Objective
To investigate treatment patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Germany who had previously received conventional synthetic (cs) or biologic (b) disease-modifying ...antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).
Methods
Patients with RA who initiated treatment with a csDMARD, bDMARD, or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor between 2017 and 2018 and who had previously received csDMARD or bDMARD therapy were retrospectively selected from the Institute for Applied Health Research Berlin GmbH (InGef). Time on treatment and discontinuation risk were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Cox regression identified variables associated with an increased discontinuation risk.
Results
A total of 990 patients had received prior csDMARD therapy; 375 had received prior bDMARD therapy. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors and JAK inhibitors were the most commonly prescribed DMARD class in those previously treated with a csDMARD or bDMARD, respectively. In both cohorts, more patients received DMARD monotherapy than combination therapy. In the prior csDMARD cohort, median time on treatment was 276, 252, and 148 days with JAK inhibitors, TNF‑α inhibitors, and csDMARDs, respectively, and those treated with JAK or TNF‑α inhibitors were less likely to discontinue treatment than those on csDMARDs (log-rank test
p
-value < 0.01 for both comparisons); no significant differences were found within the prior bDMARD cohort.
Conclusion
This is among the first detailed analyses of RA treatment patterns in a real-world setting in Germany since the introduction of JAK inhibitors. TNF‑α inhibitors were the most commonly prescribed DMARD after failure of an initial csDMARD, while JAK inhibitors were the most common among patients previously treated with a bDMARD. In both groups, monotherapy with bDMARD or targeted synthetic DMARD was common. In the prior csDMARD cohort, treatment duration was significantly longer with JAK or TNF‑α inhibitors than with csDMARDs.
Background
Breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be a useful adjunct to screening mammography in high-risk women, but MRI uptake may be increasing rapidly among low- and ...average-risk women for whom benefits are unestablished. Comparatively little is known about use of screening MRI in community practice.
Objective
To assess relative utilization of MRI among women who do and do not meet professional society guidelines for supplemental screening, and describe utilization according to breast cancer risk indications.
Design
Prospective cohort study conducted between 2007 and 2014.
Participants
In five regional imaging registries participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), 348,955 women received a screening mammogram, of whom 1499 underwent screening MRI.
Main measures
Lifetime breast cancer risk (< 20% or ≥ 20%) estimated by family history of two or more first-degree relatives, and Gail model risk estimates. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density and benign breast diseases also were assessed. Relative risks (RR) for undergoing screening MRI were estimated using Poisson regression.
Key results
Among women with < 20% lifetime risk, which does not meet professional guidelines for supplementary MRI screening, and no first-degree breast cancer family history, screening MRI utilization was elevated among those with extremely dense breasts RR 2.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7–2.8 relative to those with scattered fibroglandular densities and among women with atypia (RR 7.4; 95% CI 3.9–14.3.) or lobular carcinoma in situ (RR 33.1; 95% CI 18.0–60.9) relative to women with non-proliferative disease. Approximately 82.9% (95% CI 80.8%–84.7%) of screening MRIs occurred among women who did not meet professional guidelines and 35.5% (95% CI 33.1–37.9%) among women considered at low-to-average breast cancer risk.
Conclusion
Utilization of screening MRI in community settings is not consistent with current professional guidelines and the goal of delivery of high-value care.
Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, ...methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings.
We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities.
Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal).
PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators.
PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.
IMPORTANCE: Realizing the benefits of cancer screening requires testing of eligible individuals and processes to ensure follow-up of abnormal results. OBJECTIVE: To test interventions to improve ...timely follow-up of overdue abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening results. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at 44 primary care practices within 3 health networks in the US enrolling patients with at least 1 abnormal cancer screening test result not yet followed up between August 24, 2020, and December 13, 2021. INTERVENTION: Automated algorithms developed using data from electronic health records (EHRs) recommended follow-up actions and times for abnormal screening results. Primary care practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to (1) usual care, (2) EHR reminders, (3) EHR reminders and outreach (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a phone call at week 4), or (4) EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a navigator outreach phone call at week 4). Patients, physicians, and practices were unblinded to treatment assignment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days of study enrollment. The secondary outcomes included completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days of enrollment and completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days and 240 days for specific cancer types and levels of risk. RESULTS: Among 11 980 patients (median age, 60 years IQR, 52-69 years; 64.8% were women; 83.3% were White; and 15.4% were insured through Medicaid) with an abnormal cancer screening test result for colorectal cancer (8245 patients 69%), cervical cancer (2596 patients 22%), breast cancer (1005 patients 8%), or lung cancer (134 patients 1%) and abnormal test results categorized as low risk (6082 patients 51%), medium risk (3712 patients 31%), or high risk (2186 patients 18%), the adjusted proportion who completed recommended follow-up within 120 days was 31.4% in the EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group (n = 3455), 31.0% in the EHR reminders and outreach group (n = 2569), 22.7% in the EHR reminders group (n = 3254), and 22.9% in the usual care group (n = 2702) (adjusted absolute difference for comparison of EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group vs usual care, 8.5% 95% CI, 4.8%-12.0%, P < .001). The secondary outcomes showed similar results for completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days and by subgroups for cancer type and level of risk for the abnormal screening result. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A multilevel primary care intervention that included EHR reminders and patient outreach with or without patient navigation improved timely follow-up of overdue abnormal cancer screening test results for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03979495
Abstract
Background
Cancer screening is a complex process encompassing risk assessment, the initial screening examination, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of cancer precursors or early cancers. ...Metrics that enable comparisons across different screening targets are needed. We present population-based screening metrics for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers for nine sites participating in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium.
Methods
We describe how selected metrics map to a trans-organ conceptual model of the screening process. For each cancer type, we calculated calendar year 2013 metrics for the screen-eligible target population (breast: ages 40–74 years; cervical: ages 21–64 years; colorectal: ages 50–75 years). Metrics for screening participation, timely diagnostic evaluation, and diagnosed cancers in the screened and total populations are presented for the total eligible population and stratified by age group and cancer type.
Results
The overall screening-eligible populations in 2013 were 305 568 participants for breast, 3 160 128 for cervical, and 2 363 922 for colorectal cancer screening. Being up-to-date for testing was common for all three cancer types: breast (63.5%), cervical (84.6%), and colorectal (77.5%). The percentage of abnormal screens ranged from 10.7% for breast, 4.4% for cervical, and 4.5% for colorectal cancer screening. Abnormal breast screens were followed up diagnostically in almost all (96.8%) cases, and cervical and colorectal were similar (76.2% and 76.3%, respectively). Cancer rates per 1000 screens were 5.66, 0.17, and 1.46 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively.
Conclusions
Comprehensive assessment of metrics by the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium enabled systematic identification of screening process steps in need of improvement. We encourage widespread use of common metrics to allow interventions to be tested across cancer types and health-care settings.
To compare prospectively and retrospectively defined benchmarks for the quality of end-of-life care, including a novel indicator for the use of opiate analgesia.
Linked claims and cancer registry ...data from 1994 to 2003 for New Jersey and Pennsylvania were used to examine prospective and retrospective benchmarks for seniors with breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer who participated in state pharmaceutical benefit programs.
Use of opiates, particularly long-acting opiates, was low in both the prospective and retrospective cohorts (9.1% and 10.1%, respectively), which supported the underuse of palliative care at the end-of-life. Although hospice was used more commonly in the retrospective versus prospective cohort, admission to hospice within 3 days of death was similar in both cohorts (28.8% v 26.4%), as was the rate of death in an acute care hospital. Retrospective and prospective measures identified similar physician and hospital patterns of end-of-life care. In multivariate models, a visit with an oncologist was positively associated with the use of chemotherapy, opiates, and hospice. Patients who were cared for by oncologists in small group practices were more likely to receive chemotherapy (retrospective only) and less likely to receive hospice (both) than those in large groups. Compared with patients who were cared for in teaching hospitals, those in other hospitals were more likely to receive chemotherapy (both) and to have toxicity (prospective) but were less likely to receive opiates (both) and hospice (retrospective).
Retrospective and prospective measures, including a new measure of the use of opiate analgesia, identify some similar physician and hospital patterns of end-of-life care.
Abstract
Aims
Two post-authorisation studies assessed the safety and persistence of patients’ use of nalmefene.
Methods
The START study (EUPAS5678) was a non-interventional, multi-country, ...prospective, 18-month (8 follow-up visits) cohort study including outpatients initiating nalmefene for the first time. The multi-database retrospective cohort study (MDRC, EUPAS14083) included baseline and follow-up data from German, Swedish and UK healthcare databases. Both studies permitted ‘all comers’ without explicit exclusion criteria; predefined subgroups of interest included the elderly (≥65 years) as well as patients with significant psychiatric and/or somatic comorbidities.
Results
START study: Overall, the mean duration of nalmefene treatment was 10.3 ± 7.3 months (N = 1348), with 49.0% of patients treated for ≥1 year; frequent reasons for treatment discontinuation were ‘goal reached’ and ‘drug cost’. The most frequently reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were nausea (4.7%), dizziness (3.2%) and insomnia (2.0%). ADR rates appeared higher in the elderly subpopulation (18.6% reported ≥1 ADR vs. 12.0% in the total population) but were not higher in the other predefined subgroups.
MDRC study: The database follow-up analysis followed 2892 patients over 18 months for whom the duration of nalmefene treatment was between 2 and 3 months and <5% of patients used nalmefene for ≥1 year.
Conclusions
Despite the inclusion of a wider patient population (e.g. elderly patients and those with relevant co-morbidities), the safety and tolerability profile of nalmefene given in routine practice was consistent with previous clinical studies. The differing rates of persistence beyond 1 year likely reflect the different methodologies and highlight the relevance of psychosocial support at follow-up visits.
Short Summary: Two studies were used to evaluate the safety and persistence of nalmefene in the routine management of alcohol dependence in Europe as part of the overall risk management plan. Although adverse events appeared more common in over 65-year olds, there were no major differences in safety outcomes between the total population, and those with psychiatric and somatic comorbidities or those with a history of seizures. Findings were in line with those from previous clinical studies. The differing rates of persistence beyond 1 year (49% in the prospective study and < 5% in the multi-database retrospective cohort study) likely reflect the different study methodologies and serve to highlight the relevance of follow-up support.
Since 2012, cervical cancer screening guidelines allow for choice of screening test for women age 30–65 years (i.e., Pap every 3 years or Pap with human papillomavirus co-testing every 5 years). ...Intended to give patients and providers options, this flexibility reflects a trend in the growing complexity of screening guidelines. Our objective was to characterize variation in cervical screening at the individual, provider, clinic/facility, and healthcare system levels. The analysis included 296,924 individuals receiving screening from 3626 providers at 136 clinics/facilities in three healthcare systems, 2010 to 2017. Main outcome was receipt of co-testing vs. Pap alone. Co-testing was more common in one healthcare system before the 2012 guidelines (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of co-testing at the other systems relative to this system 0.00 and 0.50) but was increasingly implemented over time in a second with declining uptake in the third (2017: AORs shifted to 7.32 and 0.01). Despite system-level differences, there was greater heterogeneity in receipt of co-testing associated with providers than clinics/facilities. In the three healthcare systems, providers in the highest quartile of co-testing use had an 8.35, 8.81, and 25.05-times greater odds of providing a co-test to women with the same characteristics relative to the lowest quartile. Similarly, clinics/ facilities in the highest quartile of co-testing use had a 4.20, 3.14, and 6.56-times greater odds of providing a co-test relative to the lowest quartile. Variation in screening test use is associated with health system, provider, and clinic/facility levels even after accounting for patient characteristics.
•There are options for cervical screening (co-testing vs Pap) for women 30–65 years.•Largest variation was seen at the levels of the health system and provider.•Provider variation was 2-to-4 fold the variation at the level of the clinic.•Least variation was observed at the patient level.
To reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, experts recommend surveillance colonoscopy 3 years after advanced adenoma removal. Little is known about adherence to that interval.
We describe ...patterns of and factors associated with subsequent colonoscopy among persons with ≥3 adenomas and/or ≥1 adenoma with villous/tubulovillous histology in four U.S. integrated healthcare delivery systems. We report Kaplan-Meier estimators of the cumulative percentage of patients undergoing colonoscopy 6 months to 3.5 years after an index colonoscopy with high-risk findings. Combining data from three healthcare systems, we used multivariable logistic regression with inverse probability of censoring weights to estimate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between patient characteristics and receipt of subsequent colonoscopy.
Among 6,909 persons with advanced adenomas, the percent receiving a subsequent colonoscopy 6 months to 3.5 years later ranged from 18.3% (95% CI: 11.7%-27.8%) to 59.5% (95% CI: 53.8%-65.2%) across healthcare systems. Differences remained significant in the multivariable model. Patients with ≥3 adenomas were more likely than those with 1 to 2 villous/tubulovillous adenomas to undergo subsequent colonoscopy. Subsequent colonoscopy was also more common for patients ages 60-74 and less common for patients ages 80 to 89 compared with those ages 50 to 54 years at their index colonoscopy. Sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity index score were generally not associated with subsequent colonoscopy receipt.
Colonoscopy within the recommended interval following advanced adenoma was underutilized and varied by healthcare system, age, and number of adenomas.
Strategies to improve adherence to surveillance colonoscopy following advanced adenomas are needed.
PDF
