivity analysis of all steroid users (n = 427 for QI I and II and n = 224 for QI III), rates were slightly lower. Predictors of receiving care varied by QI and by denominator; however, female sex, older age, white race, and longer disease duration were associated with higher-quality care.

CONCLUSION

Bone health-related care in this community-based cohort of SLE patients is suboptimal. Quality improvement efforts should address osteoporosis prevention and care among all SLE patients, especially those receiving high-dose, prolonged steroids.

This article focuses on the overarching question: how can we use existing data to develop the capacity to improve the evidence base on personalized medicine technologies and particularly regarding their utilization and clinical utility? We focus on data from health payers who are key stakeholders in capacity building, as they need data to guide decisions and they develop data as part of operations. Broadly defined, health payers include insurance carriers, third party payers, health-plan sponsors and organized delivery systems. Data from health payers have not yet been widely used to assess personalized medicine. Now, with an increasing number of personalized technologies covered and reimbursed by health payers, and an increasing number of emerging technologies that will require policy decisions, there is a great opportunity to develop the evidence base using payer data and by engaging with these stakeholders. Here, we describe data that are available from, and are being developed by, health payers and assess how these data can be further developed to increase the capacity for future research, using three examples. The examples suggest that payer data can be used to examine clinical utility and approaches can be developed that simultaneously address the characteristics of personalized medicine, real world data and organizations. These examples can now help us to elucidate how to best examine clinical utility in actual practice and build evaluation approaches that can be applied to future technologies.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Water immersion is an alternative colonoscopy technique that may reduce discomfort and facilitate insertion of the instrument. This was a prospective study to compare the success of colonoscopy with minimal sedation using water immersion and conventional air insufflation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 229 patients were randomized to either water immersion or the standard air insertion technique. The primary outcome was success of minimal sedation colonoscopy, which was defined as reaching the cecum without additional sedation, exchange of the adult colonoscope or hands-on assistance for trainees. Patient comfort and satisfaction were also assessed.

RESULTS

Successful minimal-sedation colonoscopy was achieved in 51 % of the water immersion group compared with 28 % in the standard air group (OR, 2.66; 95 % CI 1.48 - 4.79; P = 0.0004). Attending physicians had 79 % success with water immersion compared with 47 % with air insufflation (OR, 4.19; 95 % CI 1.5 - 12.17; P = 0.002), whereas trainees had 34 % success with water compared with 16 % using air (OR, 2.75; 95 % CI 1.15 - 6.86; P = 0.01). Using the water method, endoscopists intubated the cecum faster and this was particularly notable for trainees (13.0 +/- 7.5 minutes with water vs. 20.5 +/- 13.9 minutes with air; P = 0.0001). Total procedure time was significantly shorter with water for both experienced and trainee endoscopists ( P < 0.05). Patients reported less intraprocedural pain with water compared with air (4.1 +/- 2.7 vs. 5.3 +/- 2.7; P = 0.001), with a similar level of satisfaction. There was no difference in the neoplasm detection rates between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy insertion using water immersion increases the success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy. Use of the technique leads to a decrease in discomfort, time to reach the cecum, and the amount of sedative and analgesic used, without compromising patient satisfaction.