BackgroundMissed vascular events, infections, and cancers account for ~75% of serious harms from diagnostic errors. Just 15 diseases from these “Big Three” categories account for nearly half of all serious misdiagnosis-related harms in malpractice claims. As part of a larger project estimating total US burden of serious misdiagnosis-related harms, we performed a focused literature review to measure diagnostic error and harm rates for these 15 conditions.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Google, and cited references. For errors, we selected high-quality, modern, US-based studies, if available, and best available evidence otherwise. For harms, we used literature-based estimates of the generic (disease-agnostic) rate of serious harms (morbidity/mortality) per diagnostic error and applied claims-based severity weights to construct disease-specific rates. Results were validated via expert review and comparison to prior literature that used different methods. We used Monte Carlo analysis to construct probabilistic plausible ranges (PPRs) around estimates.ResultsRates for the 15 diseases were drawn from 28 published studies representing 91,755 patients. Diagnostic error (false negative) rates ranged from 2.2% (myocardial infarction) to 62.1% (spinal abscess), with a median of 13.6% [interquartile range (IQR) 9.2–24.7] and an aggregate mean of 9.7% (PPR 8.2–12.3). Serious misdiagnosis-related harm rates per incident disease case ranged from 1.2% (myocardial infarction) to 35.6% (spinal abscess), with a median of 5.5% (IQR 4.6–13.6) and an aggregate mean of 5.2% (PPR 4.5–6.7). Rates were considered face valid by domain experts and consistent with prior literature reports.ConclusionsDiagnostic improvement initiatives should focus on dangerous conditions with higher diagnostic error and misdiagnosis-related harm rates.

Background Diagnostic errors cause substantial preventable harm, but national estimates vary widely from 40,000 to 4 million annually. This cross-sectional analysis of a large medical malpractice claims database was the first phase of a three-phase project to estimate the US burden of serious misdiagnosis-related harms. Methods We sought to identify diseases accounting for the majority of serious misdiagnosis-related harms (morbidity/mortality). Diagnostic error cases were identified from Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO)’s Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) database (2006–2015), representing 28.7% of all US malpractice claims. Diseases were grouped according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) that aggregates the International Classification of Diseases diagnostic codes into clinically sensible groupings. We analyzed vascular events, infections, and cancers (the “Big Three”), including frequency, severity, and settings. High-severity (serious) harms were defined by scores of 6–9 (serious, permanent disability, or death) on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Severity of Injury Scale. Results From 55,377 closed claims, we analyzed 11,592 diagnostic error cases [median age 49, interquartile range (IQR) 36–60; 51.7% female]. These included 7379 with high-severity harms (53.0% death). The Big Three diseases accounted for 74.1% of high-severity cases (vascular events 22.8%, infections 13.5%, and cancers 37.8%). In aggregate, the top five from each category (n = 15 diseases) accounted for 47.1% of high-severity cases. The most frequent disease in each category, respectively, was stroke, sepsis, and lung cancer. Causes were disproportionately clinical judgment factors (85.7%) across categories (range 82.0–88.8%). Conclusions The Big Three diseases account for about three-fourths of serious misdiagnosis-related harms. Initial efforts to improve diagnosis should focus on vascular events, infections, and cancers.

Performance of commercially available human papillomavirus (HPV) assays (approved for cervical HPV detection) is unknown for detecting HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC). Assays for detection of HPV DNA [ELISA (DEIA) and Cobas], and RNA (Aptima) in oral rinse samples, and serum HPV oncogene antibodies were evaluated. Sensitivity and specificity of each test was explored among HPV-OPC cases and controls. Biomarker prevalence was evaluated among 294 "at-risk" people (screening) and 133 "high-risk" people [known to previously have oral oncogenic HPV (oncHPV) DNA and/or HPV16 E6/E7 antibodies detected]. HPV16 E6 antibodies had the best overall test performance with sensitivity of 88%, compared with oral HPV16 DNA sensitivity of 51% by DEIA and 43% by Cobas (each P < 0.001). Specificity was comparable in each of these tests (!98%). When positivity for any oncHPV type was compared with HPV16 for the same test, sensitivity was comparable (60% vs. 51%, 40% vs. 43%, and 92% vs. 88% for DEIA, Cobas, and E6 antibodies, respectively), but specificity was reduced (93%-97%). Aptima had poor sensitivity (23%). Sensitivity decreased when cotesting HPV16 oral rinse DNA and E6 antibodies (37%-48%), or multiple E antibodies (69%-72%). HPV16 DNA were detected in $2% of the at-risk by either DEIA or Cobas and up to 15% of the high-risk population. HPV16 E6 seroprevalence was 2.3% and 2.4% in the at-risk and high-risk populations, respectively. Oral rinse HPV testing had moderate-to-poor sensitivity for HPV-OPC, suggesting many true positives would be missed in a potential screening scenario. HPV16 E6 serum antibody was the most promising biomarker evaluated.

Background HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC) incidence is increasing but the natural history of the precursor, oral HPV, has not been well described. Methods This observational cohort study of people living with HIV and at-risk HIV uninfected people evaluated participants semi-annually using 30-second oral rinse/gargle specimens over 7 years. Initially, 447 subjects were followed for four years as part of the POPS Study, and a subset of 128 showing persistent infections at the last POPS visit had an additional visit, as part of MOUTH Study, on average 2.5 years later. Extracted DNA from oral rinse/gargle specimens were amplified using PCR and type-specification of 13 oncogenic HPV types. Risk factors for oncogenic oral HPV clearance were evaluated using Cox models. Results The majority of oncogenic oral HPV infections cleared quickly with median time to clearance of 1.4 years [IQR=0.5-3.9]. After 7 years of follow-up, 97% of incident and 71% of prevalent infections had cleared. Lower HPV16 viral load was statistically significantly associated with clearance (Per 10-fold decrease in copy number: adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=2.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.20-5.26, p=.01) Adjusted analyses showed oncogenic oral HPV clearance was lower among prevalent than incident detected infections (aHR=0.44, 95%CI=0.35-0.55), among men than women (aHR=0.74, 95%CI=0.60-0.91), for older participants (aHR per 10 years increasing age=0.81, 95%CI=0.74-0.89), and among people living with HIV (aHR=0.76, 95% CI = 0.60-0.95). One participant who had oral HPV16 consistently detected at 10 study visits over 4.5 years was subsequently diagnosed with HPV-OPC. Conclusions This prospective study of oncogenic oral HPV infection is the longest and largest quantification of oral HPV16 infections to date.

Preventive services can reduce the morbidity of sickle cell disease (SCD) in children but are delivered unreliably. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children ages 2–5 years with SCD, evaluating each child for 14 months and expecting that he/she should receive ≥75% of days covered by antibiotic prophylaxis, ≥1 influenza immunization, and ≥1 transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD). We used logistic regression to quantify the relationship between ambulatory generalist and hematologist visits and preventive services delivery. Of 266 children meeting inclusion criteria, 30% consistently filled prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions. Having ≥2 generalist, non-well child care visits or ≥2 hematologist visits was associated with more reliable antibiotic prophylaxis. Forty-one percent of children received ≥1 influenza immunizations. Children with ≥2 hematologist visits were most likely to be immunized (62% versus 35% among children without a hematologist visit). Only 25% of children received ≥1 TCD. Children most likely to receive a TCD (42%) were those with ≥2 hematologist visits. One in twenty children received all three preventive services. Preventive services delivery to young children with SCD was inconsistent but associated with multiple visits to ambulatory providers. Better connecting children with SCD to hematologists and strengthening preventive care delivery by generalists are both essential.