Xie, Jipan

Abstract The objective of the study was to assess racial disparities in the treatment and outcomes among white, African American, and Hispanic patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Patients with an MM diagnosis from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)–Medicare (2007-2013) database were included. Continuous Medicare enrollment for 6 months before (baseline) and after MM diagnosis was required unless death occurred. Time from MM diagnosis to novel therapy initiation and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), overall survival (OS), and MM-specific survival (MSS) was evaluated. Unadjusted and multivariable regressions compared African Americans and Hispanics vs whites. Trends of novel therapy and ASCT use across MM diagnosis years were assessed using linear regression models. The study included 3504 whites, 858 African Americans, and 468 Hispanics. African Americans and Hispanics had a longer time from MM diagnosis to novel therapy initiation vs whites (median: 5.2 and 4.6 vs 2.7 months, respectively). All cohorts had an increasing trend of novel therapy initiation within 6 months of MM diagnosis, particularly whites (all P < .05). Median MSS was significantly longer for African Americans (5.4 years) than whites (4.5 years; P < .05), and was comparable for Hispanics and whites. Median OS was similar overall (2.6-2.8 years). ASCT rate within 1 year of MM diagnosis rose among whites and African Americans (P < .05), but not Hispanics, who were less likely to receive ASCT vs whites. Significant variations in novel therapy and ASCT use were observed among different racial/ethnic groups with MM. Although OS was similar, both African Americans and Hispanics may not be fully benefitting from the introduction of novel therapies, as they receive them later than whites.

Background— A hub-and-spoke telestroke network is an effective way to extend quality acute stroke care to remote hospitals and to improve patient outcomes. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of a telestroke network in the management of acute ischemic stroke from the perspectives of a network, a hub hospital, and a spoke hospital. Methods and Results— A model was developed to compare costs and effectiveness with and without a telestroke network over a 5-year time horizon. The model considered differences in rates of teleconsultations, intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular stroke therapies, and spoke-to-hub transfers. These inputs were estimated through the use of data from Georgia Health Sciences University and Mayo Clinic telestroke networks. A network model with 1 hub and 7 spokes predicted that 45 more patients would be treated with intravenous thrombolysis and 20 more with endovascular stroke therapies per year compared with no network, leading to an estimate of 6.11 more home discharges. Each year, a telestroke network was associated with $358 435 in cost savings; each spoke had $109 080 in cost savings, whereas the hub had positive costs of $405 121. However, cost sharing can be arranged so that each hospital could achieve an equal amount of cost savings ($44 804/y). Results were sensitive to the number of spokes, marginal treatment costs in spokes and rates of transfer, and endovascular stroke therapies. Conclusions— The results of this study suggest that a telestroke network may increase the number of patients discharged home and reduce the costs borne by the network hospitals. Hospitals should consider their available resources and the network features when deciding whether to join or set up a network.