SARS-CoV-2 Antiviral Prescribing Gaps Among Nonhospitalized High-Risk Adults.

Within a multistate clinical cohort, SARS-CoV-2 antiviral prescribing patterns were evaluated from April 2022-June 2023 among nonhospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 with risk factors for severe COVID-19. Among 3247 adults, only 31.9% were prescribed an antiviral agent (87.6% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 11.9% molnupiravir, 0.5% remdesivir), highlighting the need to identify and address treatment barriers.

Identifying factors and causal chains associated with optimal implementation of Lynch syndrome tumor screening: An application of coincidence analysis.

PURPOSE: This study compared Lynch syndrome universal tumor screening (UTS) across multiple health systems (some of which had two or more distinct UTS programs) to understand multi-level factors that may impact the successful implementation of complex programs. METHODS: Data from 66 stakeholder interviews were used to conduct multi-value coincidence analysis (mv-CNA) and identify key factors that consistently make a difference in whether UTS programs were implemented and optimized at the system level. RESULTS: The selected CNA model revealed combinations of conditions that distinguish 4 optimized UTS programs, 10 non-optimized programs, and 4 systems with no program. Fully optimized UTS programs had both a maintenance champion and a positive inner setting. Two independent paths were unique to non-optimized programs: 1) positive attitudes and a mixed inner setting, or 2) limited planning & engaging among stakeholders. Negative views about UTS evidence or lack of knowledge about UTS led to a lack of planning and engaging, which subsequently prevented program implementation. CONCLUSION: The model improved our understanding of program implementation in health care systems and informed the creation of a toolkit to guide UTS implementation, optimization, and changes. Our findings and toolkit may serve as a use case to increase the successful implementation of other complex precision health programs.

"Go ahead and screen" - advice to healthcare systems for routine lynch syndrome screening from interviews with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC). Universal tumor screening (UTS) of newly diagnosed CRC cases is recommended to aid in diagnosis of LS and reduce cancer-related morbidity and mortality. However, not all health systems have adopted UTS processes and implementation may be inconsistent due to system and patient-level complexities. METHODS: To identify barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improvements of the UTS process from the patient perspective, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients recently diagnosed with CRC, but not screened for or aware of LS. Patients were recruited from eight regionally diverse US health systems. Interviews were conducted by telephone, 60-minutes, audio-recorded, and transcribed. An inductive, constant comparative analysis approach was employed.  RESULTS: We completed 75 interviews across the eight systems. Most participants were white (79%), about half (52%) were men, and the mean age was 60 years. Most self-reported either no (60%) or minimal (40%) prior awareness of LS. Overall, 96% of patients stated UTS should be a routine standard of care for CRC tumors, consistently citing four primary motivations for wanting to know their LS status and engage in the process for LS identification: "knowledge is power"; "family knowledge"; "prevention and detection"; and "treatment and surveillance." Common concerns pertaining to the process of screening for and identifying LS included: creating anticipatory worry for patients, the potential cost and the accuracy of the genetic test, and possibly having one's health insurance coverage impacted by the LS diagnosis. Patients suggested health systems communicate LS results in-person or by phone from a trained expert in LS; offer proactive verbal and written education about LS, the screening steps, and any follow-up surveillance recommendations; and support patients in communicating their LS screening to any of their blood relatives. CONCLUSION: Our qualitative findings demonstrate patients with CRC have a strong desire for healthcare systems to regularly implement and offer UTS. Patients offer key insights for health systems to guide future implementation and optimization of UTS and other LS screening programs and maximize diagnosis of individuals with LS and improve cancer-related surveillance and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not available: not a clinical trial.

Validation of diagnosis codes to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients in health care claims data.

PURPOSE: Health plan claims may provide complete longitudinal data for timely, real-world population-level COVID-19 assessment. However, these data often lack laboratory results, the standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: We assessed the validity of ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes for identifying patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in U.S. claims databases, compared to linked laboratory results, among six Food and Drug Administration Sentinel System data partners (two large national insurers, four integrated delivery systems) from February 20-October 17, 2020. We identified patients hospitalized with COVID-19 according to five ICD-10-CM diagnosis code-based algorithms, which included combinations of codes U07.1, B97.29, general coronavirus codes, and diagnosis codes for severe symptoms. We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity of each algorithm relative to laboratory test results. We stratified results by data source type and across three time periods: February 20-March 31 (Time A), April 1-30 (Time B), May 1-October 17 (Time C). RESULTS: The five algorithms identified between 34 806 and 47 293 patients across the study periods; 23% with known laboratory results contributed to PPV calculations. PPVs were high and similar across algorithms. PPV of U07.1 alone was stable around 93% for integrated delivery systems, but declined over time from 93% to 70% among national insurers. Overall PPV of U07.1 across all data partners was 94.1% (95% CI, 92.3%-95.5%) in Time A and 81.2% (95% CI, 80.1%-82.2%) in Time C. Sensitivity was consistent across algorithms and over time, at 94.9% (95% CI, 94.2%-95.5%). CONCLUSION: Our results support the use of code U07.1 to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients in U.S. claims data.

The association of bowel function, participation in life activities, and quality of life in rectal cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether limited participation in life activities is associated with quality of life (QOL) in rectal cancer survivors, and if so, whether this association is independent of bowel function difficulties. METHODS: We surveyed rectal cancer survivors from four healthcare systems about their QOL, bowel function, and participation in life activities. Additional demographic and clinical variables were extracted from the electronic health record. We examined independent associations between bowel function, participation in life activities, and QOL, controlling for potential confounders. We also identified factors, including ostomy status, that correlate with participation in life activities. RESULTS: Of the 527 respondents, 52% were male, 80% were non-Hispanic white, and the mean age was 63. In fully adjusted models for all rectal cancer survivors, participation in life activities was positively associated with QOL, while bowel function was not. Bowel function retained an independent association with QOL for those who previously had an ostomy and were therefore more likely to have a low rectal anastomosis. Lower participation in life activities was correlated with lower self-reported physical and cognitive function, younger age, financial difficulty, and being non-Hispanic white. CONCLUSIONS: Rectal cancer survivors' participation in life activities was strongly associated with QOL, even when controlling for numerous confounders, including bowel function. Identifying ways to improve participation in life activities may be critical to developing rehabilitative and other supportive interventions that optimize QOL among rectal cancer survivors.

Patient characteristics, pain treatment patterns, and incidence of total joint replacement in a US population with osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Currently available medications for chronic osteoarthritis pain are only moderately effective, and their use is limited in many patients because of serious adverse effects and contraindications. The primary surgical option for osteoarthritis is total joint replacement (TJR). The objectives of this study were to describe the treatment history of patients with osteoarthritis receiving prescription pain medications and/or intra-articular corticosteroid injections, and to estimate the incidence of TJR in these patients. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, cohort study utilized health plan administrative claims data (January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2019) of adult patients with osteoarthritis in the Innovation in Medical Evidence Development and Surveillance Distributed Database, a subset of the US FDA Sentinel Distributed Database. Patients were analyzed in two cohorts: those with prevalent use of "any pain medication" (prescription non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], opioids, and/or intra-articular corticosteroid injections) using only the first qualifying dispensing (index date); and those with prevalent use of "each specific pain medication class" with all qualifying treatment episodes identified. RESULTS: Among 1 992 670 prevalent users of "any pain medication", pain medications prescribed on the index date were NSAIDs (596 624 [29.9%] patients), opioids (1 161 806 [58.3%]), and intra-articular corticosteroids (323 459 [16.2%]). Further, 92 026 patients received multiple pain medications on the index date, including 71 632 (3.6%) receiving both NSAIDs and opioids. Altogether, 20.6% of patients used an NSAID at any time following an opioid index dispensing and 17.2% used an opioid following an NSAID index dispensing. The TJR incidence rates per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI]) were 3.21 (95% CI: 3.20-3.23) in the "any pain medication" user cohort, and among those receiving "each specific pain medication class" were NSAIDs, 4.63 (95% CI: 4.58-4.67); opioids, 7.45 (95% CI: 7.40-7.49); and intra-articular corticosteroids, 8.05 (95% CI: 7.97-8.13). CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated with prescription medications for osteoarthritis pain, opioids were more commonly prescribed at index than NSAIDs and intra-articular corticosteroid injections. Of the pain medication classes examined, the incidence of TJR was highest in patients receiving intra-articular corticosteroids and lowest in patients receiving NSAIDs.

Association of COVID-19 vs Influenza With Risk of Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Events Among Hospitalized Patients.

Importance: The incidence of arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism in persons with COVID-19 remains unclear. Objective: To measure the 90-day risk of arterial thromboembolism and venous thromboembolism in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 before or during COVID-19 vaccine availability vs patients hospitalized with influenza. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of 41 443 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (April-November 2020), 44 194 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (December 2020-May 2021), and 8269 patients hospitalized with influenza (October 2018-April 2019) in the US Food and Drug Administration Sentinel System (data from 2 national health insurers and 4 regional integrated health systems). Exposures: COVID-19 or influenza (identified by hospital diagnosis or nucleic acid test). Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital diagnosis of arterial thromboembolism (acute myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke) and venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) within 90 days. Outcomes were ascertained through July 2019 for patients with influenza and through August 2021 for patients with COVID-19. Propensity scores with fine stratification were developed to account for differences between the influenza and COVID-19 cohorts. Weighted Cox regression was used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes during each COVID-19 vaccine availability period vs the influenza period. Results: A total of 85 637 patients with COVID-19 (mean age, 72 [SD, 13.0] years; 50.5% were male) and 8269 with influenza (mean age, 72 [SD, 13.3] years; 45.0% were male) were included. The 90-day absolute risk of arterial thromboembolism was 14.4% (95% CI, 13.6%-15.2%) in patients with influenza vs 15.8% (95% CI, 15.5%-16.2%) in patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (risk difference, 1.4% [95% CI, 1.0%-2.3%]) and 16.3% (95% CI, 16.0%-16.6%) in patients with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (risk difference, 1.9% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.7%]). Compared with patients with influenza, the risk of arterial thromboembolism was not significantly higher among patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.97-1.11]) or during vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.00-1.14]). The 90-day absolute risk of venous thromboembolism was 5.3% (95% CI, 4.9%-5.8%) in patients with influenza vs 9.5% (95% CI, 9.2%-9.7%) in patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (risk difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 3.6%-4.7%]) and 10.9% (95% CI, 10.6%-11.1%) in patients with COVID-19 during vaccine availability (risk difference, 5.5% [95% CI, 5.0%-6.1%]). Compared with patients with influenza, the risk of venous thromboembolism was significantly higher among patients with COVID-19 before vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.43-1.79]) and during vaccine availability (adjusted HR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.68-2.12]). Conclusions and Relevance: Based on data from a US public health surveillance system, hospitalization with COVID-19 before and during vaccine availability, vs hospitalization with influenza in 2018-2019, was significantly associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism within 90 days, but there was no significant difference in the risk of arterial thromboembolism within 90 days.

BBCIC Research Network Analysis of First-Cycle Prophylactic G-CSF Use in Patients Treated With High-Neutropenia Risk Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is prevented or minimized with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Several G-CSF biosimilars are approved in the United States. The Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) is a nonprofit initiative whose objective is to provide scientific evidence on real-world use and comparative safety and effectiveness of biologics and biosimilars using the BBCIC distributed research network (DRN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We describe real-world G-CSF use in patients with breast or lung cancer receiving first-cycle chemotherapy associated with high FN risk. We assessed hospitalizations for FN, availability of absolute neutrophil counts, and G-CSF-induced adverse events to inform future observational comparative effectiveness studies of G-CSF reference products and their biosimilars. A descriptive analysis of 5 participating national health insurance plans was conducted within the BBCIC DRN. RESULTS: A total of 57,725 patients who received at least one G-CSF dose were included. Most (92.5%) patients received pegfilgrastim. FN hospitalization rates were evaluated by narrow (<0.5%), intermediate (1.91%), and broad (2.99%) definitions. Anaphylaxis and hyperleukocytosis were identified in 1.15% and 2.28% of patients, respectively. This analysis provides real-world evidence extracted from a large, readily available database of diverse patients, characterizing G-CSF reference product use to inform the feasibility of future observational comparative safety and effectiveness analyses of G-CSF biosimilars. We showed that the rates of FN and adverse events in our research network are consistent with those reported by previous small studies. CONCLUSIONS: Readily available BBCIC DRN data can be used to assess G-CSF use with the incidence of FN hospitalizations. Insufficient laboratory result data were available to report absolute neutrophil counts; however, other safety data are available for assessment that provide valuable baseline data regarding the effectiveness and safety of G-CSFs in preparation for comparative effectiveness studies of reference G-CSFs and their biosimilars.

Prevalence of prescription opioid use during pregnancy in eight US health plans during 2001-2014.

PURPOSE: To estimate prevalence of prescription opioid use during pregnancy in eight US health plans during 2001-2014. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of singleton live birth deliveries. Maternal characteristics were ascertained from health plan and/or birth certificate data and opioids dispensed during pregnancy from health plan pharmacy records. Prevalence of prescription opioid use during pregnancy was calculated for any use, cumulative days of use, and number of dispensings. RESULTS: We examined prevalence of prescription opioid use during pregnancy in each health plan. Tennessee Medicaid had appreciably greater prevalence of use compared to the seven other health plans. Thus, results for the two groups were reported separately. In the seven health plans (n = 587 093 deliveries), prevalence of use during pregnancy was relatively stable at 9%-11% throughout 2001-2014. In Tennessee Medicaid (n = 256 724 deliveries), prevalence increased from 29% in 2001 to a peak of 36%-37% in 2004-2010, and then declined to 28% in 2014. Use for ≥30 days during pregnancy was stable at 1% in the seven health plans and increased from 2% to 7% in Tennessee Medicaid during 2001-2014. Receipt of ≥5 opioid dispensings during pregnancy increased in the seven health plans (0.3%-0.6%) and Tennessee Medicaid (3%-5%) during 2001-2014. CONCLUSION: During 2001-2014, prescription opioid use during pregnancy was more common in Tennessee Medicaid (peak prevalence in late 2000s) compared to the seven health plans (relatively stable prevalence). Although a small percentage of women had opioid use during pregnancy for ≥30 days or ≥ 5 dispensings, they represent thousands of women during 2001-2014.

A randomized trial of medical cannabis in patients with stage IV cancers to assess feasibility, dose requirements, impact on pain and opioid use, safety, and overall patient satisfaction.

PURPOSE: The prevalence of medical cannabis (MC) use in patients with cancer is growing, but questions about safety, efficacy, and dosing remain. Conducting randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) using state-sponsored MC programs is novel and could provide data needed to guide patients and providers. METHODS: A pilot RCT of patients with stage IV cancer requiring opioids was conducted. Thirty patients were randomized 1:1 to early cannabis (EC, n = 15) versus delayed start cannabis (DC, n = 15). The EC group obtained 3 months (3 M) of MC through a state program at no charge, while the DC group received standard oncology care without MC for the first 3 M. Patients met with licensed pharmacists at one of two MC dispensaries to determine a suggested MC dosing, formulation, and route. Patients completed surveys on pain levels, opioid/MC use, side effects, and overall satisfaction with the study. RESULTS: Interest in the study was high as 36% of patients who met eligibility criteria ultimately enrolled. The estimated mean daily THC and CBD allotments at 3 M were 34 mg and 17 mg, respectively. A higher proportion of EC patients achieved a reduction in opioid use and improved pain control. No serious safety issues were reported, and patients reported high satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Conducting RCTs using a state cannabis program is feasible. The addition of MC to standard oncology care was well-tolerated and may lead to improved pain control and lower opioid requirements. Conducting larger RCTs with MC in state-sponsored programs may guide oncology providers on how to safely and effectively incorporate MC for interested patients.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer patients: impact of a health system outreach program to improve adherence.

PURPOSE: Reports suggest that up to 50% of women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC) do not complete the recommended 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET). We examined the impact of an outreach program at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) on adherence and discontinuation of AET among patients who initiated AET. METHODS: We assembled a retrospective cohort of all KPNC patients diagnosed with HR+, stage I-III BC initiating AET before (n = 4287) and after (n = 3580) implementation of the outreach program. We compared adherence proportions and discontinuation rates before and after program implementation, both crude and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, education, income, and stage. We conducted a pooled analysis of data from six Cancer Research Network (CRN) sites that had not implemented programs for improving AET adherence, using identical methods and time periods, to assess possible secular trends. RESULTS: In the pre-outreach period, estimated adherence in years 1, 2, and 3 following AET initiation was 75.2%, 71.0%, and 67.3%; following the outreach program, the estimates were 79.4%, 75.6%, and 72.2% (p-values < .0001 for pairwise comparisons). Results were comparable after adjusting for clinical and demographic factors. The estimated cumulative incidence of discontinuation was 0.22 (0.21-0.24) and 0.18 (0.17-0.19) at 3 years for pre- and post-outreach groups (p-value < .0001). We found no evidence of an increase in adherence between the study periods at the CRN sites with no AET adherence program. CONCLUSION: Adherence and discontinuation after AET initiation improved modestly following implementation of the outreach program.

A population-based survey to assess the association between cannabis and quality of life among colorectal cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: As more states legalize cannabis for medical and recreational use, people increasingly use cannabis to treat medical conditions and associated symptoms. The prevalence and utility of cannabis for cancer-related symptoms may be clarified by examining cannabis use among patients with a common cancer diagnosis. We aimed to determine the prevalence of cannabis use among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors and its associations with quality of life (QoL) and cancer-related symptomatology. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of patient-reported QoL outcomes and behaviors, including cannabis use, was conducted within the Patient Outcomes To Advance Learning network's (PORTAL) CRC Cohort. The cohort included a population-based sample of healthcare system members ≥18 years old diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum from 2010 through 2016. We assessed the association between cannabis use and QoL using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 summary score. RESULTS: Of the 1784 respondents, 293 (16.4%) reported cannabis use following CRC diagnosis. Current tobacco smokers were more likely to use cannabis compared to former or never tobacco smokers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.56 to 4.70). Greater alcohol use (> 4 drinks per month versus ≤4 drinks per month) was associated with cannabis use (aOR 2.17, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.85). There was an association between cannabis use and cancer stage at diagnosis, with stage 3 or 4 CRC patients more likely to use cannabis than stage 1 or 2 CRC patients (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.25). After adjusting for demographics, medical comorbidities, stage and site of CRC diagnosis, and prescription opioid use, people who used cannabis had significantly lower QoL than people who did not use cannabis (difference of - 6.14, 95% CI - 8.07 to - 4.20). CONCLUSION: Among CRC survivors, cannabis use was relatively common, associated with more advanced stages of disease, associated with tobacco and alcohol use, and not associated with better QoL. Clinicians should inquire about cannabis use among their patients and provide evidence-based recommendations for cancer-related symptoms.

Validity of diagnosis and procedure codes for identifying neural tube defects in infants.

PURPOSE: The use of validated criteria to identify birth defects in electronic healthcare databases can avoid the cost and time-intensive efforts required to conduct chart reviews to confirm outcomes. This study evaluated the validity of various case-finding methodologies to identify neural tube defects (NTDs) in infants using an electronic healthcare database. METHODS: This analysis used data generated from a study whose primary aim was to evaluate the association between first-trimester maternal prescription opioid use and NTDs. The study was conducted within the Medication Exposure in Pregnancy Risk Evaluation Program. A broad approach was used to identify potential NTDs including diagnosis and procedure codes from inpatient and outpatient settings, death certificates and birth defect flags in birth certificates. Potential NTD cases were chart abstracted and confirmed by clinical experts. Positive predictive values (PPVs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) are reported. RESULTS: The cohort included 113 168 singleton live-born infants: 55 960 infants with opioid exposure in pregnancy and 57 208 infants unexposed in pregnancy. Seventy-three potential NTD cases were available for the validation analysis. The overall PPV was 41% using all diagnosis and procedure codes plus birth certificates. Restricting approaches to codes recorded in the infants' medical record or to birth certificate flags increased the PPVs (72% and 80%, respectively) but missed a substantial proportion of confirmed NTDs. CONCLUSIONS: Codes in electronic healthcare data did not accurately identify confirmed NTDs. These results indicate that chart review with adjudication of outcomes is important when conducting observational studies of NTDs using electronic healthcare data.

Treatment patterns and survival differ between early-onset and late-onset colorectal cancer patients: the patient outcomes to advance learning network.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to describe differences in treatment patterns and survival between early-onset (< 50 years old) and late-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) patients in community-based health systems. METHODS: We used tumor registry and electronic health record data to identify and characterize patients diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum from 2010 to 2014 at six US health systems in the patient outcomes to advance learning (PORTAL) network. We used logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing the distribution of tumor characteristics and treatment patterns in early-onset versus late-onset CRC. Cox regression models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and CIs comparing survival between early- and late-onset CRC patients. RESULTS: There were 1,424 early-onset and 10,810 late-onset CRC cases in our analyses. Compared to late-onset CRC, early-onset CRC was significantly associated with advanced-stage disease, high-grade histology, signet ring histology, and rectal or left colon location. After adjusting for differences in tumor and patient characteristics, early-onset patients were more likely than late-onset patients to have > 12 lymph nodes examined (OR 1.60, CI 1.37-1.87), to receive systemic therapy (chemotherapy or immunotherapy) within 6 months of diagnosis (OR 2.84, CI 2.40-3.37), and to have a reduced risk of CRC-specific death (HR 0.66, CI 0.56-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Early-onset CRC is associated with aggressive tumor characteristics, distal location, and systemic therapy use. Despite some adverse risk factors, these patients tend to have better survival than older onset patients.

A Systematic Review of Clinical Decision Support Systems for Clinical Oncology Practice.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records are central to cancer care delivery. Electronic clinical decision support (CDS) systems can potentially improve cancer care quality and safety. However, little is known regarding the use of CDS systems in clinical oncology and their impact on patient outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies was performed to evaluate clinically relevant outcomes related to the use of CDS tools for the diagnosis, treatment, and supportive care of patients with cancer. Peer-reviewed studies published from 1995 through 2016 were included if they assessed clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), costs, or care delivery process measures. RESULTS: Electronic database searches yielded 2,439 potentially eligible papers, with 24 studies included after final review. Most studies used an uncontrolled, pre-post intervention design. A total of 23 studies reported improvement in key study outcomes with use of oncology CDS systems, and 12 studies assessing the systems for computerized chemotherapy order entry demonstrated reductions in prescribing error rates, medication-related safety events, and workflow interruptions. The remaining studies examined oncology clinical pathways, guideline adherence, systems for collection and communication of PROs, and prescriber alerts. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of data evaluating clinically relevant outcomes of CDS system implementation in oncology care. Currently available data suggest that these systems can have a positive impact on the quality of cancer care delivery. However, there is a critical need to rigorously evaluate CDS systems in oncology to better understand how they can be implemented to improve patient outcomes.

Long-Term Patterns of Oral Anticancer Agent Adoption, Duration, and Switching in Patients With CML.

BACKGROUND: Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been the standard of care for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) since 2001. However, few studies have evaluated changes in the treatment landscape of CML over time. This study assessed the long-term treatment patterns of oral anticancer therapies among patients with CML. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients newly diagnosed with CML between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2016, from 10 integrated healthcare systems. The proportion of patients treated with 5 FDA-approved oral TKI agents-bosutinib, dasatinib, imatinib, nilotinib, and ponatinib-in the 12 months after diagnosis were measured, overall and by year, between 2000 and 2017. We assessed the use of each oral agent through the fourth-line setting. Multivariable logistic regression estimated the odds of receiving any oral agent, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Among 853 patients with CML, 81% received an oral agent between 2000 and 2017. Use of non-oral therapies decreased from 100% in 2000 to 5% in 2005, coinciding with imatinib uptake from 65% in 2001 to 98% in 2005. Approximately 28% of patients switched to a second-line agent, 9% switched to a third-line agent, and 2% switched to a fourth-line agent. Adjusted analysis showed that age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, and comorbidity burden were statistically significantly associated with odds of receiving an oral agent. CONCLUSIONS: A dramatic shift was seen in CML treatments away from traditional, nonoral chemotherapy toward use of novel oral TKIs between 2000 and 2017. As the costs of oral anticancer agents reach new highs, studies assessing the long-term health and financial outcomes among patients with CML are warranted.

Health-related quality of life among US adults with cancer: Potential roles of complementary and alternative medicine for health promotion and well-being.

OBJECTIVES: We estimated prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by reason for use (treatment, wellness, or both) among non-institutionalized adults with cancer in the United States. We also examined health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes among adults with cancer who used CAM. METHODS: We used data from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), which represents non-institutionalized adults with cancer (n = 2967 unweighted). Using a cross-sectional design with survey sampling techniques, we estimated past year prevalence of CAM use. We ran multivariable logistic regression analyses to investigate the odds of perceived benefits of CAM. RESULTS: In the past 12 months, 35.1% of adults with cancer reported using some form of CAM. Among CAM users, 56.0% used CAM for both treatment and wellness, and 32.4% used CAM for wellness only. Only 11.6% used CAM for treatment only. Regardless of reason for use, the most commonly used CAM types in the past year were herbal therapies (56.8%), chiropractic (27.1%), and massage (24.9%). Among CAM users, those using CAM for wellness only and for a combination of treatment and wellness reported significantly higher odds of "a better sense of controlling health" and "improved overall health and feeling better" compared with treatment only users. Similar patterns were found in other HRQOL outcomes, but they were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: CAM is widely used among adults with cancer for wellness only or a combination of treatment and wellness. Given improved HRQOL outcomes, CAM may be a promising approach for enhancing health promotion and well-being among adults with cancer.

Health care improvement and survivorship priorities of colorectal cancer survivors: findings from the PORTAL colorectal cancer cohort survey.

PURPOSE: Few population-level surveys have explored patient-centered priorities for improving colorectal cancer survivors' care. Working with patients, we designed a survey to identify care improvement and survivorship priorities. METHODS: We surveyed a random sample of 4000 patients from a retrospective, population-based cohort of colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed during 2010-2014. The survey included two multiple response questions: "What would you have changed about your cancer diagnosis and treatment experience?" and "What are your biggest health or lifestyle concerns (other than having cancer) since being diagnosed?" Multivariable regression identified characteristics associated with endorsement of health care experience and survivorship concerns. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 50.2% (2000/3986). Fifty-three percent reported at least one unmet need, most commonly for more information about life after treatment (26.7%). Survivors of rectal cancer reported more needs than respondents with colon cancer; persons of color reported more needs than non-Hispanic whites; individuals without high school diplomas reported more needs than individuals with more education. Fear of recurrence was the most common health/lifestyle concern (58.9%). Respondents under age 65 reported nearly all health/lifestyle concerns more often than respondents over age 74. Rectal cancer survivors reported more concerns about activity limitation, changes, and body function and appearance than colon cancer survivors. Persons of color were more likely to report financial concerns than non-Hispanic whites. CONCLUSIONS: The greatest needs for intervention are among survivors of rectal cancer, survivors of minority racial/ethnic background, and survivors of younger age. Survivors with low educational attainment and those with higher stage disease could also benefit.

Implementing universal Lynch syndrome screening (IMPULSS): protocol for a multi-site study to identify strategies to implement, adapt, and sustain genomic medicine programs in different organizational contexts.

BACKGROUND: Systematic screening of all colorectal tumors for Lynch Syndrome (LS) has been recommended since 2009. Currently, implementation of LS screening in healthcare systems remains variable, likely because LS screening involves the complex coordination of multiple departments and individuals across the healthcare system. Our specific aims are to (1) describe variation in LS screening implementation across multiple healthcare systems; (2) identify conditions associated with both practice variation and optimal implementation; (3) determine the relative effectiveness, efficiency, and costs of different LS screening protocols by healthcare system; and (4) develop and test in a real-world setting an organizational toolkit for LS screening program implementation and improvement. This toolkit will promote effective implementation of LS screening in various complex health systems. METHODS: This study includes eight healthcare systems with 22 clinical sites at varied stages of implementing LS screening programs. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we will conduct in-depth semi-structured interviews with patients and organizational stakeholders and perform economic evaluation of site-specific implementation costs. These processes will result in a comprehensive cross-case analysis of different organizational contexts. We will utilize qualitative data analysis and configurational comparative methodology to identify facilitators and barriers at the organizational level that are minimally sufficient and necessary for optimal LS screening implementation. DISCUSSION: The overarching goal of this project is to combine our data with theories and tools from implementation science to create an organizational toolkit to facilitate implementation of LS screening in various real-world settings. Our organizational toolkit will account for issues of complex coordination of care involving multiple stakeholders to enhance implementation, sustainability, and ongoing improvement of evidence-based LS screening programs. Successful implementation of such programs will ultimately reduce suffering of patients and their family members from preventable cancers, decrease waste in healthcare system costs, and inform strategies to facilitate the promise of precision medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Key components of success in a randomized trial of blood pressure telemonitoring with medication therapy management pharmacists.

OBJECTIVES: The Hyperlink trial tested a 12-month intervention of home blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring with pharmacist case management in adults with uncontrolled hypertension. The intervention resulted in improved BP control compared with usual care at both 6 (72% vs. 45%; P < 0.001) and 12 months (71% vs. 53%; P = 0.005). We sought to investigate factors contributing to intervention success. DESIGN: Mixed-methods analysis of process of care data, patient focus groups, and pharmacist interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Data from 228 intervention patients were examined from the original 450 patients randomly assigned from 16 primary care clinics. Five patient focus groups and 4 pharmacist interviews were conducted to ascertain the patient and pharmacist perspective. Focus group and interview data were coded, and themes relevant to pharmacists were identified. OUTCOME MEASURES: Home BP readings of less than 135/85 mm Hg and patient focus group and pharmacist interview themes. RESULTS: Mean BP at the intake visit was 148/85 mm Hg. Antihypertensive medications were adjusted in 10% of patients at the initial in-person visit, 33% at phone visit 1, 36% at phone visit 2, and 19% at phone visit 3. Thereafter, medication changes declined. The mean home BP for patients at the first phone visit was 136/80 mm Hg, 126/74 mm Hg at 3 months, and 123/73 mm Hg at 5 months, with little change thereafter. Key components of success from patient and pharmacist interviews included a strong patient-pharmacist relationship, individualized treatment plans, and frequent phone contact with the pharmacist. CONCLUSION: Frequent adjustments to the antihypertensive treatment regimen based on home BP telemonitoring resulted in rapid lowering of BP. Our results suggest that an intensive telephone-based intervention with the key components of medication adjustments, a strong patient and pharmacist relationship, and individualized treatment plans can achieve BP control in only 3 months in many patients with uncontrolled hypertension.