Association of Nonobstructive Chronic Bronchitis With All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of nonobstructive chronic bronchitis (CB) on mortality is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is nonobstructive CB associated with increased all-cause mortality? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to assess the association of nonobstructive CB and all-cause mortality. We searched for articles that included both CB and mortality in the title, abstract, or both in PubMed and EMBASE. We excluded studies in which participants demonstrated obstructive spirometry findings and studies in which CB and mortality were not defined. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale to assess study quality. We pooled adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) using the random effects model and inverse variance weighting. We conducted stratified analysis by the definition of CB and smoking status. We used Cochran's Q and I2 to assess for heterogeneity. We assessed publication bias by visual inspection of a funnel plot. RESULTS: Of 5,014 titles identified, eight fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Overall nonobstructive CB was associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.26-1.50) with no statistically significant heterogeneity (P = .14; I2 = 29%). Nonobstructive CB was associated with increased mortality in studies that defined CB as any respiratory symptoms (broad definition; HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48; I2 = 0%) as well as in the rest of the studies (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.26-1.56; I2 = 37%). Nonobstructive CB was associated with increased mortality in ever smokers (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.35-1.64; I2 = 0%), but was not associated with increased mortality in never smokers (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.90-1.66), and moderate heterogeneity was found (P = .10; I2 = 49%). The funnel plot did not indicate evidence of a publication bias because it showed symmetrical distribution of studies. INTERPRETATION: Nonobstructive CB is associated with increased all-cause mortality, and this association seems to be present only in current and former smokers. Further research should investigate whether this high-risk population may benefit from early therapeutic intervention. TRIAL REGISTRY: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42021253596; URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero.

Practical challenges in the conduct of pragmatic trials embedded in health plans: Lessons of IMPACT-AFib, an FDA-Catalyst trial.

IMPACT-AFib was an 80,000-patient randomized clinical trial implemented by five US insurance companies (health plans) aimed at increasing the use of oral anticoagulants by individuals with atrial fibrillation who were at high risk of stroke and not on treatment. The underlying thesis was that patients could be change agents to initiate prescribing discussions with their providers. We tested the effect of mailing information to both patients and their providers. We used administrative medical claims and pharmacy dispensing data to identify eligible patients, to randomize them to an early or delayed intervention, and to assess clinical outcomes. The core data were analysis-ready datasets each site had created and curated for the FDA's Sentinel System, supplemented by updated "fresh" pharmacy and enrollment data to ensure eligibility at the time of intervention. Following mutually agreed upon procedures, sites linked to additional internal source data to implement the intervention-educational information mailed to patients and their providers in the early intervention arm, and to providers of patients in the delayed intervention arm approximately 12 months later. The primary analysis compares the early intervention arm to the delayed intervention arm, prior to the delayed intervention being conducted (i.e. compares intervention to non-intervention). The endpoints of interest were evidence of initiation of anticoagulation (primary) as well as clinical endpoints, including stroke and hospitalization for bleeding. Major challenges, some unanticipated, identified during the planning phase include convening multi-stakeholder investigator teams and advisors, addressing ethical concerns about not intervening in a usual care comparison group, and identifying and avoiding interference with sites' routine programs that were similar to the intervention. Needs and challenges during the implementation phase included the fact that even limited site-specific programming greatly increased time and effort, the need to refresh research data extracts immediately before outreach to patients and providers, potential difficulty identifying low-cost medications such as warfarin that may not be reimbursed by health plans and so not discoverable in dispensing data, the need to develop workarounds when "providers" in claims data were facilities, difficulty addressing clustering of patients by provider because providers can have multiple identifiers within and between health plans, and the need to anticipate loss to follow up because of health plan disenrollment or change in benefits. As pragmatic trials begin to shape evidence generation within clinical practice, investigators should anticipate issues inherent to claims data and working with multiple large sites. In IMPACT-AFib, we found that investing in collaboration and communication among all parties throughout all phases of the study helped ensure common understanding, early identification of challenges, and streamlined actual implementation.

Bystander Ethics and Good Samaritanism: A Paradox for Learning Health Organizations.

In 2012, a U.S. Institute of Medicine report called for a different approach to health care: "Left unchanged, health care will continue to underperform; cause unnecessary harm; and strain national, state, and family budgets." The answer, they suggested, would be a "continuously learning" health system. Ethicists and researchers urged the creation of "learning health organizations" that would integrate knowledge from patient-care data to continuously improve the quality of care. Our experience with an ongoing research study on atrial fibrillation-a trial known as IMPACT-AFib-gave us some insight into one of the challenges that will have to be dealt with in creating these organizations. Although the proposed educational intervention study placed no restrictions on what providers and health plans could do, the oversight team argued that the ethical principle of beneficence did not allow the researchers to be "bystanders" in relation to a control group receiving suboptimal care. In response, the researchers designed a "workaround" that allowed the project to go forward. We believe the experience suggests that what we call "bystander ethics" will create challenges for the kinds of quality improvement research that LHOs are designed to do.