Akard, Luke P.

PURPOSE Public reporting of health care outcomes can have unintended effects such as inappropriate risk aversion in patient selection. METHODS The center-specific survival analysis annually assigns all hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) centers in the United States a +1, −1, or 0 score for observed outcomes that are above, below, or within a center-specific predicted range of outcome. For each index year (2012-2016), centers receiving a −1 score after 0 scores in the preceding 2 years were compared with contemporaneous centers with as-predicted outcomes (0 score). Changes in the patient population characteristics in the 3 years before versus the 3 years after the index years were compared between the newly below-expected centers (NBCs) and the controls. A multivariate model adjusted for baseline patient population characteristics and center volume. RESULTS No differences in patient selection behavior were identified when comparing the NBCs with the controls across eight key patient population characteristics. For the statistically modeled (predicted) 1-year overall survival (OS), reflecting a holistic measure of centers' patient population risk, we observed no statistically significant difference in change (−0.23% [95% CI, −1.4 to 0.9]; P = .70). The observed OS increased in both NBCs and controls by 0.9% and 4.5%, respectively, without statistically significant difference in change. CONCLUSION Centers receiving a −1 score were not observed to deviate significantly from patient selection trends in the HCT field. These findings suggest that public reporting of HCT outcomes in the United States does not result in unintended bias against HCT for high-risk patients.

Introduction Public reporting of outcomes drives healthcare improvement in many fields, including hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), although with possible unintended consequences. The Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) publishes an annual Center-Specific Survival Analysis (CSA), which compares HCT centers' observed 1-year overall survival (OS) with their statistically modeled expected 1-year OS, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Centers with OS within their 95% CI receive a 0 score, indicating as expected outcomes. Those with OS below / above their 95% CI receive a -1 / +1 score, indicating below / above expected OS, respectively. After a -1 report, centers may change their patient selection criteria, causing unintentional systematic exclusion of patient populations who could benefit from HCT. We analyzed how the CSA report influences patient selection practices among centers receiving a -1 score. Methods Centers receiving a -1 report between 2012 and 2016 that had ‘as expected’ survival in the preceding 2 years were classified as newly below expected OS centers (NBCs). The year of their -1 report was used as the index year. Centers with ‘as expected’ OS in the 3 years before and after each index year were identified as control centers, reflecting expected evolution of patient selection in the HCT field. The patient population variables analyzed are shown in Table 1. The difference in patient population characteristics in the 3 years before vs the 3 years after the index years defined the change in patient selection behavior at the NBCs and the controls. A multivariate model adjusting for baseline patient population characteristics and center size was used to compare the change in patient population from before and after the index year in the NBCs and that of the controls. The difference in differences (ΔinΔ) were calculated as ΔNBC - ΔControl. A significance threshold of p<0.01 was used to account for multiple testing. Results After adjusting for overall trends, center size, and baseline patient population characteristics, no differences in patient selection behavior meeting the pre-specified threshold for statistical significance were identified when comparing the NBCs (n=24 centers) with the controls (n=195 centers). In the 3 years following the index years, 4,150 and 25,013 patients were transplanted at NBCs and controls, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving reduced intensity or non-myeloablative conditioning regimens decreased 4.1% in NBCs and increased 5.0% in controls, for a net difference of -9.1% (95% CI: -16.7% to -1.6%, p=0.02). All other patient characteristic proportions changed in the same direction at NBCs and controls, albeit to varying degrees (Table 1). In some high-risk characteristics, (e.g. HCT-CI > 3), a greater increase was seen at NBCs vs controls (ΔinΔ 2.1% 95% CI: -2.8% to 6.9%, p=0.40). In others, (e.g. age 60+ years), a greater increase was seen at controls vs NBCs (ΔinΔ -2.6% 95% CI: -5.9% to 0.7%, p=0.12). To capture a holistic measure of centers' patient population risk, the predicted 1-year survival was compared in the NBCs vs controls using the logistic regression model generated for each year's CSA. The predicted OS increased by 3.08% and 3.30% in the NBCs and controls respectively, with no statistically significant difference (-0.23%, 95% CI: -1.4% to 0.9%, p=0.70, Figure 1). The observed overall survival (adjusted for predicted 1 year OS) also increased in both BECs and controls by 0.9% and 4.5% respectively, without statistically significant difference (-3.6%, 95% CI: -6.7% to -0.7%, p=0.02). Discussion For centers receiving a -1 report, no statistically significant changes were seen in patient population characteristics in the following 3 years when compared to centers with OS was as expected. There was variability in the changes in high-risk patient characteristics at the NBCs relative to the controls, and in some cases more patients with high-risk characteristics were selected at these centers compared to those at controls. The change in predicted overall survival at 1 year, a summary indicator of survival risk, was similar between BECs and control centers. Although the number of patients in centers with below expected OS was small, these findings suggest the public reporting of outcomes in HCT in the US does not unintentionally affect access to HCT for high-risk patients at NBCs.

PURPOSEStandard cytotoxic induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) results in prolonged neutropenia and risk of infection. Romyelocel-L is a universal, allogeneic myeloid progenitor cell product being studied to reduce infection during induction chemotherapy.PATIENTS AND METHODSOne hundred sixty-three patients with de novo AML (age ≥ 55 years) receiving induction chemotherapy were randomly assigned on day 0 (d0), of whom 120 were evaluable. Subjects received either romyelocel-L infusion on d9 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) starting daily d14 (treatment group) or G-CSF daily alone on d14 (control) until absolute neutrophil count recovery to 500/µL. End points included days in febrile episode, microbiologically defined infections, clinically diagnosed infection, and days in hospital.RESULTSMean days in febrile episode was shorter in the treatment arm from d15 through d28 (2.36 v 3.90; P = .02). Similarly, a trend toward decreased microbiologically defined infections and clinically diagnosed infection in the treatment arm was observed from d9 to d28 (35.6% v 47.5%; P = .09), reaching a statistically significant difference from d15 to d28 (6.8% v 27.9%; P = .002). Because of this, antibacterial or antifungal use for treatment of an infection was significantly less in the treatment group (d9-d28: 44.1% v 63.9%; P = .01). Significantly fewer patients in the treatment arm received empiric antifungals from d9 tod28 (42.4% v 63.9%; P = .02) and d15-d28 (42.4% v 62.3%; P = .02). Patients in the treatment arm also had 3.2 fewer hospital days compared with control (25.5 v 28.7; P = .001). Remission rates and days to absolute neutrophil count recovery were similar in the two groups. No patients in the romyelocel-L plus G-CSF group died because of infection compared with two patients in the control arm. No graft-versus-host disease was observed.CONCLUSIONSubjects receiving romyelocel-L showed a decreased incidence of infections, antimicrobial use, and hospitalization, suggesting that romyelocel-L may provide a new option to reduce infections in patients with AML undergoing induction therapy.

Background: The phase II, exploratory, open-label Exploring Nilotinib BCR-ABL Effects (ENABL) study [ ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00644878] assessed the impact of switching to nilotinib therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) who had a suboptimal molecular response with imatinib. Methods: Patients with CML-CP who had previously achieved a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), but had a suboptimal molecular response, with frontline imatinib therapy ( N = 18) were assigned to receive nilotinib 300 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was the change in BCR-ABL1 transcript levels from baseline after 12 months; rates of major molecular response (MMR) and safety were also assessed. Results: At 3 months after switching to nilotinib, 10 of 17 (59%) evaluable patients had achieved MMR. At 12 months, 9 of 12 (75%) evaluable patients had achieved MMR, and the median BCR-ABL1 level among all patients remaining in the study was 0.020% on the International Scale (IS), equivalent to a 3.7-log reduction from the standardized IS baseline (primary endpoint). Adverse events (AEs) were typically grade 1/2 and manageable with dose interruptions. A total of three patients experienced serious study drug-related AEs, including pancreatitis, bradycardia, and vertigo. No deaths were reported. Conclusions: Overall, results from this exploratory study suggest that switching to nilotinib due to suboptimal molecular response with imatinib can result in improved molecular response for patients with CML-CP.