Archives of internal medicine最新文献

Background: Overall declines in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) mortality may mask patterns for subgroups, and prior studies of disparities in mortality have used area-level vs individual-level socioeconomic status measures. The aim of this study was to examine temporal trends in HIV mortality by sex, race/ethnicity, and individual level of education (as a proxy for socioeconomic status).

Methods: We examined HIV deaths among non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Hispanic men and women aged 25 to 64 years in 26 states (1993-2007; N=91 307) reported to the National Vital Statistics System. The main outcome measures were age-standardized HIV death rates, rate differences, and rate ratios by educational attainment and between the least- and the most-educated (≤12 vs ≥16 years) individuals.

Results: Between 1993-1995 and 2005-2007, mortality declined for most men and women by race/ethnicity and educational levels, with the greatest absolute decreases for nonwhites owing to their higher baseline rates. Among men with the most education, rates per 100 000 population decreased from 117.89 (95% CI, 101.08-134.70) to 15.35 (12.08-18.62) in blacks vs from 26.42 (24.93-27.92) to 1.79 (1.50-2.08) in whites. Rates were unchanged for the least-educated black women (26.76; 95% CI, 24.30-29.23; during 2005-2007) and remained high for similarly educated black men (52.71; 48.96-56.45). Relative declines were greater with increasing levels of education (P < .001), resulting in widening disparities. Among men, the disparity rate ratio (comparing the least and the most educated) increased from 1.04 (95% CI, 0.89-1.21) during 1993-1995 to 3.43 (2.74-4.30) during 2005-2007 for blacks and from 0.98 (0.91-1.05) to 2.82 (2.34-3.40) for whites.

Conclusion: Although absolute declines in HIV mortality were greatest for nonwhites, rates remain high among blacks, especially in the lowest educated groups, underscoring the need for additional interventions.

Background: Since January 1, 2007, Medicare has covered abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening for new male enrollees with a history of smoking under the Screening Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Very Efficiently (SAAAVE) Act. We examined the association between this program and abdominal ultrasonography for AAA screening, elective AAA repair, hospitalization for AAA rupture, and all-cause mortality.

Methods: We used a 20% sample of traditional Medicare enrollees from 2004 to 2008 to identify 65-year-old men eligible for screening and 3 control groups not eligible for screening (70-year-old men, 76-year-old men, and 65-year-old women). We used logistic regression to examine the change in outcomes at 365 days for eligible vs ineligible beneficiaries before and after SAAAVE Act implementation, adjusting for comorbidities, state-level smoking prevalence, geographic variation, and time trends.

Results: Fewer than 3% of abdominal ultrasonography claims after 2007 were for SAAAVE-specific AAA screening. There was a significantly greater increase in abdominal ultrasonography use among SAAAVE-eligible beneficiaries (2.0 percentage points among 65-year-old men, from 7.6% in 2004 to 9.6% in 2008; 0.7 points [8.9% to 9.6%] among 70-year-old men; 0.7 points [10.8% to 11.5%] among 76-year-old men; and 0.9 points [7.5% to 8.4%] among 65-year-old women) (P < .001 for all comparisons with 65-year-old men). The SAAAVE Act was associated with increased use of abdominal ultrasonography in 65-year-old men compared with 70-year-old men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.19) (P < .001), and this increased use remained even when SAAAVE-specific AAA screening was excluded (AOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16) (P < .001). Implementation of the SAAAVE Act was not associated with changes in rates of AAA repair, AAA rupture, or all-cause mortality.

Conclusions: The impact of the SAAAVE Act on AAA screening was modest and was based on abdominal ultrasonography use that it did not directly reimburse. The SAAAVE Act had no discernable effect on AAA rupture or all-cause morality.

Background: Although acupuncture is widely used for chronic pain, there remains considerable controversy as to its value. We aimed to determine the effect size of acupuncture for 4 chronic pain conditions: back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, chronic headache, and shoulder pain.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for chronic pain in which allocation concealment was determined unambiguously to be adequate. Individual patient data meta-analyses were conducted using data from 29 of 31 eligible RCTs, with a total of 17 922 patients analyzed.

Results: In the primary analysis, including all eligible RCTs, acupuncture was superior to both sham and no-acupuncture control for each pain condition (P < .001 for all comparisons). After exclusion of an outlying set of RCTs that strongly favored acupuncture, the effect sizes were similar across pain conditions. Patients receiving acupuncture had less pain, with scores that were 0.23 (95% CI, 0.13-0.33), 0.16 (95% CI, 0.07-0.25), and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.07-0.24) SDs lower than sham controls for back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, and chronic headache, respectively; the effect sizes in comparison to no-acupuncture controls were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51-0.58), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.64), and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.37-0.46) SDs. These results were robust to a variety of sensitivity analyses, including those related to publication bias.

Conclusions: Acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain and is therefore a reasonable referral option. Significant differences between true and sham acupuncture indicate that acupuncture is more than a placebo. However, these differences are relatively modest, suggesting that factors in addition to the specific effects of needling are important contributors to the therapeutic effects of acupuncture.