Utilization of Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Therapy in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Recently Diagnosed Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are immunosuppressants, and there have been concerns that they might impact tumor immunity in patients with cancer with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The purpose of this study was to describe the utilization trends of bDMARD in patients with RA after breast cancer (BC) diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults with RA and BC (2008 onward) from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (CDM); the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) Medicare; and the Texas Cancer Registry (TCR) Medicare databases. We evaluated bDMARD utilization trends during the first three years after BC. We conducted multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association of utilization with patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total 1,412 patients were identified in CDM and 1,439 patients in SEER/TCR-Medicare. During the three months before BC diagnosis, 28.2% (CDM) and 26.9% (SEER/TCR-Medicare) patients had received bDMARDs. Within the first three years after diagnosis, 24.1% (CDM) and 26.4% (SEER/TCR-Medicare) were receiving bDMARDs. About 70% of the patients in the two cohorts received glucocorticoids with no significant time trend increases. The largest predictor of bDMARD utilization was prior use before BC (CDM: odds ratio [OR] 27.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 19.29-38.19; SEER/TCR: OR 18.98, 95% CI 13.72-26.26). Regional and distant BC compared to in situ or localized were also associated with lower bDMARDs utilization in SEER/TCR-Medicare (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.82; OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.77, respectively). CONCLUSION: The utilization of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other bDMARDs in patients with RA and recent BC has not increased since 2008. Glucocorticoids utilization remained high. The largest predictor of bDMARD utilization was prior use before BC.

Learning Needs of Patients with Cancer and a Pre-Existing Autoimmune Disease Who Are Candidates to Receive Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Patients with pre-existing autoimmune disorders and cancer considering immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) need to receive balanced information about the benefits and risk of developing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and flare-ups of their autoimmune disease. To assess the learning needs of patients with cancer and pre-existing autoimmune disease regarding ICI treatment, we interviewed 29 patients with autoimmune disease and cancer from a comprehensive cancer center, of whom 20 had received ICI and 9 were candidates to receive ICI at a US Cancer Center. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted from August 2021 and January 2022. Interviewee's opinions and preferences about content and information delivery methods were collected. We recorded and transcribed interviews and analyzed them using thematic analysis. Half of the participants were female, and their median (SD) age was 62.9 (±10.9) years. The identified health information needs included the following: (1) information on irAEs and autoimmune disease flare-ups; (2) benefits of ICI; (3) ICI mechanism in the context of autoimmune disease; (4) management of flare-ups; (5) reasons for stopping or modifying cancer or autoimmune disease treatment; (6) likelihood of autoimmune disease progression or organ damage; and (7) lifestyle changes that could help avoid irAEs. Patients who had received ICI and those who had not yet received treatment reported similar needs, although patients who had received ICI had more questions about cancer treatment modifications. Patients also expressed the need to better understand when to contact their provider and how to share information with multiple providers. Most patients wanted to receive information in visual formats for review at home and at their own pace. Patients expressed interest in having educational tools to facilitate shared decision-making with their physicians, and they identified several areas of health information concerning therapy with ICI. They also highlighted the importance of communication among their various providers.

Physician Views on the Provision of Information on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy to Patients with Cancer and Pre-Existing Autoimmune Disease: A Qualitative Study.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved cancer outcomes but can cause severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and flares of autoimmune conditions in cancer patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease. The objective of this study was to identify the information physicians perceived as most useful for these patients when discussing treatment initiation with ICIs. Twenty physicians at a cancer institution with experience in the treatment of irAEs were interviewed. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed to organize and interpret data. The physicians were 11 medical oncologists and 9 non-oncology specialists. The following themes were identified: (1) current methods used by physicians to provide information to patients and delivery options; (2) factors to make decisions about whether or not to start ICIs in patients who have cancer and pre-existing autoimmune conditions; (3) learning points for patients to understand; (4) preferences for the delivery of ICI information; and (5) barriers to the implementation of ICI information in clinics. Regarding points to discuss with patients, physicians agreed that the benefits of ICIs, the probability of irAEs, and risks of underlying autoimmune condition flares with the use of ICIs were most important. Non-oncologists were additionally concerned about how ICIs affect the autoimmune disease (e.g., impact on disease activity, need for changes in medications for the autoimmune disease, and monitoring of autoimmune conditions).

COVID-19 Outcomes in Patients with Cancer Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review.

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can cause inflammatory and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that might worsen the course of COVID-19. We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022307545) to evaluate the clinical course and complications of COVID-19 in patients with cancer receiving ICI. Methods: We searched Medline and Embase through January 5, 2022. We included studies evaluating patients with cancer who received ICI and developed COVID-19. Outcomes included mortality, severe COVID-19, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital admissions, irAEs, and serious adverse events. We pooled data with random effects meta-analysis. Results: Twenty-five studies met study eligibility (n = 36,532 patients: 15,497 had COVID-19 and 3220 received ICI). Most studies (71.4%) had a high risk of comparability bias. There were no significant differences in mortality (relative risk [RR] 1.29; 95% CI 0.62-2.69), ICU admission (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.71-2.00), and hospital admission (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.79-1.06) when comparing patients treated with ICI with patients without cancer treatment. When pooling adjusted odds ratios (ORs), no statistically significant differences were observed in mortality (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57-1.60), severe COVID-19 (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.45-2.46), or hospital admission (OR 2.02; 95% CI 0.96-4.27), when comparing patients treated with ICIs versus patients with cancer without ICI therapy. No significant differences were observed when comparing clinical outcomes in patients receiving ICIs versus patients receiving any of the other anticancer therapies. Conclusion: Although current evidence is limited, COVID-19 clinical outcomes of patients with cancer receiving ICI therapy appear to be similar to those not receiving oncologic treatment or other cancer therapies.

Mild COVID-19 Illness as a Risk Factor for Venous Thromboembolism.

Introduction From the beginning of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is cumulative evidence suggesting that patients hospitalized due to this disease are at a high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The association between mild non-hospitalized illness and VTE is unclear. The purpose of this research is to assess the association between VTE and mild COVID-19 infection. Methods A case-control study was conducted. The cases were adult patients diagnosed with VTE from March 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021. The controls were randomly chosen adult patients who required healthcare services that were equivalent to those of the cases, for any cause, during the same time period, without a VTE diagnosis. To assess the association between mild COVID and VTE, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted, considering other thromboembolic risk variables, such as age, gender and active cancer, among others. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 186 cases and 475 controls were analyzed. There were 21 (11.3%) and 31 (6.5%) patients infected with mild COVID-19 in the previous three months in the groups of cases and controls, respectively. Mild COVID-19 infection was statistically significant as a risk factor for VTE both in the univariate analysis and in the multivariate analysis, OR=1.82 (95% CI 1.02-3.26) and OR=2.62 (95% CI 1.34-5.13), respectively. Conclusion Mild COVID-19 infection might be an independent risk factor for VTE. We conclude that the results suggest some thromboprophylaxis strategy should be considered in certain patients with COVID-19 infection in an outpatient fashion.

Effect of healthcare spending on the relationship between the Human Development Index and maternal and neonatal mortality.

Background: Several factors affect morbidity and mortality the world over. Previous research shows mortality rates are higher among individuals of lower socio-economic status. We investigated the trajectory of neonatal (NM) and maternal (MM) mortality between 2010 and 2014 and the effect of healthcare spending on the relationship between the Human Development Index (HDI) and NM and MM. Methods: Data were obtained from the United Nations Development Program and World Bank. Latent growth curve models (LGCMs) were estimated to determine the trajectory of NM and MM across the study period and the effect of the HDI on NM and MM. Mediation analysis was used to determine if healthcare expenditure mediated the relationship between HDI and NM and MM rates. ArcGIS (Esri, Redlands, CA, USA) was used to generate a choropleth map of changes in NM and MM between 2010 and 2014. Findings: Results showed many countries in Africa enjoyed decreases in NM and MM between 2010 and 2014, but other countries (Algeria, Libya and Sudan) showed little or no improvement. The LGCM for NM (Comparative Fit Index=0.956) and MM (CFI=0.963) demonstrated good fit to the data and showed that the HDI was negatively related to NM and MM. Mediation analysis showed that healthcare spending mediated the relationship between NM and MM in each year. Conclusions: Given that healthcare spending can mediate the relationship between HDI and NM and MM, increases in healthcare spending among countries with low HDI could improve NM and MM outcomes.