Polypharmacy, over-the-counter medications, and aromatase inhibitor adherence in early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Polypharmacy is associated with negative health outcomes and decreased medication adherence. Polypharmacy is common in cancer populations, but few studies have evaluated the relationship between polypharmacy and aromatase inhibitor (AI) adherence. No studies have evaluated the relationship between over-the-counter (OTC) supplements and AI adherence. Our primary hypothesis was that polypharmacy would be associated with increased risk of premature AI discontinuation. METHODS: This exploratory analysis used data from the Exemestane and Letrozole Pharmacogenetics (ELPh) trial, a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled participants from 2005 to 2009. Included patients were female, postmenopausal, with stage 0-III breast cancer, who had completed indicated chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. Participants were randomized to adjuvant exemestane or letrozole and completed serial clinical examinations and questionnaires for two years. Concomitant medication data were collected prospectively. Cox proportion models were used for statistical analysis of the relationship between polypharmacy, OTCs, medication class, and AI adherence. RESULTS: In the 490 analyzed participants, use of any prescription medications at baseline was associated with decreased risk of premature AI discontinuation (HR 0.56, p = 0.02). Use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) at baseline was associated with decreased risk of premature AI discontinuation (HR 0.67, p = 0.04). Use of any OTCs was not associated with AI discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Baseline use of prescription medications but not OTCs was associated with increased AI persistence. Future research is needed to understand how this can be utilized to promote AI adherence.

Protocol for a pragmatic trial of Cannabidiol (CBD) to improve chronic pain symptoms among United States Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain affects over 100 million Americans, with a disproportionately high number being Veterans. Chronic pain is often difficult to treat and responds variably to medications, with many providing minimal relief or having adverse side effects that preclude use. Cannabidiol (CBD) has emerged as a potential treatment for chronic pain, yet research in this area remains limited, with few studies examining CBD's analgesic potential. Because Veterans have a high need for improved pain care, we designed a clinical trial to investigate CBD's effectiveness in managing chronic pain symptoms among Veterans. We aim to determine whether CBD oral solution compared to placebo study medication is associated with greater improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). METHODS: We designed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pragmatic clinical trial with 468 participants. Participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either placebo or a CBD oral solution over a 4-week period. The trial is remote via a smartphone app and by shipping study materials, including study medication, to participants. We will compare the difference in PGIC between the CBD and placebo group after four weeks and impacts on secondary outcomes (e.g., pain severity, pain interference, anxiety, suicide ideation, and sleep disturbance). DISCUSSION: Once complete, this trial will be among the largest to date investigating the efficacy of CBD for chronic pain. Findings from this clinical trial will contribute to a greater knowledge of CBD's analgesic potential and guide further research. Given the relative availability of CBD, our findings will help elucidate the potential of an accessible option for helping to manage chronic pain among Veterans. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered at clinicaltrials.gov under study number NCT06213233.

Feasibility and acceptability of patient- and clinician-level antithrombotic stewardship interventions to reduce gastrointestinal bleeding risk in patients using warfarin (Anticoagulation with Enhanced Gastrointestinal Safety): a factorial randomized controlled pilot trial.

Background: Overuse of antiplatelet therapy and underuse of gastroprotection contribute to preventable bleeding in patients taking anticoagulants. Objectives: (1) Determine the feasibility of a factorial trial testing patient activation and clinician outreach to reduce gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding risk in patients prescribed warfarin-antiplatelet therapy without proton pump inhibitor gastroprotection and (2) assess intervention acceptability. Methods: Pragmatic 2 × 2 factorial cluster-randomized controlled pilot comparing (1) a patient activation booklet vs usual care and (2) clinician notification vs clinician notification plus nurse facilitation was performed. The primary feasibility outcome was percentage of patients completing a structured telephone assessment after 5 weeks. Exploratory outcomes, including effectiveness, were evaluated using chart review, surveys, and semistructured interviews. Results: Among 47 eligible patients, 35/47 (74.5%; 95% CI, 58.6%-85.7%) met the feasibility outcome. In the subset confirmed to be high risk for upper GI bleeding, 11/29 (37.9%; 95% CI, 16.9%-64.7%) made a medication change, without differences between intervention arms. In interviews, few patients reported reviewing the activation booklet; barriers included underestimating GI bleeding risk, misunderstanding the booklet's purpose, and receiving excessive health communication materials. Clinicians responded to notification messages for 24/47 patients (51.1%; 95% CI, 26.4%-75.4%), which was lower for surgeons than nonsurgeons (22.7% vs 76.0%). Medical specialists but not surgeons viewed clinician notification as acceptable. Conclusion: The proposed trial design and outcome ascertainment strategy were feasible, but the patient activation intervention is unlikely to be effective as designed. While clinician notification appears promising, it may not be acceptable to surgeons, findings which support further refinement and testing of a clinician notification intervention.

Designing clinical trials to address alcohol use and alcohol-associated liver disease: an expert panel Consensus Statement.

Most patients with alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) engage in heavy drinking defined as 4 or more drinks per day (56 g) or 8 (112 g) or more drinks per week for women and 5 or more drinks per day (70 g) or 15 (210 g) or more drinks per week for men. Although abstinence from alcohol after diagnosis of ALD improves life expectancy and reduces the risk of decompensation of liver disease, few studies have evaluated whether treatment of alcohol use disorders will reduce progression of liver disease and improve liver-related outcomes. In November 2021, the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism commissioned a task force that included hepatologists, addiction medicine specialists, statisticians, clinical trialists and members of regulatory agencies to develop recommendations for the design and conduct of clinical trials to evaluate the effect of alcohol use, particularly treatment to reduce or eliminate alcohol use in patients with ALD. The task force conducted extensive reviews of relevant literature on alcohol use disorders and ALD. Findings were presented at one in-person meeting and discussed over the next 16 months to develop the final recommendations. As few clinical trials directly address this topic, the 28 recommendations approved by all members of the task force represent a consensus of expert opinions.