Montori, Víctor M.

Purpose To pilot test the impact of the ICAN Discussion Aid on clinical encounters. Methods A pre–post study involving 11 clinicians and 100 patients was conducted at two primary care clinics within a single health system in the Midwest. The study examined clinicians’ perceptions about ICAN feasibility, patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions about encounter success, videographic differences in encounter topics, and medication adherence 6 months after an ICAN encounter. Results 39/40 control encounters and 45/60 ICAN encounters yielded usable data. Clinicians reported ICAN use was feasible. In ICAN encounters, patients discussed diet, being active and taking medications more. Clinicians scored themselves poorer regarding visit success than their patients scored them; this effect was more pronounced in ICAN encounters. ICAN did not improve 6-month medication adherence or lengthen visits. Conclusion This pilot study suggests that using ICAN in primary care is feasible, efficient and capable of modifying conversations. With lessons learned in this pilot, we are conducting a randomised trial of ICAN versus usual care in diverse clinical settings. Trial registration number NCT02390570 .

Background: High-quality diabetes care is evidence-based, timely, and equitable. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are the most recently approved class of glucose-lowering medications with additional cardio- and renal-protective benefits and low risk of hypoglycemia. Cardiovascular and kidney disease are among the most common chronic diabetes complications, whereas hypoglycemia is the most prevalent adverse effect of glucose-lowering therapy. We examine the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with early SGLT2i initiation and appropriateness of use based on contemporaneous scientific evidence. Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of medical and pharmacy claims data from OptumLabs ® Data Warehouse for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage adult beneficiaries with diabetes types 1 and 2, who filled any glucose-lowering medication between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016. Demographic (age, sex, race, income), clinical (comorbidities), and insurance-related factors affecting first prescription for a SGLT2i were examined using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Among 1,054,727 adults with pharmacologically treated diabetes, 7.2% ( n = 75,500) initiated a SGLT2i. Patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91–0.96), heart failure (HF) (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.91–0.94), kidney disease (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.78–0.81), and severe hypoglycemia (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94–0.98) were all less likely to start a SGLT2i; P < 0.001 for all. SGLT2i were also less likely to be started by patients ≥75 years (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.55–0.59, vs. 18–44 years), Black patients (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.91–0.95, vs. White), and those with Medicare Advantage insurance (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.62–0.64, vs. commercial). Conclusions: Younger, healthier, non-Black patients with commercial health insurance were most likely to start taking SGLT2i. Patients with MI, HF, kidney disease, and prior hypoglycemia were less likely to use SGLT2i, despite evidence supporting their preferential use in these patients. Efforts to address this treatment-risk paradox may help improve health outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes.

AbstractBackgroundReflecting (“stop‐and‐think”) before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self‐reported SDM measures.MethodsWe asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3‐item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open‐ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient.ResultsIn Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores (“less” SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001).ConclusionReflection‐before‐quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient‐reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.

Abstract Evidence regarding the effects of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) on adverse pregnancy outcomes and the ability of levothyroxine (LT4) treatment to prevent them is unclear. Available recommendations for the management of SCH during pregnancy are inconsistent. We conducted a nationwide survey among physicians assessing their knowledge of and current practices in the care of SCH in pregnancy and compared these with the most recent American Thyroid Association (ATA) recommendations. In this cross-sectional study, an online survey was sent to active US members of the Endocrine Society. This survey included questions about current practices and clinical scenarios aimed at assessing diagnostic evaluation, initiation of therapy, and follow-up in pregnant women with SCH. In total, 162 physicians completed the survey. ATA guidelines were reviewed by 76%, of whom 53% indicated that these guidelines actually changed their practice. Universal screening was the preferred screening approach (54%), followed by targeted screening (30%). For SCH diagnosis, most respondents (52%) endorsed a TSH level >2.5 mIU/L as a cutoff, whereas 5% endorsed a population-based cutoff as recommended by the ATA. The decision to initiate treatment varied depending on the specific clinical scenario; however, when LT4 was initiated, respondents expected a small/very small reduction in maternofetal complications. In conclusion, despite recently updated guidelines, there is still wide variation in clinical practices regarding the care of women with SCH in pregnancy. Highly reliable randomized trials are required to evaluate the effectiveness of the most uncertain treatment practices on the care of pregnant women with SCH.

Abstract Context The extent to which some pharmacological interventions reduce or increase the risk of biochemical conversion to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in at-risk individuals is unclear. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus through 24 August 2017 for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of drugs suspected to modify the risk of biochemical conversion to T2DM. Results We included 43 trials with 192,156 subjects (mean age, 60 years; 56% men; mean body mass index, 30.4 kg/m2). α-Glucosidase inhibitors, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, metformin, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate, and pioglitazone significantly reduced the risk of biochemical conversion to T2DM, whereas statins and nateglinide increased the risk. There was insufficient direct evidence regarding the effects of sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Most trials were brief and evaluated this outcome during treatment without a withdrawal or washout period. Conclusions Several drugs modify the risk of biochemical conversation to T2DM, although whether this effect is persistent and clinically relevant is unclear. Future studies need to focus on cardiovascular disease prevention, mortality, and patient-important outcomes instead of biochemical conversion to T2DM.

AbstractObjectiveThis study assesses the attitudes and preferences of Chinese clinicians toward their involvement in shared decision making (SDM).MethodsFrom May 2014 to May 2015, 200 Chinese clinicians from two hospitals were enrolled to complete a survey on their attitude towards SDM. We conducted the survey via face‐to‐face interviews before and after an educational intervention on SDM among young Chinese clinicians. The clinicians were asked to give the extent of agreement to SDM. They also gave the extent of difficulty in using decision aids (DAs) during the SDM process. The variation in the range of responses to each question before and after the SDM intervention was recorded. The frequency of changed responses was analyzed by using JMP 6.0 software. Data were statistically analyzed using Chi‐square and Mann–Whitney U tests, as appropriate to the data type. Multiple logistic regressions were used to test for those factors significantly and independently associated with preference for an approach for each scenario.ResultsOf the 200 young Chinese clinicians sampled, 59.0% indicated a preference for SDM and a desire to participate in SDM before receiving education or seeing the DA, and this number increased to 69.0% after seeing the DA with the sample video of the SDM process on Statin Choice. However, 28.5% of the respondents still reported that, in their current practice, they make clinical decisions on behalf of their patients. The clinicians who denied a desire to use the DA stated that the main barriers to implement SDM or DA use in China are lack of time and knowledge of SDM.ConclusionsMost young Chinese clinicians want to participate in SDM. However, they state the main barriers to perform SDM are lack of experience and time. The educational intervention about SDM that exposes clinicians to DAs was found to increase their receptivity.

Abstract Background: The Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) is a self-reported measure of the effect of treatment workload on patient wellbeing. We sought to validate the TBQ in Spanish and use it to estimate the burden of treatment in Argentinian patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: The TBQ was forward-backward translated into Spanish. Two focus groups and 25 semi-structured interviews focused on wording and possible item exclusion. Validation was performed in 2 steps. First, 162 patients across a range of MS severity completed the questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis assessed the dimensional structure of the TBQ. Construct validity was assessed by studying correlations with fatigue and quality of life (QoL). Then, in a second cohort of 171 patients, we evaluated the association between TBQ scores and patients’ sex, age, education level, employment status, type of MS, disease duration, comorbidities, EDSS, pharmacological treatment and medication adherence. Results: The questionnaire presented a 3-factor structure in which burden was related to pharmacological treatment; comprehensive health assistance; and psycho-social-economic context. Composite reliability was > 0.8 for all factors. TBQ showed positive correlation with fatigue (rs= 0.467, p=0.006), negative correlation with QoL (rs -0.446, p=0.009). For the second cohort, total TBQ score was 43 (SD 29). Lowest scores were observed on self-monitoring (0.53, SD 1.3) and highest for administrative load (4.2, SD 3.4). Inverse association was found between the TBQ score and medication adherence (r 0.243 p=0.001). TBQ scores also correlated with daily patient pill/injection requirements (r 0.175 p=0.020). Individuals receiving injectable treatment scored higher than patients on oral drugs (total TBQ 51 (SD 32) vs 39 (SD 27) p=0.002). Conclusions: The TBQ in Spanish is a reliable instrument and showed adequate correlation with QoL and adherence scales in MS patients. TBQ may benefit health resources allocation and provide tailor therapeutic interventions to construct a minimally disruptive care.

6596 Background: Several previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have attempted to summarize toxicity of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, very soon after each one of these reviews has been published, it became outdated. ICIs are currently used in 14 different cancers and data is rapidly evolving from new clinical trials. A living Systematic review, which is defined as a systematic review that is continually updated to incorporate relevant new evidence as it becomes available, is necessary in this situations. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and a meta-analysis which will serve as a foundation of a living Systematic review. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched to identify phase 2 and 3 RCTs of PD-1/PD-L1 ICIs. Included studies compared either immunotherapy alone or combination with existing standard of care treatment and reported data for AE’s of interest. DerSimonian-Laird random effects Meta-Analysis was performed to derive pooled odds Ratio (OR) estimates for AE’s of interest. An infrastructure of a living systematic review is being developed and it includes monthly literature searches, cumulative meta-analysis and an online reporting platform. Results: We screened 6746 studies and 31 phase 3 and 2 phase 2 RCTs (n = 21,421) were included in the analysis. 22 RCTs used PD-1/PD-L1 ICIs as a single agent and 11 as a combination therapy. Selected toxicity estimates are summarized in a table. Conclusions: The meta-analysis updates previously published toxicity estimates and provides additional information about the risk of toxicities in single versus combination regimens. We have initiated the first living systematic review in oncology that will be continuously updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available, and will provide accurate and up to date toxicity estimates to support clinical decision making. [Table: see text]