Shah, Nilay D.

70 Background: The prevalence of health insurance literacy (HIL) and financial literacy (FL) in cancer patients is not well described. Further, a better understanding of the association between these constructs and the domains of financial hardship (FH) can guide potential interventions. Methods: We examined the prevalence of HIL and FL and FH in cancer patients on active treatment at our institution. HIL and FL were assessed using Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM) and 5 questions from the National Financial Capability Study respectively. COST FACIT and National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) questions were used to examine overall FH and its 3 domains (material, behavioral and psychological hardship). Pearson correlation coefficient was used to describe the relation between the COST score and FH domains assessed by NHIS questions. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the associations of overall FH (measured by COST FACIT) with FL and HIL. Results: Among 256 patients approached, 202 completed questionnaires. Median age was 67 (range 22 to 91) years. 51% were male, 93% Whites and 5% were Hispanic. 69% had a solid tumor with 37% stage IV. Median number of lines of treatment was 4 (range 1 to 18). 21% were currently employed, 59% had ≥college degree, 41% had private insurance and 42% had monthly income≥$7000. 50% participants answered at least 4/5 FL questions correctly, indicating high FL. Being male, White, having insurance, higher education and income ≥$7000 were associated with higher FL. 72% of participants had high HIL, and they were more likely to be Non-Hispanic, married and have received more lines of treatment. FL significantly correlated with HIL (r = 0.29, p < .001). 65% patients endorsed FH based on NHIS questions (10% behavioral, 20% material, and 62% psychological hardship). 48% patients had FH based on a COST score < 28 (Median score), which correlated with material (r = -0.59, p < .001), psychological (r = -0.55, p < .001) and behavioral FH (r = -0.42, p < .001). The association between FH and HIL was not significant (OR 0.78; p = 0.08), though higher FL was associated with lower FH (OR 0.69; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Despite high FL and HIL (as compared to national standards), the prevalence of FH in our relatively affluent patient cohort was high, driven mainly by psychological hardship. We did not find strong association between the HIL and FH unlike in the reported literature. Our findings behoove us to develop tailored interventions to address unique domains of the FH in a diverse population.

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation and severely decreased kidney function were excluded from the pivotal non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) trials, thereby raising questions about comparative safety and effectiveness in patients with reduced kidney function. The study aimed to compare oral anticoagulants across the range of kidney function in patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results: Using a US administrative claims database with linked laboratory data, 34 569 new users of oral anticoagulants with atrial fibrillation and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥15 mL/(min·1.73 m 2 ) were identified between October 1, 2010 to November 29, 2017. The proportion of patients using NOACs declined with decreasing kidney function—73.5%, 69.6%, 65.4%, 59.5%, and 45.0% of the patients were prescribed a NOAC in estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥90, 60 to 90, 45 to 60, 30 to 45, 15 to 30 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 groups, respectively. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance 4 treatment groups (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin) on 66 baseline characteristics. In comparison to warfarin, apixaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57 [0.43–0.75]; P <0.001), major bleeding (HR, 0.51 [0.44–0.61]; P <0.001), and mortality (HR, 0.68 [0.56–0.83]; P <0.001); dabigatran was associated with a similar risk of stroke but a lower risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.57 [0.43–0.75]; P <0.001) and mortality (HR, 0.68 [0.48-0.98]; P =0.04); rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke (HR, 0.69 [0.51–0.94]; P =0.02), major bleeding (HR, 0.84 [0.72–0.99]; P =0.04), and mortality (HR, 0.73 [0.58–0.91]; P =0.006). There was no significant interaction between treatment and estimated glomerular filtration rate categories for any outcome. When comparing one NOAC to another NOAC, there was no significant difference in mortality, but some differences existed for stroke or major bleeding. No relationship between treatments and falsification end points was found, suggesting no evidence for substantial residual confounding. Conclusions: Relative to warfarin, NOACs are used less frequently as kidney function declines. However, NOACs appears to have similar or better comparative effectiveness and safety across the range of kidney function.

Abstract Rationale Many lung transplant centers prescribe antifungal medications after transplantation to prevent invasive fungal infections (IFIs); however, the effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis at reducing the risk of all-cause mortality or IFI has not been established. Objectives We aimed to evaluate the effect of antifungal prophylaxis on all-cause mortality and IFI in lung transplant patients. Methods Using administrative claims data, we identified adult patients who underwent lung transplantation between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018. Propensity score analysis using inverse probability treatment–weighting approach was used to balance the differences in baseline characteristics between those receiving antifungal prophylaxis and those not receiving antifungal prophylaxis. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare rates of all-cause mortality and IFI in both groups. Results We identified 662 lung transplant recipients (LTRs) (387 received prophylaxis and 275 did not). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in those receiving antifungal prophylaxis compared with those not receiving antifungal prophylaxis (event rate per 100 person-years, 8.36 vs. 19.49; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26–0.71; P = 0.003). Patients receiving antifungal prophylaxis had a lower rate of IFI compared with those not receiving prophylaxis (event rate per 100 person-years, 14.94 vs. 22.37; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.44–1.05; P = 0.079), but did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions In this real-world analysis, antifungal prophylaxis in LTRs was associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared with those not receiving antifungal prophylaxis. Rates of IFI were also lower in those receiving prophylaxis, but this was not statistically significant in our primary analysis.

SummaryBackgroundGastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) frequently occurs following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with the prescription of P2Y12 inhibiting antiplatelet agents. Compared with clopidogrel, the newer P2Y12 inhibitors lower major adverse cardiac events with similar or possibly higher major bleeding events. The comparative GIB rates of these medications remain poorly understood.AimTo compare GIB rates associated with clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor using national medical and pharmacy claims data from privately insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees .MethodsPropensity score and inverse probability treatment weighting were used to balance baseline characteristics among treatment groups. The 1‐year GIB risk was calculated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and expressed as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and number needed to harm (NNH).ResultsWe identified 37 019 patients with ACS (non‐ST elevation ACS [NSTE‐ACS] and ST‐elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI]) within 14 days of a PCI (mean age 63 years and 70% male). Clopidogrel prescription was most common (69%) with prasugrel (16%) and ticagrelor (14%) prescribed less frequently. When compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor was associated with a 34% risk reduction (HR 0.66; 95% CI: 0.54–0.81) in GIB overall and with NSTE‐ACS, and a 37% GIB risk reduction (HR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.42–0.93) in STEMI patients. When compared with clopidogrel, prasugrel was associated with a 21% risk reduction (HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64–0.97) overall, a 36% GIB risk reduction (HR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.49–0.85) in STEMI patients but no reduction of GIB risk in NSTE‐ACS patients.ConclusionsIn the first year following PCI, ticagrelor or prasugrel are associated with fewer GIB events than clopidogrel.