Body-Mass Index and All-Cause Mortality in US Adults With and Without Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Previous studies found normal weight compared to overweight/obese adults with type 2 diabetes had a higher mortality risk, and body-mass index (BMI)–mortality studies do not typically account for baseline diabetes status.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if diabetes influences the BMI–mortality relationship.

DESIGN

Using a prospective study design, we analyzed data from a nationally representative sample of US adults participating in the National Health Interview Survey from 1997 to 2002, and followed for mortality through 2006.

PARTICIPANTS

Excluding those with heart disease or cancer, our final analytic sample included 74,710 (34,805 never smoker) adults.

MAIN MEASURES

BMI was calculated from self-reported height and weight. Diabetes status was based on self-reported diagnosis from a health professional. We used direct age standardization to calculate all-cause mortality rates and adjusted Cox models for all-cause mortality hazard ratios by BMI quintile; this was done separately for adults with diabetes and without diabetes.

KEY RESULTS

Among never smokers, mean age was 50.1 years and 43 % were men. Mean BMI was 27.4 kg/m², 26 % were obese, and 2,035 (5 %) reported diagnosed diabetes. After 9 years, there were 4,355 deaths (754 of 4,740 with diabetes; 3,601 of 69,970 without) among 74,710 participants, and 1,238 (247 of 2,035 with diabetes; 991 of 32,770 without) among 34,805 never smokers. We observed a qualitative interaction with diabetes on the BMI–mortality relationship (p?=?0.002). Death rates were substantially higher among participants with diabetes compared to those without diabetes across all BMI quintiles. However, death rates in participants with diabetes fell with increasing BMI quintile, while rates followed a J-shaped curve among those without diabetes. In adjusted Cox models, BMI was positively associated with mortality in adults without diabetes, but inversely associated with mortality among participants with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality increased with increasing BMI in adults without diabetes, but decreased with increasing BMI among their counterparts with diabetes. Future studies need to be better designed to answer the question of whether normal weight adults with diabetes have a higher risk of mortality, by minimizing the possibility of reverse causation. Future studies should also account for prevalent diabetes in all investigations of the BMI–mortality relationship.     

Get Screened: A Randomized Trial of the Incremental Benefits of Reminders, Recall, and Outreach on Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Rates of breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are particularly low among poor and minority patients. Multifaceted interventions have been shown to improve cancer-screening rates, yet the relative impact of the specific components of these interventions has not been assessed. Identifying the specific components necessary to improve cancer-screening rates is critical to tailor interventions in resource limited environments.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative impact of various components of the reminder, recall, and outreach (RRO) model on BC and CRC screening rates within a safety net practice.

DESIGN

Pragmatic randomized trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Men and women aged 50–74 years past due for CRC screen and women aged 40–74 years past due for BC screening.

INTERVENTIONS

We randomized 1,008 patients to one of four groups: (1) reminder letter; (2) letter and automated telephone message (Letter + Autodial); (3) letter, automated telephone message, and point of service prompt (Letter + Autodial + Prompt); or (4) letter and personal telephone call (Letter + Personal Call).

MAIN MEASURES

Documentation of mammography or colorectal cancer screening at 52 weeks following randomization.

KEY RESULTS

Compared to a reminder letter alone, Letter + Personal Call was more effective at improving screening rates for BC (17.8 % vs. 27.5 %; AOR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.2–4.0) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 21.5 %; AOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.1–3.9). Compared to letter alone, a Letter + Autodial + Prompt was also more effective at improving rates of BC screening (17.8 % vs. 28.2 %; AOR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.1–3.7) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 19.6 %; AOR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.0–3.7). Letter + Autodial was not more effective than a letter alone at improving screening rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of a personal telephone call or a patient-specific provider prompt were both more effective at improving mammogram and CRC screening rates compared to a reminder letter alone. The use of automated telephone calls, however, did not provide any incremental benefit to a reminder letter alone.     

National Patterns of Risk-Standardized Mortality and Readmission After Hospitalization for Acute Myocardial Infarction,Heart Failure,and Pneumonia: Update on Publicly Reported Outcomes Measures Based on the 2013 Release

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publicly reports risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) within 30-days of admission and, in 2013, risk-standardized unplanned readmission rates (RSRRs) within 30-days of discharge for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia. Current publicly reported data do not focus on variation in national results or annual changes.

OBJECTIVE

Describe U.S. hospital performance on AMI, HF, and pneumonia mortality and updated readmission measures to provide perspective on national performance variation.

DESIGN

To identify recent changes and variation in national hospital-level mortality and readmission for AMI, HF, and pneumonia, we performed cross-sectional panel analyses of national hospital performance on publicly reported measures.

PARTICIPANTS

Fee-for-service Medicare and Veterans Health Administration beneficiaries, 65 years or older, hospitalized with principal discharge diagnoses of AMI, HF, or pneumonia between July 2009 and June 2012. RSMRs/RSRRs were calculated using hierarchical logistic models risk-adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, and patients’ clustering among hospitals.

Results

Median (range) RSMRs for AMI, HF, and pneumonia were 15.1% (9.4–21.0%), 11.3% (6.4–17.9%), and 11.4% (6.5–24.5%), respectively. Median (range) RSRRs for AMI, HF, and pneumonia were 18.2% (14.4–24.3%), 22.9% (17.1–30.7%), and 17.5% (13.6–24.0%), respectively. Median RSMRs declined for AMI (15.5% in 2009–2010, 15.4% in 2010–2011, 14.7% in 2011–2012) and remained similar for HF (11.5% in 2009–2010, 11.9% in 2010–2011, 11.7% in 2011–2012) and pneumonia (11.8% in 2009–2010, 11.9% in 2010–2011, 11.6% in 2011–2012). Median hospital-level RSRRs declined: AMI (18.5% in 2009–2010, 18.5% in 2010–2011, 17.7% in 2011–2012), HF (23.3% in 2009–2010, 23.1% in 2010–2011, 22.5% in 2011–2012), and pneumonia (17.7% in 2009–2010, 17.6% in 2010–2011, 17.3% in 2011–2012).

Conclusions

We report the first national unplanned readmission results demonstrating declining rates for all three conditions between 2009–2012. Simultaneously, AMI mortality continued to decline, pneumonia mortality was stable, and HF mortality experienced a small increase.     

Hypertension Awareness and Control Among Young Adults in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health

BACKGROUND

Young adults are less likely than older adults to be aware they have hypertension or to be treated for hypertension.

OBJECTIVE

To describe rates of hypertension awareness and control in a cohort of young adults and understand the impact of health insurance, utilization of preventive care, and self-perception of health on rates of hypertension awareness and control in this age group.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional study of 13,512 young adults participating in Wave IV of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in 2007–2008.

MAIN MEASURES

We defined hypertension as an average of two measured systolic blood pressures (SBP) ≥ 140 mmHg, diastolic blood pressures (DBP) ≥ 90 mmHg, or self-report of hypertension. We defined hypertension awareness as reporting having been told by a health care provider that one had high blood pressure, and assessed awareness among those with uncontrolled hypertension. We considered those aware of having hypertension controlled if their average measured SBP was < 140 mmHg and DBP was < 90 mmHg.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 3,303 young adults with hypertension, 2,531 (76 %) were uncontrolled, and 1,893 (75 %) of those with uncontrolled hypertension were unaware they had hypertension. After adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity, weight status, income, education, alcohol and tobacco use, young adults with uncontrolled hypertension who had (vs. didn’t have) routine preventive care in the past 2 years were 2.4 times more likely (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.68–3.55) to be aware, but young adults who believed they were in excellent (vs. less than excellent) health were 64 % less likely to be aware they had hypertension (OR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.23–0.57). Neither preventive care utilization nor self-rated health was associated with blood pressure control.

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationally representative group of young adults, rates of hypertension awareness and control were low. Efforts to increase detection of hypertension must address young adults’ access to preventive care and perception of their need for care.     

Multimorbidity and Evidence Generation

Most people with a chronic disease actually have more than one, a condition known as multimorbidity. Despite this, the evidence base to prevent adverse disease outcomes has taken a disease-specific approach. Drawing on a conference, Improving Guidelines for Multimorbid Patients, the goal of this paper is to identify challenges to the generation of evidence to support the care of people with multimorbidity and to make recommendations for improvement. We identified three broad categories of challenges: 1) challenges to defining and measuring multimorbidity; 2) challenges related to the effects of multimorbidity on study design, implementation and analysis; and 3) challenges inherent in studying heterogeneity of treatment effects in patients with differing comorbid conditions. We propose a set of recommendations for consideration by investigators and others (reviewers, editors, funding agencies, policymaking organizations) involved in the creation of evidence for this common type of person that address each of these challenges. The recommendations reflect a general approach that emphasizes broader inclusion (recruitment and retention) of patients with multimorbidity, coupled with more rigorous efforts to measure comorbidity and comorbidity burden and the influence of multimorbidity on outcomes and the effects of therapy. More rigorous examination of heterogeneity of treatment effects requires careful attention to prioritizing the most important comorbid-related questions, and also requires studies that provide greater statistical power than conventional trials have provided. Relatively modest changes in the orientation of current research along these lines can be helpful in pointing to and partially addressing selected knowledge gaps. However, producing a robust evidence base to support patient-centered decision making in complex individuals with multimorbidity, exposed to many different combinations of potentially interacting factors that can modify the risks and benefits of therapies, is likely to require a clinical research enterprise fundamentally restructured to be more fully integrated with routine clinical practice.