Search

Simple Summary: Palbociclib combined with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) has been shown to be effective in clinical trials for people with HR+/HER2− breast cancer that has spread to other areas of the body, such as the lungs or liver. Evidence of palbociclib effectiveness in routine clinical practice can provide complementary support for clinical trial findings. This study used electronic health records of people with breast cancer that had spread to their lungs and/or liver to determine how well palbociclib plus an AI worked compared to an AI alone. The study showed that palbociclib plus an AI compared with an AI alone was associated with a 38% or 27% reduction in the risk of death for patients with breast cancer that had spread to the lungs or liver, respectively. These findings support the use of palbociclib plus an AI for people whose breast cancer has spread to their lungs or liver. A cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor combined with endocrine therapy is the standard of care for patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor 2-negative (HR+/HER2−) metastatic breast cancer (mBC), but real-world effectiveness data for patients with lung or liver metastases are limited. This retrospective study included data from the US Flatiron Health database of patients with HR+/HER2− mBC and lung or liver metastases treated with first-line palbociclib (PAL) plus an aromatase inhibitor (AI) or an AI alone in routine clinical practice. Overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) were assessed. A total of 891 patients were included (622 with lung metastasis, 376 with liver metastasis, and 107 with both lung and liver metastasis). After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance patient characteristics, PAL + AI versus AI alone was associated with significantly prolonged OS (HR = 0.62; p < 0.001) and rwPFS (HR = 0.55; p < 0.001) in patients with lung metastases and numerically longer OS (HR = 0.73; p = 0.056) and significantly longer rwPFS (HR = 0.57, p < 0.001) for those with liver metastases. Overall, PAL + AI versus AI alone was associated with prolonged OS and rwPFS in routine clinical practice, supporting the use of first-line PAL + AI for patients with HR+/HER2− mBC with lung and/or liver metastases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Elderly patients are generally underrepresented in oncology clinical trials; therefore, real-world data are needed to inform clinical management of elderly patients with hormone receptor--positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2--negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). This subanalysis of the P-REALITY X study (NCT05361655) evaluated palbociclib treatment patterns and comparative effectiveness of palbociclib plus an aromatase inhibitor (AI) versus an AI alone among patients with HR+/HER2-mBC aged ≥ 75 years treated in routine clinical practice in the United States. Methods: This retrospective observational cohort study used electronic health records from the Flatiron Health Analytic Database. Palbociclib treatment patterns, overall survival (OS), real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and time to chemotherapy (TTC) were evaluated. Three methods were used for comparative analyses: (1) an unadjusted analysis, (2) stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting (sIPTW; primary analysis), and (3) propensity score matching (PSM; sensitivity analysis). Results: A total of 961 patients aged ≥ 75 years with HR+/HER2- mBC were identified who started palbociclib plus an AI (n = 313) or an AI alone (n = 648) as first-line (1L) therapy between February 2015 and March 2020 (data cut-off: September 30, 2020). Among patients in the palbociclib plus an AI group with a documented palbociclib starting dose (n = 306), approximately 75% started palbociclib at 125 mg/day, and approximately 40% experienced dose adjustment. After sIPTW, patients treated with palbociclib plus an AI versus an AI alone had significantly improved OS (median of 43.0 vs. 32.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.51--0.84]; P = 0.0007), rwPFS (median of 20.0 vs. 15.0 months; HR, 0.72 (0.59--0.89); P = 0.0021), and TTC (median of 40.2 vs. 27.4 months; HR, 0.69 [0.55--0.87]; P = 0.0014). These significant improvements in OS, rwPFS, and TTC remained consistent in the unadjusted analysis and after PSM. Conclusion: This real-world comparative analysis demonstrated that 1L palbociclib plus an AI is associated with improved effectiveness compared with an AI alone among patients with HR+/HER2 -mBC aged ≥ 75 years. These findings support palbociclib plus an AI as a standard-of-care 1L treatment for elderly patients with HR+/HER2- mBC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mental health issues often result in significant impairment and financial challenges, both at home and in the workplace. Solutions vary widely in their usage and cost-effectiveness. This study presents an analysis of medical and prescription drug spending and utilization data for the employees of 4 companies who were eligible for an evidence-based workforce mental health program (WMHP). A variation of coarsened exact matching paired WMHP users to nonusers, based on demographics, location, and medical factors. Individuals included 2791 pairs of members whose medical claims were incurred in 2018 and 3883 pairs with claims in 2019. Using a cost efficiency measurement process, mean cost and utilization per person per year (PPPY) were compared. WMHP users had lower medical (−$2295 in 2018; −$2304 in 2019) and prescription drug spending (−$295 in 2018; −$312 in 2019). Over half of the cost reduction (−$1252 in 2018; −$1211 in 2019) resulted from shifting therapy services from the medical benefit to WMHP. WMHP users attended about 12 sessions PPPY, whereas the comparison group of nonusers attended about 7 mental health office visits PPPY under the medical benefit. WMHP users had more mental health-related visits in both years, but had fewer visits on the medical plan, and fewer emergency department visits for mental health than comparison group members. These results provide evidence that high-quality, evidence-based mental health services can reduce total expenditures and change utilization patterns. Evidence-based WMHP may represent a prudent investment for employers in providing mental health care to employees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Access to quality mental health medication management (MM) in the United States is limited, even among those with employment-based health insurance. This implementation, feasibility, and outcome study sought to design and evaluate an evidence-based telemental health MM service using a collaborative care model (CoCM). Materials and Methods: CoCM MM was available to adult employees/dependents through their employer benefits, in addition to therapy. Outcomes included Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) collected at baseline and throughout participation. This analysis was not deemed to be human subjects research by the Western Institutional Review Board. Results: Over 17 months, 212 people enrolled and completed >2 assessments; the enrollees were 58.96% female with average age of 32.00 years (standard deviation [SD] = 7.38). In people with moderate to severe depression or anxiety, PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores reduced by an average of 7.27 (SD = 4.80) and 6.71 (SD = 5.18) points after at least 12 ± 4 weeks in the program. At 24 ± 4 weeks, the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 reductions were on average 7.17 (SD = 5.00) and 6.03 (SD = 5.37), respectively. Approximately 65.88% of participants with either baseline depression or anxiety had a response on either the PHQ-9 or GAD-7 at 12 ± 4 weeks and 44.71% of participants experienced remission; at 24 ± 4 weeks, 56.41% had response and 41.03% experienced remission. Conclusions: An evidence-based CoCM telemedicine service within an employee behavioral health benefit is feasible and effective in reducing anxiety and depression symptoms when using measurement-based care. Widespread implementation of a benefit like this could expand access to evidence-based mental health MM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, recent killings of civilians by law enforcement have propelled body cameras to the forefront of solutions to the "epidemic" of police misconduct. Preliminary studies suggest that body cameras create a win-win situation for both the police and the public by producing a civilizing effect on all parties involved. The problem, however, is that not every law enforcement agency has a body camera program. And among those that do, the surprising lack of legal action raises the question: How effective are body cameras in ensuring that justice is served? This Note discusses the use of body cameras in American policing on the streets and at the borders. It provides a background into the problem of police misconduct and highlights arguments in favor of and cautioning against body camera technology. Finally, in light of the Trump administration's pro-law enforcement stance, this Note investigates high-profile police killings and assesses existing border policies to consider whether body cameras can truly deliver on their promise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study which characterized the prevalence and extent of data reporting from training patients various cardiovascular device research submitted for the approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The researchers utilized the abstracted information from the Summaries of Safety and Effectiveness Data published in the Web site of the FDA. It is suggested that guidelines on the use and inclusion of results for training patients can improve accuracy on results reporting.

Objectives: Indications for the use of stents are evolving and their optimal place in therapy remains to be defined. The objective was to compare the 1-year clinical and economic outcomes of percutaneous transluminal coronary agioplasty (PTCA) with and without the use of stents. Methods: This retrospective database analysis was conducted using data from 60 US academic medical centers in 1996 and 1997. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality (both on sentinel and readmission visits), readmission rates, revascularization procedures, length of stay, and the cost of sentinel and readmission hospitalization. Results: A total of 27,020 patients either did (n = 13,254) or did not (n = 13,766) receive coronary stents in conjunction with PTCA. The median cost of hospitalization for the stent group was about $1,409 higher (mean, $1,200) than the no-stent group and the length of stay was similar (4.3 days vs. 4.5 days, respectively, P = .2628). Mortality rates on readmission (0.9% stent vs. 0.8% no-stent, P = NS) did not differ. However, patients in the stent group had better mortality rates compared to the no-stent group during the sentinel visit (1.7% vs. 2.7%, P < .001). Stent use was not associated with a significantly lower risk of a revascularization procedure on readmission to the same institution (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87–1.04, P = .28). Conclusions: Stents were associated with a 1% decrease of inpatient mortality during the sentinel visit without impacting length of stay or readmission rates. This advantage was associated with a $1,409 higher median cost of hospitalization in the stent group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the research on the impact of lifetime cumulative exposure to ozone (O3) on acute pulmonary responses of patients in the U.S. It revealed that ozone is a vital component of urban air pollution that causes cellular and tissue injury through generation of oxidative stress. Studies show that short-term exposure to it can cause acute changes in lung function and cellular and biochemical evidence of airway inflammation and injury. Researchers also found that oxidative injury patients who are repeatedly exposed for a short term resulted to O3-enduced physiologic and inflammatory responses undergo attenuation.

What Is This Summary About?: This summary is about a study that was published in the medical journal The Oncologist in July 2023. The combination of palbociclib with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) was approved by the FDA in 2015 as a treatment for people with hormone receptor -positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, the effectiveness of palbociclib in African-Americans with MBC is not well studied. The goal of this study was to find out whether adding palbociclib to an AI helped African-Americans with HR+/HER2- MBC live longer., What Are the Key Takeaways?: This study used de-identified medical information from the Flatiron Database. This database contains healthcare information on people with cancer treated by doctors in the United States but personal information is removed to maintain privacy. Medical information for people who received certain treatments in routine clinical practice or real-world setting was included in the study.This study showed that in the real-world setting, African-Americans with HR+/HER2- MBC lived longer when receiving palbociclib with an AI than with an AI alone. Also, the study showed that African-Americans treated with palbociclib plus an AI lived longer without their cancer getting worse than those treated with an AI alone., What Was the Main Conclusion Reported by the Researchers?: These results support the use of palbociclib with an AI as a first treatment for African-Americans with HR+/HER2- MBC. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05361655 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Aim: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may be vulnerable to changes in healthcare management, safety standards and protocols that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials & methods: The REthink Access to Care & Treatment (REACT) survey assessed USA-based patient perspectives on COVID-19-related impacts to their MBC treatment experience between 27 April 2021 and 17 August 2021. Results: Participants (n = 341; 98.5% females, mean age 50.8 years) reported that overall oncology treatment quality was maintained during the pandemic. Delayed/canceled diagnostic imaging was reported by 44.9% of participants while telemedicine uptake was high among participants (80%). Conclusion: Overall, MBC care was minimally affected by the pandemic, possibly due to the expanded use of telemedicine, informing MBC management for future public health emergencies.

Introduction: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To provide additional clinical evidence in regulatory submissions for a modified-release (MR) once-daily (QD) tofacitinib formulation, we compared real-world adherence and effectiveness between patients initiating the MR QD formulation and patients initiating an immediate-release (IR) twice-daily (BID) formulation., Methods: Two noninterventional cohort studies were conducted. First, adherence and two effectiveness proxies were compared between patients with RA who newly initiated tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD or IR 5 mg BID in the IBM ® MarketScan ® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental US insurance claims databases (March 2016-October 2018). Second, using data collected in the Corrona US RA Registry (February 2016-August 2019), two Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-based measures of effectiveness were compared between tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD and IR 5 mg BID, and against noninferiority criteria derived from placebo-controlled clinical trials of the tofacitinib IR formulation. Multiple sensitivity analyses of the registry data were conducted to reassure regulators of consistent results across different assumptions., Results: In each study, approximately two-thirds of patients initiated the MR formulation. In the claims database study, improved adherence and at least comparable effectiveness were observed with tofacitinib MR vs IR over 12 months, particularly in patients without prior advanced therapy. In the registry study, the noninferiority of tofacitinib MR vs IR was demonstrated for both CDAI outcomes at ~6 months; this finding was robust across multiple sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: These results demonstrate the value of real-world evidence from complementary data sources in understanding the impact of medication adherence with a QD formulation in clinical practice. These analyses were suitable for regulatory consideration as an important component of evidence for the comparability of tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD vs IR 5 mg BID in patients with RA., Trial Registration: Claims database study: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04018001, retrospectively registered July 12, 2019. Corrona US RA Registry study: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04267380, retrospectively registered February 12, 2020.

Background: Real-world data comparing tofacitinib with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are limited., Objective: To compare characteristics, treatment patterns, and costs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving tofacitinib versus the most common bDMARDs (adalimumab [ADA], etanercept [ETN], and abatacept [ABA]) following a single bDMARD in a U.S. administrative claims database., Methods: This study was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients aged ≥ 18 years with an RA diagnosis (ICD-9-CM codes 714.0x-714.4x; 714.81) and 1 previous bDMARD filling ≥ 1 tofacitinib or bDMARD claim in the Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases (November 1, 2012-October 31, 2014). Monotherapy was defined as absence of conventional synthetic DMARDs within 90 days post-index. Persistence was evaluated using a 60-day gap. Adherence was assessed using proportion of days covered (PDC). RA-related total, pharmacy, and medical costs were evaluated in the 12-month pre- and post-index periods. Treatment patterns and costs were adjusted using linear models including a common set of clinically relevant variables of interest (e.g., previous RA treatments), which were assessed separately using t-tests and chi-squared tests., Results: Overall, 392 patients initiated tofacitinib; 178 patients initiated ADA; 118 patients initiated ETN; and 191 patients initiated ABA. Tofacitinib patients were older versus ADA patients (P = 0.0153) and had a lower proportion of Medicare supplemental patients versus ABA patients (P = 0.0095). Twelve-month pre-index bDMARD use was greater in tofacitinib patients (77.6%) versus bDMARD cohorts (47.6%-59.6%). Tofacitinib patients had greater 12-month pre-index RA-related total costs versus bDMARD cohorts (all P < 0.0001) and greatest index use of monotherapy (P = 0.0080 vs. ABA). A similar (all P > 0.10) proportion of patients were persistent with tofacitinib (42.6%) versus ADA (37.6%), ETN (42.4%), and ABA (43.5%). Mean PDC was 0.55 for tofacitinib versus 0.57 (ADA), 0.59 (ETN), and 0.44 (ABA; P = 0.0003). Adjusted analyses generated similar findings to the unadjusted treatment patterns. Tofacitinib had lower adjusted 12-month post-index mean RA-related total costs ($23,568) versus ADA ($29,278; P < 0.0001), ETN ($26,885; P = 0.0248), and ABA ($30,477; P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: In this study, tofacitinib was more commonly used as monotherapy and yielded at least comparable persistence and adherence with lower adjusted mean RA-related total costs versus ADA, ETN, and ABA. Further analysis is warranted given the greater 12-month pre-index bDMARD use and RA-related costs for tofacitinib versus bDMARDs., Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer. Harnett, Gerber, Gruben, Koenig, and Chen are employees and shareholders of Pfizer. Some data reported in this manuscript have been previously presented at the Academy of Managed Care Nexus 2015; Orlando, Florida; October 26-29, 2015, and was submitted in abstract form to the European League Against Rheumatism Congress; London, United Kingdom; June 8-11, 2016. All authors were involved in the conception and design of this study. Harnett and Gruben were involved in data collection and analysis. All authors interpreted the data, critically reviewed and revised the manuscript, and read and approved the final manuscript.

Unlabelled: Postoperative pain can have a significant effect on patient recovery. An understanding of patient attitudes and concerns about postoperative pain is important for identifying ways health care professionals can improve postoperative care. To assess patients' postoperative pain experience and the status of acute pain management, we conducted a national study by using telephone questionnaires. A random sample of 250 adults who had undergone surgical procedures recently in the United States was obtained from National Family Opinion. Patients were asked about the severity of postsurgical pain, treatment, satisfaction with pain medication, patient education, and perceptions about postoperative pain and pain medications. Approximately 80% of patients experienced acute pain after surgery. Of these patients, 86% had moderate, severe, or extreme pain, with more patients experiencing pain after discharge than before discharge. Experiencing postoperative pain was the most common concern (59%) of patients. Almost 25% of patients who received pain medications experienced adverse effects; however, almost 90% of them were satisfied with their pain medications. Approximately two thirds of patients reported that a health care professional talked with them about their pain. Despite an increased focus on pain management programs and the development of new standards for pain management, many patients continue to experience intense pain after surgery. Additional efforts are required to improve patients' postoperative pain experience., Implications: A survey of 250 US adults who had undergone a recent surgical procedure asked about their postoperative pain experience. Approximately 80% of patients experienced pain after surgery. Of these patients, 86% had moderate, severe, or extreme pain. Additional efforts are required to improve patients' postoperative pain experience.