Citations

Abstract Background We previously tested an intervention featuring educational outreach with modified academic detailing (AD) to increase anticoagulation (AC) use in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Currently, we compare providers receiving and not receiving AD in terms of inclusion of our AD educational topics and shared decision-making elements in documentation. Methods Physicians reviewed themes discussed with providers during AD and evaluated charts for evidence of shared decision-making. We then compared frequency of documentation of individual items for providers receiving AD compared with non-AD providers. To understand baseline documentation practices of AD providers, we also randomly selected encounters of AD providers before their AD participation. Results There were 113 eligible encounters in the four months after AD - 36 from AD providers and 77 from non-AD providers. We also identified 35 encounters from AD providers before participating in the intervention. Providers infrequently documented many reviewed items (% documenting): AC mentioned (44%), multiple options for AC (5%), CHA2DS2-VASc score (11%), bleeding risk factors (2%). Compared with non-AD providers, AD providers had statistically significant higher percentages for the following items: mention of AC (64% versus 35%), stroke risk (11% versus 0%), AC benefits (8% versus 0%), patient involvement (70% versus 0%). There was no improvement, however, for AD providers compared with baseline documentation percentages. Conclusions Providers infrequently documented important items in AC management and shared decision-making. AD participation did not improve documentation. Improving adoption of AD educational items may require more prolonged interaction with providers. Improving shared decision-making may require an intervention more focused on it and its documentation. Trial Registration The trial was registered as NCT03583008 on Clinicaltrials.gov on July 11, 2018.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly ulcerative colitis (UC), have a higher risk of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) than the general population (1). The incidence of CDI is increasing among patients with IBD, and certain UC treatments may be associated with greater risk (1). We report CDI events in the tofacitinib UC clinical program, and the incidence of CDI among patients receiving other treatments for UC. METHODS: For the tofacitinib UC program, rates of CDI (patients with an adverse event [AE] of CDI, Clostridium difficile colitis, or Clostridium test-positive, plus concomitant oral metronidazole or vancomycin, counted once per cohort) are reported for Induction Cohort (patients from an 8-week Phase [P]2 and two 8-week P3 induction studies; placebo or tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily [BID; NCT00787202; NCT01465763; NCT01458951]); Maintenance Cohort (patients from a 52-week maintenance study; placebo or tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID [NCT01458574]); and Overall Cohort (all tofacitinib-treated patients in P2/3 induction and maintenance studies and an ongoing, open-label, long-term extension study [as of December 2016; NCT01470612]). Positive Clostridium difficile test at screening was an exclusion criterion for program entry. Overall Cohort incidence rate (IR) was calculated as number of unique patients with events per 100 patient-years (PY). For contextualization, CDI rates among patients receiving other UC medications were obtained from a retrospective cohort study utilizing data from the Truven MarketScan ® Database, an administrative healthcare claims database in the US. Patients with moderately to severely active UC, with either an inpatient or outpatient diagnosis code of CDI, plus a prescription for oral therapy (including metronidazole, vancomycin, and fidaxomicin) within 14 days of CDI diagnosis (observation period: October 1, 2010–September 30, 2015), were included. Truven cohort IRs were calculated as number of patients with events per 100 PY. RESULTS: In the tofacitinib Induction Cohort, CDI occurred in 3 patients (placebo, 1/282 [0.4%]; tofacitinib 10 mg BID, 2/938 [0.2%]). In the Maintenance Cohort, CDI occurred in 3 patients (placebo, 3/198 [1.5%]; tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID, 0/394 [0.0%]). In the Overall Cohort of all tofacitinib-treated patients (1,664 PY of follow-up), CDI occurred in 8/1,157 patients (0.7%), with an IR (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 0.48 (0.21, 0.95). Two cases were reported as serious AEs. All were mild (n = 4) or moderate (n = 4) in severity; 6 continued with study treatment, one temporarily discontinued, one permanently discontinued. All CDI cases resolved with treatment. In the Truven Cohort, 160 CDI events occurred during 4,918 PY of follow-up, with an overall CDI IR (95% CI) of 3.25 (2.77, 3.80); of which 116 were CDI-associated hospitalizations (4,936 PY of follow-up). Among patients receiving azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, CDI IRs were 3.23 (2.18, 4.62), 2.31 (1.26, 3.87), and 3.58 (2.95, 4.29), respectively. CONCLUSION(S): In the tofacitinib UC program, CDI rates among patients receiving tofacitinib were similar to or lower than those observed with placebo. The IR among patients receiving tofacitinib was numerically lower than those observed for immunomodulators and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in the Truven Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule JAK inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). Safety and efficacy of tofacitinib were demonstrated in Phase (P) 2/3 induction studies (NCT00787202; NCT01465763; NCT01458951), a 52-week, P3 maintenance study (NCT01458574), and are being further investigated in an ongoing, open-label, long-term extension (OLE) study (NCT01470612). This analysis assessed age as a risk factor for adverse events (AEs) in the tofacitinib UC clinical program. METHODS: Analyses of AEs were performed for 2 cohorts: the Maintenance Cohort (patients who received placebo or tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily in the maintenance study) and the Overall Cohort (all tofacitinib-treated patients in the P2/P3/OLE studies [as of December 2016]), stratified by age (≥65 years vs <65 years). AEs of special interest included serious infections (SIs), opportunistic infections (OIs), herpes zoster (HZ), malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer [NMSC]), NMSC, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and gastrointestinal perforations. Risk factors (based on baseline characteristics) for SIs, OIs, HZ, and NMSC in the Overall Cohort were evaluated using multivariate Cox proportional regression models. RESULTS: AEs occurred in 75.3% (placebo) and 75.9% (tofacitinib) of patients in the Maintenance Cohort, and 82.1% in the Overall Cohort (in which 83.9% received predominantly tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily). Most patients (Maintenance Cohort: 180/198 [90.9%] and 364/394 [92.4%] receiving placebo and tofacitinib, respectively; Overall Cohort: 1,080/1,157 [93.3%]) were aged <65 years. In both the placebo and tofacitinib groups of the Maintenance Cohort, rates of AEs, serious AEs, severe AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs were numerically higher in patients aged ≥65 years (placebo: 83.3%, 11.1%, 11.1%, and 22.2%; tofacitinib: 80.0%, 16.7%, 10.0%, and 16.7%) vs <65 years (placebo: 74.4%, 6.1%, 9.4%, and 18.3%; tofacitinib: 75.5%, 4.4%, 7.1%, and 8.8%). AEs of special interest were generally infrequent in both the placebo and tofacitinib groups of the Maintenance Cohort. In the Overall Cohort, AE, serious AE, and severe AE rates were numerically higher in patients aged ≥65 years (88.3%, 19.5%, and 15.6%) vs <65 years (81.7%, 14.3%, and 12.2%). OI, HZ, malignancies (excluding NMSC), NMSC, and MACE rates were numerically higher in patients aged ≥65 years (3.9%, 14.3%, 2.6%, 5.3%, and 2.6%) vs <65 years (1.7%, 5.0%, 0.6%, 0.7%, and 0.2%); SI and gastrointestinal perforation rates were similar between age groups (≥65 years: 2.6% and 0.0%; <65 years: 2.9% and 0.4%). In multivariate modeling in the Overall Cohort, increasing age (every 10 years) was associated with increased risk of OIs (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.54 [1.15, 2.08]) and HZ (1.58 [1.34, 1.87]), but not SIs or NMSC (univariate modeling: 1.0 [0.78, 1.27] and 2.31 [1.46, 3.66]). CONCLUSION(S): In the tofacitinib UC program, AE rates were higher among patients aged ≥65 years vs those aged <65 years, regardless of whether they received tofacitinib or placebo. In multivariate analyses, older age was associated with increased OI and HZ risk. Although this is consistent with the general population, due to the small number of patients aged ≥65 years (<10% of the total), these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Abstract Purpose: To develop a prognostic model and cytogenetic risk classification for previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) undergoing reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Experimental Design: We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes of 606 patients with CLL who underwent RIC allogeneic HCT between 2008 and 2014 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Results: On the basis of multivariable models, disease status, comorbidity index, lymphocyte count, and white blood cell count at HCT were selected for the development of prognostic model. Using the prognostic score, we stratified patients into low-, intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk [4-year progression-free survival (PFS) 58%, 42%, 33%, and 25%, respectively, P &lt; 0.0001; 4-year overall survival (OS) 70%, 57%, 54%, and 38%, respectively, P &lt; 0.0001]. We also evaluated karyotypic abnormalities together with del(17p) and found that del(17p) or ≥5 abnormalities showed inferior PFS. Using a multivariable model, we classified cytogenetic risk into low, intermediate, and high (P &lt; 0.0001). When the prognostic score and cytogenetic risk were combined, patients with low prognostic score and low cytogenetic risk had prolonged PFS (61% at 4 years) and OS (75% at 4 years). Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with previously treated CLL who underwent RIC HCT, we developed a robust prognostic scoring system of HCT outcomes and a novel cytogenetic-based risk stratification system. These prognostic models can be used for counseling patients, comparing data across studies, and providing a benchmark for future interventions. For future study, we will further validate these models for patients receiving targeted therapies prior to HCT.

Interindividual differences in DNA repair systems may play a role in modulating the individual risk of developing colorectal cancer. To better ascertain the role of DNA repair gene polymorphisms on colon and rectal cancer risk individually, we evaluated 15,419 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within 185 DNA repair genes using GWAS data from the Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR) and the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO), which included 8,178 colon cancer, 2,936 rectum cancer cases and 14,659 controls. Rs1800734 (in MLH1 gene) was associated with colon cancer risk (p‐value = 3.5 × 10−6) and rs2189517 (in RAD51B) with rectal cancer risk (p‐value = 5.7 × 10−6). The results had statistical significance close to the Bonferroni corrected p‐value of 5.8 × 10−6. Ninety‐four SNPs were significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk after Binomial Sequential Goodness of Fit (BSGoF) procedure and confirmed the relevance of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) and homologous recombination pathways for colon and rectum cancer, respectively. Defects in MMR genes are known to be crucial for familial form of colorectal cancer but our findings suggest that specific genetic variations in MLH1 are important also in the individual predisposition to sporadic colon cancer. Other SNPs associated with the risk of colon cancer (e.g., rs16906252 in MGMT) were found to affect mRNA expression levels in colon transverse and therefore working as possible cis‐eQTL suggesting possible mechanisms of carcinogenesis.

Abstract Higher trait optimism and/or lower cynical hostility are associated with healthier behaviors and lower risk of morbidity and mortality, yet their association with health care utilization has been understudied. Whether these psychological attitudes are associated with breast cancer screening behavior is unknown. To assess the association of optimism and cynical hostility with screening mammography in older women and whether sociodemographic factors acted as mediators of these relationships, we used Women's Health Initiative (WHI) observational cohort survey data linked to Medicare claims. The sample includes WHI participants without history of breast cancer who were enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B for ≥2 years from 2005–2010, and who completed WHI baseline attitudinal questionnaires (n = 48,291). We used survival modeling to examine whether screening frequency varied by psychological attitudes (measured at study baseline) after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, health conditions, and healthcare-related variables. Psychological attitudes included trait optimism (Life Orientation Test-Revised) and cynical hostility (Cook Medley subscale), which were self-reported at study baseline. Sociodemographic, health conditions, and healthcare variables were self-reported at baseline and updated through 2005 as available. Contrary to our hypotheses, repeated events survival models showed that women with the lowest optimism scores (i.e., more pessimistic tendencies) received 5% more frequent screenings after complete covariate adjustment (p < .01) compared to the most optimistic group, and showed no association between cynical hostility and frequency of screening mammograms. Sociodemographic factors did not appear to mediate the relationship between optimism and screenings. However, higher levels of education and higher levels of income were associated with more frequent screenings (both p < .01). We also found that results for optimism were primarily driven by women who were aged 75 or older after January 2009, when changes to clinical guidelines lead to uncertainty about risks and benefits of screening in this age group. The study demonstrated that lower optimism, higher education, and higher income were all associated with more frequent screening mammograms in this sample after repeated events survival modeling and covariate adjustment.