BackgroundSurname lists are useful for identifying cohorts of ethnic minority patients from secondary data sources. This study sought to develop and validate lists to identify people of South Asian and Chinese origin.MethodsComprehensive lists of South Asian and Chinese surnames were reviewed to identify those that uniquely belonged to the ethnic minority group. Surnames that were common in other populations, communities or ethnic groups were specifically excluded. These surname lists were applied to the Registered Persons Database, a registry of the health card numbers assigned to all residents of the Canadian province of Ontario, so that all residents were assigned to South Asian ethnicity, Chinese ethnicity or the General Population. Ethnic assignment was validated against self-identified ethnicity through linkage with responses to the Canadian Community Health Survey.ResultsThe final surname lists included 9,950 South Asian surnames and 1,133 Chinese surnames. All 16,688,384 current and former residents of Ontario were assigned to South Asian ethnicity, Chinese ethnicity or the General Population based on their surnames. Among 69,859 respondents to the Canadian Community Health Survey, both lists performed extremely well when compared against self-identified ethnicity: positive predictive value was 89.3% for the South Asian list, and 91.9% for the Chinese list. Because surnames shared with other ethnic groups were deliberately excluded from the lists, sensitivity was lower (50.4% and 80.2%, respectively).ConclusionsThese surname lists can be used to identify cohorts of people with South Asian and Chinese origins from secondary data sources with a high degree of accuracy. These cohorts could then be used in epidemiologic and health service research studies of populations with South Asian and Chinese origins.

BackgroundWe describe trends in participation by investigators from low- and middle-income countries (LMCs) in publications describing oncology randomized control trials (RCTs) over a decade.MethodsWe used Medline to identify RCTs published in English from 1998 to 2008 evaluating treatment in lung, breast, colorectal, stomach and liver cancers. Data on author affiliations, authorship roles, trial characteristics, funding and interventions were extracted from each article. Countries were stratified as low-, middle- or high-income using World Bank data. Interventions were categorized as requiring basic, limited, enhanced or maximal resources as per the Breast Health Global Initiative classification. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with authorship by investigators from LMCs.Results454 publications were identified. Proportion of articles with at least one LMC author increased over time from 20% in 1998 to 29% in 2008 (p = 0.01), but almost all LMC authors were from middle-income countries. Proportion of articles with at least one LMC author was higher among articles that explicitly reported recruitment in at least one LMC vs those that did not (76% vs 13%). Among 87 articles (19%) that involved authors from LMCs, 17% had LMC authors as first or corresponding authors, and 67% evaluated interventions requiring enhanced or maximal resources. Factors associated with LMC authorship included industry funding (OR = 3.54, p = 0.0001), placebo comparator arm (OR = 2.57, p = 0.02) and palliative intent treatment (OR = 4.00, p = 0.0003).ConclusionAn increasing number of publications describing oncology RCTs involve authors from LMC countries but primarily in non-leadership roles in industry-funded trials.

6,204.77.Number of employees who had an inpatient visit increased from 3 to 7, with no recurrence of pre-visit events. A decrease in total health care expenditures by over 14% was observed. Preliminary analysis for the second objective shows that on average employees spent $406.97/patient/year more when they dropped out of the program than if they stayed enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist led MTMprogram helped reduce health care expenditure for the employer. Improving retention for the program could help substantiate these cost savings.

No abstract

6087 Background: Lower costs and fewer regulatory barriers make clinical trials in LMCs attractive, but little is known about characteristics of such trials and roles of investigators from LMCs. We describe trends in participation of investigators from LMCs in oncology RCTs over a decade. Methods: We used Medline to identify all RCTs published in English between January 1 1998 and December 31 2008 evaluating treatment in five solid tumours (lung, breast, colorectal, stomach, liver) with high mortality in LMCs as per GLOBOCAN 2002. Data on author affiliations and roles (first, middle or corresponding author), trial characteristics, funding and study interventions were abstracted using an electronic form. Countries were stratified into low-, middle- and high-income using World Bank data. Interventions were categorized as requiring basic, limited, enhanced or maximal resources as per the Breast Health Global Initiative classification. Logistic regression identified factors associated with investigator participation from LMCs. Results: 454 trials were identified: lung (n=177), breast (n=165), colorectal (n=82), stomach (n=29), liver (n=7). The annual number of trials published increased from 10 trials in 1998 to 86 in 2008. The proportion of trials with at least one LMC author also increased over time from 20% in 1998 to 29% in 2008 (p=0.01), but almost all LMC authors were from middle-income countries. In 17% of trials involving LMC authors, they were first or corresponding authors. 67% of trials involving LMC investigators evaluated interventions requiring enhanced or maximal resources for implementation. Factors associated with LMC participation included industry funding (OR=3.57, p<0.0001), use of placebo arm (OR=2.59, p=0.02) and metastatic setting (OR=3.87, p=0.0003). Conclusions: An increasing number of oncology RCTs involve LMC investigators primarily in non-leadership roles. These trials are commonly industry-funded and often test interventions that require at least enhanced resources for implementation. To minimize concerns of exploitation and facilitate future collaboration it is crucial that interventions are locally feasible and investigators receive appropriate authorship.