Citations

Abstract Objective Regulations for clinical laboratories in the United States are complex. The goal of this review is to improve the clarity of laboratory-developed test (LDT) regulation to facilitate innovation. Methods A literature and regulation review of current legislation for compliance by U.S. clinical laboratories was performed, and examples of the steps to implement LDTs within compliance with the regulatory environment are shared. Results Many federal and state jurisdictions are critical to the functionality of a laboratory in addition to upcoming potential promulgation of the Verifying Accurate Leading-Edge IVCT Development Act. Increased regulation, although imperative to maintain consistent, high-standard clinical care, could mean additional costs for developers and healthcare while also hindering innovation. Conclusion An extensive discussion of proposed regulations for LDTs needs to occur. Laboratory testing requires the sustained use of innovative methods at a cost that will permit continued, timely, uninterrupted high-quality service.

Background While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria. Methods In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced. Results GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes. Conclusions GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future.

7044 Background: There is growing interest to implement electronic patient-reported outcomes in oncology practices for symptom monitoring. It is not well known what nurse, physician, and patient impressions of benefits, acceptability, and challenges are in routine care use. Methods: PRO-TECT is an ongoing U.S. national trial including 26 community oncology practices across 15 states that implemented PRO symptom monitoring [NCT03249090]. Patients complete weekly PROs between visits, nurses receive alerts for severe/worsening symptoms, and oncologists review PROs at office visits. Interviews were conducted with 147 stakeholders including nurses (N = 46), oncologists (N = 27), data managers (N = 15), and patients (N = 59). Each stakeholder group had different interview guides with overlapping topics to explore experiences with the PRO system. Interviews lasted 15-60 minutes, were digitally recorded, transcribed, and entered into a qualitative analysis software program. A codebook was developed from the research questions, interview guides, and discussions with the project team. Standardized coding methods were applied, with transcripts double coded for thematic analysis. Feedback surveys were also completed by nurses (N = 57), oncologists (N = 38), and patients (N = 435). Results: Key benefits perceived across stakeholder groups included increased patient self-awareness of symptoms; improved direct communication of patients with care teams; more open and honest conveying of symptom experiences; ability to track symptoms over time; and increased involvement of patients in their own care. Most stakeholders felt PRO symptom monitoring had a positive impact on quality of care delivery, and believed benefits of PROs outweighed necessary staff efforts. Challenges included additional work by nurses to review and respond to alerts, staff turnover requiring retraining, and limited time of oncologists. In the survey, 39/56 (70%) nurses felt the PRO system improved quality of care; 27/33 (82%) oncologists noted PROs were useful for team discussions and care delivery; and 320/434 (74%) patients agreed that weekly PRO reporting improved discussions with their care team. Conclusions: Clinicians and patients perceived weekly PRO symptom monitoring between visits to be valuable despite added staff effort. Results of additional analyses are forthcoming. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090 .

7018 Background: Standard reporting of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in oncology relies on clinicians to rate patient (pt) experience using CTCAE; each symptom is represented by a single graded item. To capture direct pt experience, NCI developed PRO-CTCAE to supplement CTCAE. In PRO-CTCAE, the pt answers up to 3 questions per AE about a symptom’s frequency, severity and interference with daily activities. To align PRO-CTCAE with CTCAE, we developed an algorithm for mapping sets of questions for an AE to a single composite numerical grade. Methods: We used a 5-step process. (1) All 187 possible PRO-CTCAE score permutations were presented to clinical investigators to subjectively map permutations to single numerical grades (range 0-3). (2) Permutations with < 75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating AEs between study arms was measured in 2 phase III clinical trials (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A091105 and Exelixis COMET-2). Results: (1) 12/187 score permutations had < 75% initial agreement. (2) Majority consensus was reached for all permutations. (3) 5 mappings were adjusted to assure directional consistency. (4) Composite grades for 46/59 (78%) AEs were higher in pts with ECOG performance status 2-4 vs 0-1 (median effect size 0.23 [range -0.49-0.73]; 32/59 effect size ≥0.2; 25/59 p< 0.05), similar to when conducting analysis on individual unmapped items. The test-retest reliability for 24 selected composite grades ranged from 0.57-0.96 (median intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.77) with 18/24 (75%) grades having ICC ≥0.7. Median (range) standardized response means in pts reporting worsening, no change, and improvement were 0.20 (0.03-0.34), -0.06 (-0.20-0.03) and -0.12 (-0.32-0.06). (5) Pattern, directionality and statistical significance of between-arm differences in both trials were preserved with composite grades as compared to individual unmapped items. Conclusions: A composite grading algorithm for PRO-CTCAE was rigorously developed and validated. PRO-CTCAE composite grades may be useful in analyses to provide a single metric for each pt-reported AE for trial and real-world reporting. Support: UG1CA189823; U01CA233046; HHSN261200800043C; Bayer (A091105); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org .

1087 Background: OlympiAD (NCT02000622) demonstrated the benefit of olaparib over standard of care in patients (pts) with HER2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and germline BRCA mutations (gBRCAm). LUCY (NCT03286842) aimed to provide additional data on the real-world effectiveness and safety of olaparib monotherapy in this setting. Methods: This Phase IIIb, open-label, single-arm study of olaparib 300 mg twice-daily, enrolled pts with HER2- gBRCAm MBC who had received a taxane and/or anthracycline in the (neo)adjuvant/metastatic setting, and ≤2 lines of chemotherapy for MBC. Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) pts had progressed on prior endocrine therapy (ET), and further ET was considered unsuitable. Primary endpoint: investigator-defined progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints: overall survival, time to first subsequent therapy or death (TFST), and investigator-assessed clinical response rate (CRR). The interim analysis was planned after 160 PFS events. Results: From Oct 2018-Sept 2019, 252 pts were enrolled (160 sites, 15 countries; mean age 46.2 [range 22-75] years; 73.4% ECOG PS 0). Median total treatment duration: 7.9 months (mo; range 0.2-20.0). Median PFS: 8.1 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.9, 8.7; 166 events [65.9%]). Clinical trial information: NCT03286842 . Median TFST: 9.7 mo (95% CI 8.7, 11.1). CRR: 48.6% (95% CI 42.2, 55.0). Adverse events (AEs) in >20% of pts (all grades): nausea, anemia, asthenia, vomiting, and fatigue. 24.6% of pts reported a grade ≥3 AE, including anemia (n=33 [13.1%]). 4.4% of pts had an AE leading to treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: Interim results in this real-world population of pts with HER2- gBRCAm MBC were consistent with the OlympiAD study, and support olaparib as a chemotherapy-free alternative treatment for pts with gBRCAm advanced BC. [Table: see text]

Background: With the rising cost of critical care and limited availability of critical care resources, improvements are need in the current cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) triage process. We sought to determine whether the Mayo Clinic Intensive Care Unit Admission Risk Score (M-CARS) could be used to predict which CICU patients will require critical care resources. Methods: Adult patients admitted to our CICU from 2007 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The M-CARS was calculated using data from the time of admission. Groups were compared using Wilcoxon test for continuous variables and chi-squared test for categorical variables. Results: We included 12,428 patients with a mean age of 67 ± 15 years (37% females). The mean M-CARS was 2.1 ± 2.1, including 5,890 (47.4%) patients with M-CARS <2 and 644 (5.2%) patients with M-CARS >6. Critical care therapies were frequently used, including mechanical ventilation in 28.0%, vasoactive medications in 25.5%, dialysis in 4.8% and invasive lines in 44.3%. The low-risk cohort with M-CARS <2 was less likely to require invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation (8.0% vs. 46.1%), vasoactive medications (10.1% vs. 38.8%), dialysis (1.0% vs. 8.2%) or invasive lines (34.6% vs. 53.0%), as compared to patients with M-CARS ≥2 (all p<0.001). A higher M-CARS was associated with greater use of critical care therapies and longer CICU and hospital length of stay. Conclusions: In addition to predicting hospital mortality, the M-CARS predicts resource utilization during CICU admission and could be used in the triage of critically ill cardiac patients. Patients with M-CARS <2 infrequently require critical care resources and have extremely low mortality, yet account for nearly half of all CICU admissions, suggesting a potential to avoid CICU admission in many patients.

In response to the rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the potential need for physicians to provide critical care services, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has collaborated with the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF) to develop the COVID-Activated Emergency Scaling of Anesthesiology Responsibilities (CAESAR) Intensive Care Unit (ICU) workgroup. CAESAR-ICU is designed and written for the practicing general anesthesiologist and should serve as a primer to enable an anesthesiologist to provide limited bedside critical care services.