Citations

Background: Inequities in Preeclampsia/Eclampsia (PrE/E) persist. It is unknown if the receipt of cardiology care relates to future risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in Black and White patients with PrE/E. We sought to determine the cumulative incidence of MACE by race and whether predelivery cardiology care was associated with the hazard of MACE up to 1-year post-delivery for Black and White patients with PrE/E. Methods: Using Optum’s Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (CDM), we identified Black and White patients with PrE/E who had a delivery between 2008 to 2019. MACE was defined as the composite of heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and death. Cumulative incidence functions were used to compare the incidence of MACE by race. Cox regression models were used to assess the hazard of MACE by cardiology care for Black and White patients. Results: Among 29,336 patients (83.4% White, 16.6% Black, mean age of 30.9 years) with PrE/E, 11.2% received cardiology care (10.9% White, 13.0% Black). Black patients had a higher incidence of MACE than White patients at 1-yr post-delivery (2.7% vs 1.4%). After adjusting for age and clinical comorbidities, receipt of cardiology care was associated with lower hazard of MACE for White patients (HR= 0.68, 95%CI: 0.50-0.92 p=0.013) but not Black patients (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.82-1.81; p= 0.328). The interaction effect between race and cardiology care was statistically significant (p=0.013) Conclusions: Among a well-insured population of patients with PrE/E, Black patients had a higher cumulative incidence of MACE up to a year post-delivery. However, cardiology care significantly lowered the hazard of MACE for only White women. This observation does not suggest that cardiology care is detrimental to Black individuals but underscores the necessity to investigate why outcomes are disparate among these racial groups.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether predelivery cardiology care is associated with future risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in preeclampsia/eclampsia (PrE/E). We sought to determine the cumulative incidence of MACE by race and whether predelivery cardiology care was associated with the hazard of MACE up to 1 year post-delivery for Black and White patients with PrE/E. METHODS: Using Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, we identified Black and White patients with PrE/E who had a delivery between 2008 and 2019. MACE was defined as the composite of heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and death. Cumulative incidence functions were used to compare the incidence of MACE by race. Regression models were used to assess the hazard of MACE by cardiology care for each race. Separate hazards were calculated for the first 14 days and the remainder of the year. RESULTS: Among 29 336 patients (83.4% White patients, 16.6% Black patients, 99.5% commercially insured, mean age: 30.9 years) with PrE/E, 11.2% received cardiology care (10.9% White patients, 13.0% Black patients). Black patients had higher incidence of MACE than White patients at 1 year post-delivery (2.7% versus 1.4%) with the majority within 14 days of delivery (Black patients: 58.7%; White patients: 67.8%). After adjusting for age and comorbidities, receipt of cardiology care was associated with a lower hazard of MACE for White patients within 14 days after delivery (hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.21–0.46]; P <0.001) but not Black patients (hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.60–1.67]; P =0.999). The effect of the interaction between race and cardiology care was significant in the first 14 days ( P <0.001) but not the remainder of the year ( P =0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Among a well-insured population of patients with PrE/E, Black patients had a higher cumulative incidence of MACE up to a year post-delivery. Cardiology care was associated with a lower hazard of MACE only for White patients during the first 14 days after delivery.

Abstract Contemporary anticancer therapies frequently have different efficacy and side effects in men and women. Yet, whether women are well‐represented in pivotal trials supporting contemporary anticancer drugs is unknown. Leveraging the Drugs@FDA database, clinicaltrials.gov , MEDLINE, and publicly available FDA‐drug‐reviews, we identified all pivotal (phase II and III) non‐sex specific trials supporting FDA‐approval of anticancer drugs (1998–2018). Observed‐enrollment‐rates were compared to expected‐population‐rates derived from concurrent US‐National‐Cancer‐Institute's Surveillance‐Epidemiology‐and‐End‐Results (SEER) reported rates and US‐Census databases. Primary outcome was the proportional representation of women across trials, evaluated by a participation‐to‐prevalence ratio (PPR), according to cancer type. Secondary outcome was the report of any sex‐specific analysis of efficacy and/or safety, irrespective of treatment‐arm. Overall, there were 148 trials, enrolling 60,216 participants (60.5 ± 4.0 years, 40.7% female, 79.1% biologic, targeted, or immune‐based therapies) evaluating 99 drugs. Sex was reported in 146 (98.6%) trials, wherein 40.7% (24,538) were women, compared to 59.3% (35,678) men ( p < .01). Altogether, women were under‐represented in 66.9% trials compared to the proportional incidence of cancers by respective disease type; weight‐average PPR of 0.91 (relative difference: ‐9.1%, p < .01). Women were most under‐represented in gastric (PPR = 0.63), liver (PPR = 0.71), and lung (PPR = .81) cancer trials. Sex‐based safety data was reported in 4.0% trials. There was no association between adequate female enrollment and drug efficacy (HR: 0.616 vs. 0.613, p = .96). Over time, there was no difference in the percentage of women recruited into clinical trials. Among pivotal clinical trials supporting contemporary FDA‐approved cancer drugs, women were frequently under‐represented and sex‐specific‐efficacy and safety‐outcomes were commonly not reported.

Background: Outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are influenced by access and adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy. Our objective was to study the association between annual household income and: (1) the odds of having a claim for sacubitril/valsartan among insured patients with HFrEF and (2) medication adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered). We hypothesized that lower annual household income is associated with decreased odds of having a claim for and adhering to sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: Using the Optum de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart, patients with HFrEF and ≥6 months of enrollment for follow-up (2016–2020) were included. Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, US region, number of prescribed medications, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Prescription for sacubitril/valsartan was defined by the presence of a claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered ≥80%. We fit multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models and hierarchical logistic regression accounting for covariates. Results: Among 322 007 individuals with incident HFrEF, 135 282 had complete data for analysis. Of the patients eligible for sacubitril/valsartan, 4.7% (6372) had a claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Following multivariable adjustment, individuals in the lowest annual income category (<$40 000) were significantly less likely (odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.76–0.90]) to have a sacubitril/valsartan claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis than those in the highest annual income category (≥$100 000). Annual income <$40 000 was associated with lower odds of proportion of days covered ≥80% compared with income ≥$100 000 (odds ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.59–0.83]). Conclusions: Lower household income is associated with decreased likelihood of a sacubitril/valsartan claim and medication adherence within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis, even after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Future analyses are needed to identify additional social factors associated with delays in sacubitril/valsartan initiation and long-term adherence.

Background: Outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are influenced by access and adherence to guideline directed medical therapy. Objective: To study the association between median annual household income and: (1) odds of receiving sacubitril/valsartan, a novel angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy among insured patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and (2) medication adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered (PDC)). Hypothesis: lower income is associated with lower odds of receiving and adhering to ARNI among patients with HFrEF. Methods: Using Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics® Data Mart, patients with ≥ 2 diagnoses of HFrEF and ≥ 6 months of enrollment for follow up (2016-2020) were included. Covariates included age, race, ethnicity, sex, educational attainment, household net worth, geographical region and Elixhauser comorbidity index. Prescription for ARNI was defined by presence of a claim within 180 days. Adherence was defined as PDC ≥80%. We fit multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models and hierarchical logistic regression accounting for covariates. We also assessed for race-income interaction. Results: Among 322007 individuals with HFrEF diagnosis, 136,613 had ≥6 months of complete data. Of the patients eligible for ARNI, only 5.4% (7409/136613) received a claim within 180 days of HFrEF diagnosis. After adjusting for social and clinical factors, the odds were elevated for ARNI claim within 180 days of HFrEF diagnosis (OR=1.38, 95% CI: 1.27, 1.49) for the highest income category (>$100K) compared with the lowest (<$40K). After adjustment, income <$40k) was associated with a 47% higher odds of PDC<80% compared with income >$100K. Conclusions: Higher patient income is associated with increased likelihood of an ARNI claim within 180 days of HFrEF diagnosis, even after adjusting for socioeconomic and clinical factors. Future analyses are needed to determine other social factors associated with delay in ARNI initiation and long-term adherence.

PURPOSEAn ASCO provisional clinical opinion offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This provisional clinical opinion addresses the appropriate use of tumor genomic testing in patients with metastatic or advanced solid tumors.CLINICAL CONTEXTAn increasing number of therapies are approved to treat cancers harboring specific genomic biomarkers. However, there is a lack of clarity as to when tumor genomic sequencing should be ordered, what type of assays should be performed, and how to interpret the results for treatment selection.PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINIONPatients with metastatic or advanced cancer should undergo genomic sequencing in a certified laboratory if the presence of one or more specific genomic alterations has regulatory approval as biomarkers to guide the use of or exclusion from certain treatments for their disease. Multigene panel–based assays should be used if more than one biomarker-linked therapy is approved for the patient's disease. Site-agnostic approvals for any cancer with a high tumor mutation burden, mismatch repair deficiency, or neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase ( NTRK) fusions provide a rationale for genomic testing for all solid tumors. Multigene testing may also assist in treatment selection by identifying additional targets when there are few or no genotype-based therapy approvals for the patient's disease. For treatment planning, the clinician should consider the functional impact of the targeted alteration and expected efficacy of genomic biomarker–linked options relative to other approved or investigational treatments. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/assays-and-predictive-markers-guidelines .