Cardiovascular Risk and Resilience Among Black Adults: Rationale and Design of the MECA Study.

Background Cardiovascular disease incidence, prevalence, morbidity, and mortality have declined in the past several decades; however, disparities persist among subsets of the population. Notably, blacks have not experienced the same improvements on the whole as whites. Furthermore, frequent reports of relatively poorer health statistics among the black population have led to a broad assumption that black race reliably predicts relatively poorer health outcomes. However, substantial intraethnic and intraracial heterogeneity exists; moreover, individuals with similar risk factors and environmental exposures are often known to experience vastly different cardiovascular health outcomes. Thus, some individuals have good outcomes even in the presence of cardiovascular risk factors, a concept known as resilience. Methods and Results The MECA (Morehouse-Emory Center for Health Equity) Study was designed to investigate the multilevel exposures that contribute to "resilience" in the face of risk for poor cardiovascular health among blacks in the greater Atlanta, GA, metropolitan area. We used census tract data to determine "at-risk" and "resilient" neighborhoods with high or low prevalence of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, based on cardiovascular death, hospitalization, and emergency department visits for blacks. More than 1400 individuals from these census tracts assented to demographic, health, and psychosocial questionnaires administered through telephone surveys. Afterwards, ≈500 individuals were recruited to enroll in a clinical study, where risk biomarkers, such as oxidative stress, and inflammatory markers, endothelial progenitor cells, metabolomic and microRNA profiles, and subclinical vascular dysfunction were measured. In addition, comprehensive behavioral questionnaires were collected and ideal cardiovascular health metrics were assessed using the American Heart Association's Life Simple 7 measure. Last, 150 individuals with low Life Simple 7 were recruited and randomized to a behavioral mobile health (eHealth) plus health coach or eHealth only intervention and followed up for improvement. Conclusions The MECA Study is investigating socioenvironmental and individual behavioral measures that promote resilience to cardiovascular disease in blacks by assessing biological, functional, and molecular mechanisms. REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03308812.

Outcomes of Medicare-age eligible NHL patients receiving RIC allogeneic transplantation: a CIBMTR analysis.

The application of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients ≥65 years in the United States is limited by lack of Medicare coverage for this indication. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we report allo-HCT outcomes of NHL patients aged ≥65 years (older cohort; n = 446) compared with a cohort of younger NHL patients aged 55-64 years (n = 1183). We identified 1629 NHL patients undergoing a first reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) or nonmyeloablative conditioning allo-HCT from 2008 to 2015 in the United States. Cord blood or haploidentical transplants were excluded. The median age was 68 years (range 65-77) for the older cohort vs 60 years (range 55-64) in the younger cohort. The 4-year adjusted probabilities of nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression (R/P), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) of the younger and older groups were 24% vs 30% (P = .03), 41% vs 42% (P = .82), 37% vs 31% (P = .03), and 51% vs 46% (P = .07), respectively. Using multivariate analysis, compared with the younger group, the older cohort was associated with increased NRM, but there was no difference between the 2 cohorts in terms of R/P, PFS, or OS. The most common cause of death was disease relapse in both groups. In NHL patients eligible for allo-HCT, there was no difference in OS between the 2 cohorts. Age alone should not determine allo-HCT eligibility in NHL, and Medicare should expand allo-HCT coverage to older adults.

Referral Patterns and Clinical Outcomes for Transplant-Eligible Lymphoma and Myeloma Patients Evaluated at an Urban County Hospital.

Disparities in clinical care have been described for patients with limited insurance coverage or social support. We hypothesized that patients with relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), or multiple myeloma (MM) treated at an urban county hospital serving indigent and under-insured patients would face barriers for referral to a private academic transplant center for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Charts of patients with HL, NHL, or MM treated at Grady Memorial Hospital between 2007 and 2013 were reviewed, and 215 patients with diagnosis of HD (n=40), NHL (n=96), and MM (n=79). 55 patients were referred for ASCT consults and 160 patients were not referred. Reasons for transplant non-referral included established clinical criteria (64% of cases), poor performance status (13%), refusal (4%), moved/lost-to-follow-up (4%), medical non-compliance (3%), death (3%), or referral to another hospital (1%). Non-referral based upon socio-economic criteria included: lack of legal immigration status/insurance (2%), and lack of social support/substance abuse (2%). Among the 55 referred patients, 27 patients (49%) underwent ASCT. Median follow-up for all referred patients from the time of diagnosis was 3.9 [0.7-22.7] years. 5-year survival from the date of diagnosis for patients who received ASCT was 80.2% versus 65.7% for non-transplanted patients (log-rank test, p-value=0.11). While the referral process did not demonstrate significant barriers based upon insurance or social status, further evaluation is needed to identify modifiable factors that can improve referral and assess the impact of the Affordable Care Act on access to ASCT.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of palifermin to prevent mucositis among patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Trials have shown benefits of palifermin in reducing the incidence and severity of oral mucositis in patients with hematological malignancies undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) with total body irradiation (TBI)-based conditioning regimens. Similar outcome data are lacking for patients receiving non-TBI-based regimens. We performed a retrospective evaluation on the pharmacoeconomic benefit of palifermin in the setting of non-TBI-based conditioning and autologous HSCT. Between January 2002 and December 2010, 524 patients undergoing autologous HSCT for myeloma (melphalan 200 mg/m²) and lymphoma (high-dose busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide) as preparative regimen were analyzed. Use of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was significantly lower in the palifermin-treated groups (myeloma: 13% versus 53%, P < .001; lymphoma: 46% versus 68%, P < .001). Median total transplant charges were significantly higher in the palifermin-treated group, after controlling for inflation (myeloma: $167,820 versus $143,200, P < .001; lymphoma: $168,570 versus $148,590, P < .001). Palifermin treatment was not associated with a difference in days to neutrophil engraftment, length of stay, and overall survival and was associated with an additional cost of $5.5K (myeloma) and $14K (lymphoma) per day of PCA avoided. Future studies are suggested to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of palifermin compared with other symptomatic treatments to reduce transplant toxicity using validated measures for pain and quality of life.

Effectiveness and cost analysis of "just-in-time" salvage plerixafor administration in autologous transplant patients with poor stem cell mobilization kinetics.

BACKGROUND: Plerixafor is a recently Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved CXCR4 antagonist, which is combined with granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to facilitate stem cell mobilization of lymphoma and myeloma patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: To evaluate the effectiveness and the related costs of a "just-in-time" strategy of plerixafor administration, we performed a retrospective cohort study comparing 148 consecutive lymphoma and myeloma patients in whom mobilization was attempted during 2008 before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of plerixafor with 188 consecutive patients mobilized during 2009 after FDA approval. RESULTS: Plerixafor was administered to 64 of 188 patients considered to be at risk for mobilization failure due to either their medical history ("high risk," n = 23) or the occurrence of peripheral blood CD34+ count of fewer than 15 × 10(6) cells/L with a white blood cell count of greater than 10 × 10(9) cells/L after at least 5 days of G-CSF administration (just-in-time, n = 41). The success rates of collecting a minimum transplant CD34+ cell dose (≥2 × 10(6) cells/kg) or target cell dose (≥5 × 10(6) lymphoma or ≥10 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg myeloma) in the just-in-time patients compared favorably with the 36 poor mobilizers collected with G-CSF alone: 93% versus 72% and 42% versus 22%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of plerixafor in selected high-risk patients and poor mobilizers did not increase the total charges associated with stem cell collection when compared with poor mobilizers treated with G-CSF alone. The targeted use of plerixafor increased the overall success rate of mobilizing a minimum number of CD34+ cells from 93% to 98% in patients with hematologic malignancies scheduled for autotransplant and increased the overall charges associated with stem cell collection in all patients by an average of 17%.