Appropriate surveillance and treatment of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is vital to prevent disease progression and decrease esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC)-related mortality. We sought to determine the variation in BE care and identify improvement opportunities. 275 physicians (113 general gastroenterologists, 128 interventional gastroenterologists, 34 gastrointestinal surgeons) cared for 3 simulated patients, one each from 3 BE clinical scenarios: non-dysplastic BE (NDBE), BE indefinite for dysplasia (IND), and BE with low grade dysplasia (LGD), and care scores were measured against societal guidelines. Overall quality-of-care scores ranged from 17% to 85% with mean of 47.9% ± 11.8% for NDBE, 50.8% ± 11.7% for IND, and 52.7% ± 12.2% for LGD. Participants appropriately determined risk of progression 20.3% of the time: 14.4% for NDBE cases, 19.9% for LGD cases, and 26.8% for IND cases ( P = .001). Treatment and follow-up care scores averaged 12.9% ± 17.5% overall. For the LGD cases, guideline-recommended twice-daily PPI treatment was ordered only 24.7% of the time. Guideline-based follow-up endoscopic surveillance was done in only 27.7% of NDBE cases and 32.7% of IND cases. For the LGD cases, 45.4% ordered endoscopic eradication therapy while 25.1% chose annual endoscopic surveillance. Finally, participants provided counseling on lifestyle modifications in just 20% of cases. Overall care of patients diagnosed with BE varied widely and showed room for improvement. Specific opportunities for improvement were adherence to guideline recommended surveillance intervals, patient counseling, and treatment selection for LGD. Physicians would potentially benefit from additional BE education, endoscopic advances, and better methods for risk stratification.

Background. Medication nonadherence in patients with chronic diseases is common, costly, and often underdiagnosed. In the United States, approximately 40–50% of patients with cardiometabolic conditions are not adherent to long-term medications. Drug–drug interactions (DDI) are also underrecognized and may lead to medication nonadherence in this patient population. Treatment complexity associated with cardiometabolic conditions contributes to increased risk for adverse drug events and DDIs. Methods. We recruited a nationally representative sample of 246 board-certified family and internal medicine physicians to evaluate how they assessed, identified, and treated medication nonadherence, DDIs, and worsening disease. Participating physicians were asked to care for three online simulated patients, each with at least one chronic cardiometabolic disease, including atrial fibrillation, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, or hypertension, and who were taking prescription medications for their disease. Physicians’ scores were based on evidence-based care recommendation criteria, including overall care quality and treatment for medication nonadherence and DDIs. Results. Overall, quality-of-care scores across all cases ranged from 13% to 87% with an average of 50.8% ± 12.1%. The average overall diagnostic plus treatment score was 21.9% ± 13.6%. Participants identified nonadherence in just 3.6% of cases, DDIs in 8.9% of cases, and disease progression in 30.3% of cases. Conclusions. Based on these study results, primary care physicians were unable to adequately diagnose and treat patients with chronic cardiometabolic diseases who either suffered from medication nonadherence, DDIs, or progression of the disease. Improved standardization and technique in identifying these diagnoses is needed in primary care. Trial Registration. This trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05192590.

Background Disentangling nonadherence (NA), drug-drug interactions (DDIs), and disease progression from each other is an important clinical challenge for providers caring for patients with cardiometabolic diseases. NAs and DDIs are both ubiquitous and often overlooked. We studied a novel chronic disease management (CDM) test to detect medication adherence and the presence and severity of DDIs. Materials and methods We conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial of 236 primary care physicians using computer-based, simulated patients, measuring clinical care with and without access to the CDM test. The primary outcomes were whether use of the CDM test increased the accuracy of diagnoses and ordering better treatments and how effective the intervention materials were in getting participants to order the CDM test. Results Physicians given the CDM test results showed a + 13.2% improvement in their diagnosis and treatment quality-of-care scores (p < 0.001) in the NA patient cases and a + 13.6% improvement in the DDI cases (p < 0.001). The difference-in-difference calculations between the intervention and control groups were + 10.4% for NA and + 10.8% for DDI (p < 0.01 for both). After controlling for physician and practice co-factors, intervention, compared to control, was 50.4x more likely to recognize medication NA and 3.3x more likely to correctly treat it. Intervention was 26.9x more likely to identify the DDI and 15.7x more likely to stop/switch the interacting medication compared to control. We found no significant improvements for the disease progression patient cases. Conclusion Distinguishing between nonadherence, drug-drug interactions, and disease progression is greatly improved using a reliable test, like the CDM test; improved diagnostic accuracy and treatment has the potential to improve patient quality of life, medication safety, clinical outcomes, and efficiency of health delivery. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05192590).

Background Cardiovascular disease risk stratification is necessary and critically important in patients with type 2 diabetes. Despite its known benefits to guide treatment and prevention, we hypothesized that providers do not routinely incorporate this into their diagnostic and treatment decisions. Methods and Results The QuiCER DM (QURE CVD Evaluation of Risk in Diabetes Mellitus) study enrolled 161 primary care physicians and 80 cardiologists. Between March 2022 and June 2022, we measured the care variation in risk determination among these providers caring for simulated patients with type 2 diabetes. We found a wide variation in the overall assessment of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. Participants performed half of the necessary care items with quality‐of‐care scores, ranging between 13% and 84%, averaging 49.4±12.6%. Participants did not assess cardiovascular risk in 18.3% of cases and incorrectly stratified risk in 42.8% of cases. Only 38.9% of participants arrived at the correct cardiovascular risk stratification. Those who correctly identified a cardiovascular risk score were significantly more likely to order nonpharmacologic treatments, advising on their patients' nutrition (38.8% versus 29.9%, P =0.013) and the correct glycated hemoglobin target (37.7% versus 15.6%, P <0.001). Pharmacologic treatments, however, did not vary between those who correctly specified risk and those who did not. Conclusions Physician participants struggled to determine the correct cardiovascular disease risk and specify the appropriate pharmacologic interventions in simulated patients with type 2 diabetes. Additionally, there was a wide variation in the quality of care regardless of risk level, indicating opportunities to improve risk stratification.