No abstract

BackgroundThe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is an effective lifestyle intervention to reduce incidence of type 2 diabetes. However, there are gaps in knowledge about how to implement DPP. The aim of this study was to evaluate implementation of DPP via assessment of a clinical demonstration in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).MethodsA 12-month pragmatic clinical trial compared weight outcomes between the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Prevention Program (VA-DPP) and the usual care MOVE!® weight management program (MOVE!). Eligible participants had a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 (or BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 with one obesity-related condition), prediabetes (glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 5.7–6.5% or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 100–125 mg/dL), lived within 60 min of their VA site, and had not participated in a weight management program within the last year. Established evaluation and implementation frameworks were used to guide the implementation evaluation. Implementation barriers and facilitators, delivery fidelity, participant satisfaction, and implementation costs were assessed. Using micro-costing methods, costs for assessment of eligibility and scheduling and maintaining adherence per participant, as well as cost of delivery per session, were also assessed.ResultsSeveral barriers and facilitators to Reach, Adoption, Implementation, Effectiveness and Maintenance were identified; barriers related to Reach were the largest challenge encountered by site teams. Fidelity was higher for VA-DPP delivery compared to MOVE! for five of seven domains assessed. Participant satisfaction was high in both programs, but higher in VA-DPP for most items. Based on micro-costing methods, cost of assessment for eligibility was $68/individual assessed, cost of scheduling and maintaining adherence was $328/participant, and cost of delivery was $101/session.ConclusionsMulti-faceted strategies are needed to reach targeted participants and successfully implement DPP. Costs for assessing patients for eligibility need to be carefully considered while still maximizing reach to the targeted population.

NCT01828567.

Background Treatments for metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) differ in toxicity, administration, and evidence. In this study, clinical and nonclinical factors associated with the first‐line treatment for CRPC in a national delivery system were evaluated. Methods National electronic laboratory and clinical data from the Veterans Health Administration were used to identify patients with CRPC (ie, rising prostate‐specific antigen [PSA] on androgen deprivation) who received abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, or ketoconazole from 2010 through 2017. It was determined whether clinical (eg, PSA) and nonclinical factors (eg, race, facility) were associated with the first‐line treatment selection using multilevel, multinomial logistic regression. The average marginal effects (AMEs) were calculated of patient, disease, and facility characteristics on ketoconazole versus more appropriate CRPC therapy. Results There were 4998 patients identified with CRPC who received first‐line ketoconazole, docetaxel, abiraterone, or enzalutamide. After adjustment, increasing age was associated with receipt of abiraterone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.07; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.06‐1.09) or enzalutamide (aOR, 1.10; 95% CrI, 1.08‐1.11) versus docetaxel. Greater preexisting comorbidity was associated with enzalutamide versus abiraterone (aOR, 1.53; 95% CrI, 1.23‐1.91). Patients with higher PSA values at the start of treatment were more likely to receive docetaxel than oral agents and less likely to receive ketoconazole than other oral agents. African American men were more likely to receive ketoconazole than abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel (AME, 2.8%; 95% CI, 0.7%‐4.9%). This effect was attenuated when adjusting for facility characteristics (AME, 1.9%; 95% CI, –0.4% to 4.1%). Conclusions Clinical factors had an expected effect on the first‐line treatment selection. Race may be associated with the receipt of a guideline‐discordant first‐line treatment.