Development and validation of a predictive model algorithm to identify anaphylaxis in adults with type 2 diabetes in U.S. administrative claims data.

PURPOSE: To use medical record adjudication and predictive modeling methods to develop and validate an algorithm to identify anaphylaxis among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in administrative claims. METHODS: A conventional screening algorithm that prioritized sensitivity to identify potential anaphylaxis cases was developed and consisted of diagnosis codes for anaphylaxis or relevant signs and symptoms. This algorithm was applied to adults with T2D in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD) from 2016 to 2018. Clinical experts adjudicated anaphylaxis case status from redacted medical records. We used confirmed case status as an outcome for predictive models developed using lasso regression with 10-fold cross-validation to identify predictors and estimate the probability of confirmed anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Clinical adjudicators reviewed medical records with sufficient information from 272 adults identified by the anaphylaxis screening algorithm, which had an estimated Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 65% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60%-71%). The predictive model algorithm had a c-statistic of 0.95. The model's probability threshold of 0.60 excluded 89% (84/94) of false positives identified by the screening algorithm, with a PPV of 94% (95% CI: 91%-98%). The model excluded very few true positives (15 of 178), and identified 92% (95% CI: 87%-96%) of the cases selected by the screening algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive modeling techniques yielded an accurate algorithm with high PPV and sensitivity for identifying anaphylaxis in administrative claims. This algorithm could be considered in future safety studies using similar claims data to reduce potential outcome misclassification.

Real-world safety of palbociclib in breast cancer patients in the United States: a new user cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited real-world safety information on palbociclib for treatment of advanced stage HR+/HER2- breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of breast cancer patients initiating palbociclib and fulvestrant from February 2015 to September 2017 using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD), a longitudinal claims database of commercial health plan members in the United States. The historical comparator cohort comprised patients initiating fulvestrant monotherapy from January 2011 to January 2015. Propensity score matching and Cox regression were used to estimate hazard ratios for various safety events. For acute liver injury (ALI), additional analyses and medical record validation were conducted. RESULTS: There were 2445 patients who initiated palbociclib including 566 new users of palbociclib-fulvestrant, and 2316 historical new users of fulvestrant monotherapy. Compared to these historical new users of fulvestrant monotherapy, new users of palbociclib-fulvestrant had a greater than 2-fold elevated risk for neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, stomatitis and mucositis, and ALI. Incidence of anemia and QT prolongation were more weakly associated, and incidences of serious infections and pulmonary embolism were similar between groups after propensity score matching. After adjustment for additional ALI risk factors, the elevated risk of ALI in new users of palbociclib-fulvestrant persisted (e.g. primary ALI algorithm hazard ratio (HR) = 3.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.1-8.4). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study found increased risks of several adverse events identified in clinical trials, including neutropenia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia, but no increased risk of serious infections or pulmonary embolism when comparing new users of palbociclib-fulvestrant to fulvestrant monotherapy. We observed an increased risk of ALI, extending clinical trial findings of significant imbalances in grade 3/4 elevations of alanine aminotransferase (ALT).

A real-world study on characteristics, treatments and outcomes in US patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Detailed epidemiologic descriptions of large populations of advanced stage ovarian cancer patients have been lacking to date. This study aimed to describe the patient characteristics, treatment patterns, survival, and incidence rates of health outcomes of interest (HOI) in a large cohort of advanced stage ovarian cancer patients in the United States (US). METHODS: This cohort study identified incident advanced stage (III/IV) ovarian cancer patients in the US diagnosed from 2010 to 2018 in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD) using a validated predictive model algorithm. Descriptive characteristics were presented overall and by treatment line. The incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals for pre-specified HOIs were evaluated after advanced stage diagnosis. Overall survival, time to treatment discontinuation or death (TTD), and time to next treatment or death (TTNT) were defined using treatment information in claims and linkage with the National Death Index. RESULTS: We identified 12,659 patients with incident advanced stage ovarian cancer during the study period. Most patients undergoing treatment received platinum agents (75%) and/or taxanes (70%). The most common HOIs (> 24 per 100 person-years) included abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, anemia, and serious infections. The median overall survival from diagnosis was 4.5 years, while approximately half of the treated cohort had a first-line time to treatment discontinuation or death (TTD) within the first 4 months, and a time to next treatment or death (TTNT) from first to second-line of about 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes commercially insured US patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer from 2010 to 2018, and observed diverse treatment patterns, incidence of numerous HOIs, and limited survival in this population.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Lottery-Based Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity Among Overweight and Obese Adults.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of lottery-based financial incentives in increasing physical activity. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: University of Pennsylvania Employees. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 209 adults with body mass index ≥27. INTERVENTIONS: All participants used smartphones to track activity, were given a goal of 7000 steps per day, and received daily feedback on performance for 26 weeks. Participants randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 intervention arms received a financial incentive for 13 weeks and then were followed for 13 weeks without incentives. Daily lottery incentives were designed as a "higher frequency, smaller reward" (1 in 4 chance of winning $5), "jackpot" (1 in 400 chance of winning $500), or "combined lottery" (18% chance of $5 and 1% chance of $50). MEASURES: Mean proportion of participant days step goals were achieved. ANALYSIS: Multivariate regression. RESULTS: During the intervention, the unadjusted mean proportion of participant days that goal was achieved was 0.26 in the control arm, 0.32 in the higher frequency, smaller reward lottery arm, 0.29 in the jackpot arm, and 0.38 in the combined lottery arm. In adjusted models, only the combined lottery arm was significantly greater than control ( P = .01). The jackpot arm had a significant decline of 0.13 ( P < .001) compared to control. There were no significant differences during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Combined lottery incentives were most effective in increasing physical activity.

Effect of a Game-Based Intervention Designed to Enhance Social Incentives to Increase Physical Activity Among Families: The BE FIT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Gamification, the application of game design elements such as points and levels in nongame contexts, is often used in digital health interventions, but evidence on its effectiveness is limited. Objective: To test the effectiveness of a gamification intervention designed using insights from behavioral economics to enhance social incentives within families to increase physical activity. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Behavioral Economics Framingham Incentive Trial (BE FIT) was a randomized clinical trial with a 12-week intervention period and a 12-week follow-up period. The investigation was a community-based study between December 7, 2015, and August 14, 2016. Participants in the modified intent-to-treat analysis were adults enrolled in the Framingham Heart Study, a long-standing cohort of families. Interventions: All participants tracked daily step counts using a wearable device or a smartphone, established a baseline, selected a step goal increase, and received daily individual feedback on goal performance by text message or email for 24 weeks. Families in the gamification arm could earn points and progress through levels based on physical activity goal achievement during the 12-week intervention. The game design was meant to enhance collaboration, accountability, and peer support. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participant-days that step goals were achieved during the intervention period. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participant-days that step goals were achieved during the follow-up period and the change in the mean daily steps during the intervention and follow-up periods. Results: Among 200 adults comprising 94 families, the mean age was 55.4 years, and 56.0% (n = 112) were female. During the intervention period, participants in the gamification arm achieved step goals on a significantly greater proportion of participant-days (0.53 vs 0.32; adjusted difference, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.20-0.33; P < .001) and had a significantly greater increase in the mean daily steps compared with baseline (1661 vs 636; adjusted difference, 953; 95% CI, 505-1401; P < .001) than the control arm. During the follow-up period, physical activity in the gamification arm declined but remained significantly greater than that in the control arm for the proportion of participant-days achieving step goals (0.44 vs 0.33; adjusted difference, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05-0.19; P < .001) and the mean daily steps compared with baseline (1385 vs 798; adjusted difference, 494; 95% CI, 170-818; P < .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Gamification designed to leverage insights from behavioral economics to enhance social incentives significantly increased physical activity among families in the community. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02531763.

A Randomized Trial of Social Comparison Feedback and Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of different combinations of social comparison feedback and financial incentives to increase physical activity. DESIGN: Randomized trial (Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT02030080). SETTING: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred eighty-six adults. INTERVENTIONS: Twenty-six weeks of weekly feedback on team performance compared to the 50th percentile (n = 100) or the 75th percentile (n = 64) and 13 weeks of weekly lottery-based financial incentive plus feedback on team performance compared to the 50th percentile (n = 80) or the 75th percentile (n = 44) followed by 13 weeks of only performance feedback. MEASURES: Mean proportion of participant-days achieving the 7000-step goal during the 13-week intervention. ANALYSIS: Generalized linear mixed models adjusting for repeated measures and clustering by team. RESULTS: Compared to the 75th percentile without incentives during the intervention period, the mean proportion achieving the 7000-step goal was significantly greater for the 50th percentile with incentives group (0.45 vs 0.27, difference: 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.04 to 0.32; P = .012) but not for the 75th percentile with incentives group (0.38 vs 0.27, difference: 0.11, 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.27; P = .19) or the 50th percentile without incentives group (0.30 vs 0.27, difference: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.16; P = .67). CONCLUSION: Social comparison to the 50th percentile with financial incentives was most effective for increasing physical activity.

Individual Versus Team-Based Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: More than half of adults in the United States do not attain the minimum recommended level of physical activity to achieve health benefits. The optimal design of financial incentives to promote physical activity is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of individual versus team-based financial incentives to increase physical activity. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial comparing three interventions to control. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and four adult employees from an organization in Philadelphia formed 76 four-member teams. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received daily feedback on performance towards achieving a daily 7000 step goal during the intervention (weeks 1- 13) and follow-up (weeks 14- 26) periods. The control arm received no other intervention. In the three financial incentive arms, drawings were held in which one team was selected as the winner every other day during the 13-week intervention. A participant on a winning team was eligible as follows: $50 if he or she met the goal (individual incentive), $50 only if all four team members met the goal (team incentive), or $20 if he or she met the goal individually and $10 more for each of three teammates that also met the goal (combined incentive). MAIN MEASURES: Mean proportion of participant-days achieving the 7000 step goal during the intervention. KEY RESULTS: Compared to the control group during the intervention period, the mean proportion achieving the 7000 step goal was significantly greater for the combined incentive (0.35 vs. 0.18, difference: 0.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.07-0.28, p <0.001) but not for the individual incentive (0.25 vs 0.18, difference: 0.08, 95 % CI: -0.02-0.18, p = 0.13) or the team incentive (0.17 vs 0.18, difference: -0.003, 95 % CI: -0.11-0.10, p = 0.96). The combined incentive arm participants also achieved the goal at significantly greater rates than the team incentive (0.35 vs. 0.17, difference: 0.18, 95 % CI: 0.08-0.28, p < 0.001), but not the individual incentive (0.35 vs. 0.25, difference: 0.10, 95 % CI: -0.001-0.19, p = 0.05). Only the combined incentive had greater mean daily steps than control (difference: 1446, 95 % CI: 448-2444, p ≤ 0.005). There were no significant differences between arms during the follow-up period (weeks 14- 26). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives rewarded for a combination of individual and team performance were most effective for increasing physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02001194.

Framing Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity Among Overweight and Obese Adults: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Financial incentive designs to increase physical activity have not been well-examined. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of 3 methods to frame financial incentives to increase physical activity among overweight and obese adults. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT 02030119). SETTING: University of Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: 281 adult employees (body mass index ≥27 kg/m2). INTERVENTION: 13-week intervention. Participants had a goal of 7000 steps per day and were randomly assigned to a control group with daily feedback or 1 of 3 financial incentive programs with daily feedback: a gain incentive ($1.40 given each day the goal was achieved), lottery incentive (daily eligibility [expected value approximately $1.40] if goal was achieved), or loss incentive ($42 allocated monthly upfront and $1.40 removed each day the goal was not achieved). Participants were followed for another 13 weeks with daily performance feedback but no incentives. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was the mean proportion of participant-days that the 7000-step goal was achieved during the intervention. Secondary outcomes included the mean proportion of participant-days achieving the goal during follow-up and the mean daily steps during intervention and follow-up. RESULTS: The mean proportion of participant-days achieving the goal was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.22 to 0.37) in the control group, 0.35 (CI, 0.28 to 0.42) in the gain-incentive group, 0.36 (CI, 0.29 to 0.43) in the lottery-incentive group, and 0.45 (CI, 0.38 to 0.52) in the loss-incentive group. In adjusted analyses, only the loss-incentive group had a significantly greater mean proportion of participant-days achieving the goal than control (adjusted difference, 0.16 [CI, 0.06 to 0.26]; P = 0.001), but the adjusted difference in mean daily steps was not significant (861 [CI, 24 to 1746]; P = 0.056). During follow-up, daily steps decreased for all incentive groups and were not different from control. LIMITATION: Single employer. CONCLUSION: Financial incentives framed as a loss were most effective for achieving physical activity goals. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.