Can stepped collaborative care interventions improve post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms for racial and ethnic minority injury survivors?

Objectives: No large-scale randomized clinical trial investigations have evaluated the potential differential effectiveness of early interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among injured patients from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds. The current investigation assessed whether a stepped collaborative care intervention trial conducted at 25 level I trauma centers differentially improved PTSD symptoms for racial and ethnic minority injury survivors. Methods: The investigation was a secondary analysis of a stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial. Patients endorsing high levels of distress on the PTSD Checklist (PCL-C) were randomized to enhanced usual care control or intervention conditions. Three hundred and fifty patients of the 635 randomized (55%) were from non-white and/or Hispanic backgrounds. The intervention included care management, cognitive behavioral therapy elements and, psychopharmacology addressing PTSD symptoms. The primary study outcome was PTSD symptoms assessed with the PCL-C at 3, 6, and 12 months postinjury. Mixed model regression analyses compared treatment effects for intervention and control group patients from non-white/Hispanic versus white/non-Hispanic backgrounds. Results: The investigation attained between 75% and 80% 3-month to 12-month follow-up. The intervention, on average, required 122 min (SD=132 min). Mixed model regression analyses revealed significant changes in PCL-C scores for non-white/Hispanic intervention patients at 6 months (adjusted difference -3.72 (95% CI -7.33 to -0.10) Effect Size =0.25, p<0.05) after the injury event. No significant differences were observed for white/non-Hispanic patients at the 6-month time point (adjusted difference -1.29 (95% CI -4.89 to 2.31) ES=0.10, p=ns). Conclusion: In this secondary analysis, a brief stepped collaborative care intervention was associated with greater 6-month reductions in PTSD symptoms for non-white/Hispanic patients when compared with white/non-Hispanic patients. If replicated, these findings could serve to inform future American College of Surgeon Committee on Trauma requirements for screening, intervention, and referral for PTSD and comorbidities. Level of evidence: Level II, secondary analysis of randomized clinical trial data reporting a significant difference. Trial registration number: NCT02655354.

Emergency Department and Inpatient Utilization Reductions and Cost Savings Associated With Trauma Center Mental Health Intervention: Results From a 5-year Longitudinal Randomized Clinical Trial Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and refer patients at high risk for the psychological sequelae of traumatic injury, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma now requires that trauma centers have in-place protocols. No investigations have documented reductions in utilization and associated potential cost savings associated with trauma center mental health interventions. BACKGROUND: The investigation was a randomized clinical trial analysis that incorporated novel 5-year emergency department (ED)/inpatient health service utilization follow-up data. METHODS: Patients were randomized to a mental health intervention, targeting the psychological sequelae of traumatic injury (n = 85) versus enhanced usual care control (n = 86) conditions. The intervention included case management that coordinated trauma center-to-community care linkages, psychotropic medication consultation, and psychotherapy elements. Mixed model regression was used to assess intervention and control group utilization differences over time. An economic analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: Over the course of the 5-year intervention, patients demonstrated significant reductions in ED/inpatient utilization when compared with control patients [ F (19,3210) = 2.23, P = 0.009]. Intervention utilization reductions were greatest at 3 to 6 months (intervention 15.5% vs control 26.7%, relative risk = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34, 1.00) and 12 to 15 months (intervention 16.5% vs control 30.6%, relative risk = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.91) postinjury time points. The economic analysis suggested potential intervention cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health intervention is associated with significant reductions in ED and inpatient utilization, as well as potential cost savings. These findings could be productively integrated into future American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma policy discussions.

Validation of the FENCE Risk Groups for Prediction of Febrile Neutropenia With First-Cycle Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The FEbrile Neutropenia after ChEmotherapy (FENCE) score was developed to estimate the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) at first cycle of chemotherapy but has not been externally validated. We aimed to validate the FENCE score based on its risk groups in patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of treatment-naïve adult patients with solid tumors and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who received first-cycle chemotherapy between January and November 2019. Patients were followed until the second cycle of chemotherapy to identify any FN events (neutrophil count <0.5 × 109/L with fever ≥38.2°C). The FENCE score was determined and patients classified as low, intermediate, high, and very high risk. The discriminatory ability of classifying patients into FENCE risk groups was calculated as the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve and incidence rate ratios within each FENCE risk group. RESULTS: FN was documented during the first cycle of chemotherapy in 45 of the 918 patients included (5%). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58 to 0.73). Compared with the low-risk group (n = 285), the incidence rate ratio of developing FN was 1.58 (95% CI = 0.54 to 5.21), 3.16 (95% CI = 1.09 to 10.25), and 3.93 (95% CI = 1.46 to 12.27) in the intermediate (n = 293), high (n = 162), and very high (n = 178) risk groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, classifying patients into FENCE risk groups demonstrated moderate discriminatory ability for predicting FN. Further validation in multicenter studies is necessary to determine its generalizability.