Pilot Study of an Encounter Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has mandated in-person shared decision-making (SDM) counseling with the use of one or more decision aids (DAs) prior to lung cancer screening. We developed a single-page, paper-based, encounter DA (EDA) to be used within a clinician-patient encounter for lung cancer screening and conducted a pre-post pilot intervention study to evaluate its feasibility and effects on patient decisional conflict. Patients referred to a pulmonary practice-based lung cancer screening program were surveyed before and after an SDM visit with a pulmonologist, who used the EDA to counsel the patient. Patient knowledge of the mortality benefit from screening and the frequency of abnormal screening test results was evaluated after the visit, while decisional conflict was measured before and after the visit using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Twenty-three patients participated (mean age = 65.8 years; 43% female; mean smoking history = 57.8 pack-years; 48% currently smoking). Following the visit, 28% of participants correctly understood the mortality benefit of lung cancer screening, while 82% understood the frequency of abnormal screening tests. The mean total DCS score decreased from 35.0 to 0.2 after the visit (p < 0.001). These data suggest that a single-page, paper-based EDA is feasible and potentially effective in reducing decision conflict when used within a SDM visit, although more research is needed to establish the independent effects of the EDA, and future efforts to promote SDM may need to devote greater attention to improving patient understanding of the mortality benefit of screening.

Effects of Personalized Risk Information on Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT.

Background. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is a preference-sensitive intervention that should ideally be individualized according to patients' likelihood of benefit and personal values. Personalized cancer risk information (PCRI) may facilitate this goal, but its effects are unknown. Objective. To evaluate the effects of providing PCRI to patients referred for LDCT screening. Design. Mixed-methods, pre-post study using surveys administered to patients before and after provision of PCRI-calculated by the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model-in shared decision-making consultations, and postvisit qualitative interviews. Setting. Centralized specialty-based LDCT screening program at a tertiary care hospital. Participants. Convenience sample of eligible patients referred for LDCT screening. Measurements. Pre- and postvisit surveys assessed patients' 1) perceived lung cancer risk, 2) uncertainty about their risk, 3) minimum risk threshold for wanting screening, 4) interest in LDCT screening, and 5) interest in smoking cessation. Qualitative interviews explored patients' perceptions of the value of PCRI. Screening uptake was assessed by chart review. Results. Sixty of 70 (86%) patients received PCRI and completed pre-post surveys, and 17 patients (28%) completed qualitative interviews. Perceived lung cancer risk decreased from 52% previsit to 31% postvisit (P < 0.0001). However, patients' minimum risk thresholds for screening decreased, their screening interest increased, and all patients completed screening. Qualitative interviews corroborated these effects, suggesting that patients discount and interpret PCRI according to preexisting beliefs and attitudes. Limitations. The study population was a relatively small, single-institution sample of patients referred for screening. Conclusions. Personalized cancer risk information decreases cancer risk perceptions of patients referred for LDCT screening, but has complex effects on screening-related judgments and decisions. The value of PCRI for patients considering LDCT screening requires further investigation.

Determination of a lorazepam dose threshold for using the osmol gap to monitor for propylene glycol toxicity.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine a threshold dose for parenteral lorazepam when screening for propylene glycol toxicity with the osmol gap, and to characterize which osmol gap values are more predictive of toxic propylene glycol concentrations and resultant clinical toxicity. DESIGN: Prospective, two-phase observational study. SETTING: Thirty-two bed, multidisciplinary intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Thirty-five adult patients receiving any dose of parenteral lorazepam (phase 1), and 14 patients receiving lorazepam in doses of 1 mg/kg/day or higher (phase 2). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Serum osmolality was measured every other day during lorazepam therapy, and the osmol gap (measured osmolality minus calculated osmolarity) was determined. A serum propylene glycol concentration was obtained when the osmol gap first exceeded 10. In phase 1, 35 patients were monitored for 186 patient-days. Ten patients (29%) developed an osmol gap greater than 10; only one (10%) of these patients had propylene glycol concentrations greater than 18 mg/dl. In phase 2, 14 patients received lorazepam at a median dose of 631 mg (interquartile range [IQR] 437-972 mg) over a median of 5.5 days (IQR 4-8.75 days). Nine patients (64%) had propylene glycol concentrations greater than 18 mg/dl; six (67%) of these nine developed transient acute kidney injury, metabolic acidosis, or both. The correlation between osmol gap and propylene glycol concentration was 0.44 (p=0.006). An osmol gap of 10 or greater had a likelihood ratio of 4.4 to predict a propylene glycol concentration greater than 18 mg/dl. An osmol gap of 12 or greater had a likelihood ratio of 2.7 to predict the development of possible propylene glycol clinical toxicity. CONCLUSION: Screening for propylene glycol toxicity with the osmol gap may be helpful for patients receiving intravenous lorazepam in doses of 1 mg/kg/day or higher. An osmol gap of 10 or greater was predictive of elevated propylene glycol concentrations, and values of 12 or greater were predictive of clinical changes suggestive of propylene glycol toxicity.