Longitudinal Analysis of Caregiver Burden in Head and Neck Cancer.

Importance: Despite the critical role of caregivers in head and neck cancer (HNC), there is limited literature on caregiver burden (CGB) and its evolution over treatment. Research is needed to address evidence gaps that exist in understanding the causal pathways between caregiving and treatment outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of and identify risk factors for CGB in HNC survivorship. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal prospective cohort study took place at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dyads of treatment-naive patients with HNC and their caregivers were recruited between October 2019 and December 2020. Eligible patient-caregiver dyads were 18 years or older and fluent in English. Patients undergoing definitive treatment identified a caregiver as the primary, nonprofessional, nonpaid person who provided the most assistance to them. Among 100 eligible dyadic participants, 2 caregivers declined participation, resulting in 96 enrolled participants. Data were analyzed from September 2021 through October 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants were surveyed at diagnosis, 3 months postdiagnosis, and 6 months postdiagnosis. Caregiver burden was evaluated with the 19-item Social Support Survey (scored 0-100, with higher scores indicating more support), Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA; scored 0-5, with higher scores on 4 subscales [disrupted schedule, financial problems, lack of family support, and health problems] indicating negative reactions, and higher scores on the fifth subscale [self-esteem] indicating favorable influence); and 3-item Loneliness Scale (scored 3-9, with higher scores indicating greater loneliness). Patient health-related quality of life was assessed using the University of Washington Quality of Life scale (UW-QOL; scored 0-100, with higher scores indicating better QOL). Results: Of the 96 enrolled participants, half were women (48 [50%]), and a majority were White (92 [96%]), married or living with a partner (81 [84%]), and working (51 [53%]). Of these participants, 60 (63%) completed surveys at diagnosis and at least 1 follow-up. Of the 30 caregivers, most were women (24 [80%]), White (29 [97%]), married or living with a partner (28 [93%]), and working (22 [73%]). Caregivers of nonworking patients reported higher scores on the CRA subscale for health problems than caregivers of working patients (mean difference, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.18-0.64). Caregivers of patients with UW-QOL social/emotional (S/E) subscale scores of 62 or lower at diagnosis reported increased scores on the CRA subscale for health problems (UW-QOL-S/E score of 22: CRA score mean difference, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.48-1.77; UW-QOL-S/E score of 42: CRA score mean difference, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.34-1.15; and UW-QOL-S/E score of 62: CRA score mean difference, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.59). Woman caregivers had statistically significant worsening scores on the Social Support Survey (mean difference, -9.18; 95% CI, -17.14 to -1.22). The proportion of lonely caregivers increased over treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study highlights patient- and caregiver-specific factors that are associated with increased CGB. Results further demonstrate the potential implications for negative health outcomes for caregivers of patients who are not working and have lower health-related quality of life.

Casting a Wide Net: HIV Drug Resistance Monitoring in Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Seroconverters in the Global Evaluation of Microbicide Sensitivity Project.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) in individuals using oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) who acquire HIV is limited to clinical trials and case studies. More data are needed to understand the risk of HIVDR with oral PrEP during PrEP rollout. Mechanisms to collect these data vary, and are dependent on cost, scale of PrEP distribution, and in-country infrastructure for the identification, collection, and testing of samples from PrEP seroconverters. METHODS: The Global Evaluation of Microbicide Sensitivity (GEMS) project, in collaboration with country stakeholders, initiated HIVDR monitoring among new HIV seroconverters with prior PrEP use in Eswatini, Kenya, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. Standalone protocols were developed to assess HIVDR among a national sample of PrEP users. In addition, HIVDR testing was incorporated into existing demonstration projects for key populations. LESSONS LEARNED: Countries are supportive of conducting a time-limited evaluation of HIVDR during the early stages of PrEP rollout. As PrEP rollout expands, the need for long-term HIVDR monitoring with PrEP will need to be balanced with maintaining national HIV drug resistance surveillance for pretreatment and acquired drug resistance. Laboratory capacity is a common obstacle to setting up a monitoring system. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing HIV resistance monitoring within PrEP programs is feasible. Approaches to drug resistance monitoring may evolve as the PrEP programs mature and expand. The methods and implementation support offered by GEMS assisted countries in developing methods to monitor for drug resistance that best fit their PrEP program needs and resources.

Potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on financial toxicity in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: In the context of COVID-19, cancer survivors represent a particularly vulnerable population that may be "doubly hit" by both costs of cancer treatment and financial strain imposed by the pandemic. METHODS: We performed a review of the literature pertaining to cancer, financial toxicity, and economic challenges. RESULTS: Multiple societies have put forth recommendations to modify delivery of cancer care in order to minimize patient exposure to the virus. Cancer survivors, especially patients with head and neck cancer, have been disproportionately affected by rising unemployment levels and economic recessions in the past, both of which are linked to higher cancer mortality. Patients who rely on employer-provided insurance and do not qualify for Medicaid may lose access to life-saving treatments. CONCLUSIONS: It is essential to implement interventions and policy changes in order to mitigate the effects of this pandemic but also to ensure this becomes a nonissue during the next one.