Rabideau, Dustin J.

Background With improvements in in vitro culture techniques, there has been a steady shift in practice to transfer in vitro fertilisation (IVF) embryos at the blastocyst-stage to increase pregnancy rates per embryo transfer (ET) and reduce the risk of multiple pregnancy. In patients with fewer embryos (≤5 zygotes), fresh cleavage-stage ET is still commonly performed to reduce the risk of cycle cancellation if no embryo survives to the blastocyst-stage in vitro. However, evidence for improved outcomes with cleavage-stage embryo transfer in this subgroup of patients is lacking. We will compare blastocyst-stage to cleavage-stage ET with regard to cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) per oocyte retrieval and other patient-centred cycle outcomes in patients with ≤5 zygotes. Methods and analysis Multicentre, randomised pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial with superiority design comparing blastocyst-stage to cleavage-stage ET in patients with ≤5 zygotes. This trial will enrol and randomise 1126 women aged 18–44 undergoing IVF to either fresh cleavage-stage or blastocyst-stage ET at eleven IVF centres. Surplus embryos will be vitrified at the blastocyst-stage. The primary outcome is the CLBR per oocyte retrieval. Secondary outcomes include: multiple pregnancy, pregnancy loss <20 weeks and cycle cancellation. Exploratory outcomes include: live birth per fresh ET, ectopic pregnancy, time to pregnancy, stillbirth, preterm birth, financial burden, patient distress and facilitators and barriers for patient involvement and implementation. All primary analyses will be conducted according to the intent-to-treat principle. We also will report per-protocol analyses as a sensitivity analysis. A multidisciplinary stakeholder team, including a 5-patient stakeholder panel, will participate in study design, conduct and oversight. Ethics and dissemination The Institutional Review Board at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) provides central regulatory oversight. Results will inform timing of embryo transfer in patients with ≤5 zygotes and will be disseminated through academic publications, meeting presentations and communications to advocacy groups and patient participants. Trial registration number NCT06746129 .

1649 Background: Findings from our prior large-scale comparative effectiveness trial showed the equivalent effect of delivering early palliative care via video versus in-person on quality of life among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We now report on whether the two care delivery modalities were equivalent with respect to patient-reported communication with clinicians about their end-of-life (EOL) care preferences and hospice utilization. Methods: Between 6/14/2018 and 5/4/2023, we enrolled 1250 patients with newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC in a randomized trial of early palliative care across 22 US cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to meet with a palliative care clinician every 4 weeks from enrollment through the course of the disease, either via video or in the outpatient clinic. Participants completed self-report surveys at baseline and weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48, including an item asking if they had discussed with their clinicians the care they would want to receive if dying (yes/no); patients’ final assessments prior to death or last follow up were analyzed. We reviewed patients’ health records to collect data on hospice referral and length of stay. To test the equivalence in these outcomes, we used a binomial generalized linear model with the identity link function (pre-specified equivalence margin of ±8% for patient-reported communication about EOL care) and linear regression (pre-specified equivalence margin of ±6 days for mean length of stay in hospice). P-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Results: Of the 1250 enrolled participants, 888 (71.0%) completed at least one survey post baseline regarding whether they communicated with clinicians about EOL care preferences. Among those, 29.1% of the video group and 26.0% of the in-person group reported “yes,” indicating that they recalled such EOL care discussions (difference = 3.1%, 95% CI: -1.8%, 8.1%; p = 0.26 for equivalence). During the course of the trial, 733/1250 (58.6%) patients died, of whom 537/733 (73.3%) were referred to hospice. Mean lengths of hospice stay were 25.3 days for the video group versus 25.1 days for the in-person group (difference = 0.2, 95% CI: -7.0, 7.4; p = 0.46 for equivalence). When excluding outlying patients receiving hospice services > 180 days (n = 13), the mean lengths of hospice stay were 19.1 (video group) versus 19.7 (in-person group) days (difference = -0.6, 95% CI: -4.6, 3.3; p = 0.06 for equivalence). Conclusions: Although thresholds were not met to confirm equivalence statistically, the two modalities for delivering early palliative care demonstrate very similar outcomes with respect to patient-clinician communication about EOL care and hospice utilization. These findings provide further evidence of the utility of video visits for providing high quality palliative and EOL care. Clinical trial information: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier ( NCT03375489 ) .

Importance Numerous studies show that early palliative care improves quality of life and other key outcomes in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, although most lack access to this evidence-based model of care. Objective To evaluate whether delivering early palliative care via secure video vs in-person visits has an equivalent effect on quality of life in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, multisite, comparative effectiveness trial from June 14, 2018, to May 4, 2023, at 22 US cancer centers among 1250 patients within 12 weeks of diagnosis of advanced NSCLC and 548 caregivers. Intervention Participants were randomized to meet with a specialty-trained palliative care clinician every 4 weeks either via video visit or in person in the outpatient clinic from the time of enrollment and throughout the course of disease. The video visit group had an initial in-person visit to establish rapport, followed by subsequent virtual visits. Main Outcomes and Measures Equivalence of the effect of video visit vs in-person early palliative care on quality of life at week 24 per the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung questionnaire (equivalence margin of ±4 points; score range: 0-136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life). Participants completed study questionnaires at enrollment and at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48. Results By 24 weeks, participants (mean age, 65.5 years; 54.0% women; 82.7% White) had a mean of 4.7 (video) and 4.9 (in-person) early palliative care encounters. Patient-reported quality-of-life scores were equivalent between groups (video mean, 99.7 vs in-person mean, 97.7; difference, 2.0 [90% CI, 0.1-3.9]; P = .04 for equivalence). Rate of caregiver participation in visits was lower for video vs in-person early palliative care (36.6% vs 49.7%; P &amp;lt; .001). Study groups did not differ in caregiver quality of life, patient coping, or patient and caregiver satisfaction with care, mood symptoms, or prognostic perceptions. Conclusions and Relevance The delivery of early palliative care virtually vs in person demonstrated equivalent effects on quality of life in patients with advanced NSCLC, underscoring the considerable potential for improving access to this evidence-based care model through telehealth delivery. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03375489

LBA3 Background: National guidelines recommend the early integration of palliative and oncology care for patients with advanced cancer, given robust evidence showing that this care model improves quality of life (QOL) and other important outcomes. However, most patients do not receive early palliative care (EPC) in the outpatient setting due to limited access and resources. To overcome these barriers, we conducted a large-scale comparative effectiveness trial of EPC delivered via secure video versus in person among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and their caregivers. Methods: Between 6/14/2018 and 5/4/2023, we enrolled 1250 patients with advanced NSCLC, diagnosed in the past 12 weeks, into a randomized trial of telehealth versus in-person EPC across 22 cancer centers in the US. Patients were randomly assigned to meet with a palliative care clinician every four weeks from enrollment through the course of disease either via video or in the outpatient clinic. Participants completed self-report measures at baseline and weeks 12 and 24. The primary aim was to evaluate the equivalence of the effect of telehealth versus in-person EPC on QOL at week 24, using regression modeling with an equivalence margin of ±4 points on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L, range = 0-136). We also compared rates of caregiver participation in EPC visits and patient-reported depression and anxiety symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), coping (Brief COPE), and perceptions of prognosis (Perceptions of Treatment and Prognosis Questionnaire) between groups. Study recruitment ceased for two months at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Participants (mean age = 65.5 years; 54.0% female; 82.1% White) had a mean of 4.75 and 4.92 palliative care encounters by week 24 in the telehealth and in-person groups, respectively. Due to the pandemic, the in-person group had 3.9% of visits occur via video. QOL scores at week 24 for patients assigned to the telehealth group were equivalent to those receiving in-person EPC (adjusted means: 99.67 versus 97.67, p < 0.043 for equivalence). The rate of caregiver participation in EPC visits was lower in the telehealth versus in-person group (36.6% versus 49.7%, p < 0.0001). Study groups did not differ in depression and anxiety symptoms, use of coping skills, or perceptions of the goal of treatment and curability of their cancer. Conclusions: The delivery of EPC via video versus in-person visits demonstrated equivalent effects on QOL in patients with advanced NSCLC. The two modalities also did not differ across a range of patient-reported outcomes, though caregivers attended more in-person versus video visits. The findings underscore the considerable potential for improving access to and broader dissemination of this evidence-based care model through telehealth delivery. Clinical trial information: NCT03375489 .

ObjectiveExamine the effects of obesity and metabolic syndrome on outcome in bipolar disorder.MethodThe Comparative Effectiveness of a Second Generation Antipsychotic Mood Stabilizer and a Classic Mood Stabilizer for Bipolar Disorder (Bipolar CHOICE) study randomized 482 participants with bipolar disorder in a 6‐month trial comparing lithium‐ and quetiapine‐based treatment. Baseline variables were compared between groups with and without obesity, with and without abdominal obesity, and with and without metabolic syndrome respectively. The effects of baseline obesity, abdominal obesity, and metabolic syndrome on outcomes were examined using mixed effects linear regression models.ResultsAt baseline, 44.4% of participants had obesity, 48.0% had abdominal obesity, and 27.3% had metabolic syndrome; neither obesity, nor abdominal obesity, nor metabolic syndrome were associated with increased global severity, mood symptoms, or suicidality, or with poorer functioning or life satisfaction. Treatment groups did not differ on prevalence of obesity, abdominal obesity, or metabolic syndrome. By contrast, among the entire cohort, obesity was associated with less global improvement and less improvement in total mood and depressive symptoms, suicidality, functioning, and life satisfaction after 6 months of treatment. Abdominal obesity was associated with similar findings. Metabolic syndrome had no effect on outcome.ConclusionObesity and abdominal obesity, but not metabolic syndrome, were associated with less improvement after 6 months of lithium‐ or quetiapine‐based treatment.

Objective: This study examines characteristics of individuals with bipolar disorder who sought psychotherapy versus those who did not. Methods: Bipolar CHOICE was an 11-site comparative effectiveness study of lithium versus quetiapine in symptomatic outpatients ( N = 482) with bipolar disorder. At baseline, participants’ psychotherapy use within the past 3 months, mood, functioning, and overall health were assessed. Logistic regressions were used to test whether psychotherapy users and non-users differed on various demographic and clinical variables at baseline. Mixed-effects regression was used to determine whether psychotherapy groups differed on response to treatment over the 6-month study. Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank tests were employed to test whether there were any differences in time to recovery (CGI-BP ≤ 2 for at least 8 weeks) between the groups. Results: Thirty one percent of participants reported using psychotherapy services. Psychotherapy users reported greater medication side effect burden than non-users and were more likely to have moderate to high suicide risk and at least one anxiety disorder. Participants not utilizing medications or psychotherapy had greater mania symptom severity, were younger, and less educated than medication only users. Medication only users were more likely to be married than the other participants. Conclusions: These data suggest that a minority of individuals with bipolar disorder attend psychotherapy services, and those that do have greater illness burden.

ObjectivesIndividuals with bipolar disorder have high rates of other medical comorbidity, which is associated with higher mortality rates and worse course of illness. The present study examined common predictors of medical comorbidity.MethodsThe Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder study (Bipolar CHOICE) enrolled 482 participants with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder in a six‐month, randomized comparative effectiveness trial. Baseline assessments included current and lifetime DSM‐IV‐TR diagnoses, demographic information, psychiatric and medical history, severity of psychiatric symptoms, level of functioning, and a fasting blood draw. Medical comorbidities were categorized into two groups: cardiometabolic (e.g., diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and metabolic syndrome) and non‐cardiovascular (e.g., seizures, asthma, and cancer). Additionally, we looked at comorbid substance use (e.g., smoking and drug dependence).ResultsWe found that 96.3% of participants had at least one other medical comorbidity. Older age predicted a greater likelihood of having a cardiometabolic condition. Early age of onset of bipolar symptoms was associated with a lower chance of having a cardiometabolic condition, but a greater chance of having other types of medical comorbidity. Additional predictors of other medical comorbidities in bipolar disorder included more time spent depressed, less time spent manic/hypomanic, and longer duration of illness. Medications associated with weight gain were associated with low high‐density lipoprotein and abnormal triglycerides.ConclusionsThere appears to be a substantial medical burden associated with bipolar disorder, highlighting the need for collaborative care among psychiatric and general medical providers to address both psychiatric and other medical needs concomitantly in this group of patients.