Background--With the recent implementation of the Medicare Quality Payment Program, providers face increasing accountability for delivering high-quality care. Such pay-for-performance programs aim to leverage systematic data captured by electronic health record (EHR) systems to measure performance; however, the fidelity of EHR query for assessing performance has not been validated compared with manual chart review. We sought to determine whether our institution's methodology of EHR query could accurately identify cases in which providers failed to prescribe statins for eligible patients with coronary artery disease. Methods and Results--A total of 9459 patients with coronary artery disease were seen at least twice at the Emory Clinic between July 2014 and June 2015, of whom 1338 (14.1%, 95% confidence interval 13.5-14.9%) had no statin prescription or exemption per EHR query. A total of 120 patient cases were randomly selected and reviewed by 2 physicians for further adjudication. Of the 120 cases initially classified as statin prescription failures, only 21 (17.5%; 95% confidence interval, 11.7-25.3%) represented true failure following physician review. Conclusions--Sole reliance on EHR data query to measure quality metrics may lead to significant errors in assessing provider performance. Institutions should be cognizant of these potential sources of error, provide support to medical providers, and form collaborative data management teams to promote and improve meaningful use of EHRs. We propose actionable steps to improve the accuracy of EHR data query that require hypothesis testing and prospective validation in future studies.

Purpose: Aberrant mTOR pathway and somatostatin receptor signaling are implicated in thyroid cancer and offer potential therapeutic targets. We assessed the clinical efficacy of everolimus and Pasireotide long-acting release (LAR) in radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) and medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Patients and methods: Adults with progressive MTC and DTC untreated or treated with no more than one systemic agent were eligible. The trial was designed to establish the most promising regimen and the optimal combination sequence. Patients were randomized to start treatment with single agent everolimus (10 mg QD; Arm A), pasireotide-LAR (60 mg intramuscular injection, Q4 weeks; Arm B), or the combination (Arm C). At initial progression (PFS1), patients on Arm A or B switched to the combination and continued until progression (PFS2). Efficacy was measured by RECIST criteria. Results: Study enrolled 42 patients: median age 65 years; female 17 (40.5%); White 31 (73.8%), African American 6 (14.3%), others 5 (11.9); DTC 32 (76.2%); MTC 10 (23.8%). There was no objective response by RECIST criteria across the three arms. Median and 1-year PFS1 rates were 8.3, 1.8, 8.1 months and 49.9%, 36.4%, 25.0% for Arms A, B, C, respectively. Median and 1-year PFS2 rates were 26.3, 17.5, 8.1 months and 78.4%, 70.0%, 25% for Arms A, B, C, respectively. The most frequent adverse events were anemia, stomatitis, fatigue, hyperglycemia, and hypercholesterolemia. Conclusions: The combination of everolimus and pasireotide-LAR showed promising efficacy over single agent. The delayed combination of everolimus and pasireotide-LAR following progression on single agent everolimus appeared intriguing as a combination strategy.