The landscape of use of NCCN-guideline chemotherapy regimens in stage I-IIIA breast cancer in an integrated healthcare delivery system.

PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend a variety of drug combinations with specific administration schedules for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer, allowing physicians to deliver treatments recognizing individual patient complexities, including comorbidities, and patient-physician preference. While use of guideline regimens has shifted over time, there is little data to describe changes in how treatment for early-stage breast cancer has evolved over time. METHODS: In a cohort of 34,109 women treated for stage I-IIIA breast cancer between 2006-2019 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Kaiser Permanente Washington, we present the changes in chemotherapy regimens over time, and explore use of NCCN-guideline regimens (GR), guideline regimens used when said regimens were not included in guidelines, referred to as time-discordant regimens (TDR), and non-guideline regimens (NGR). Results are presented by drug combination and over time. RESULTS: Among 12,506 women receiving chemotherapy, 77.4% (n = 9681) received GRs, 9.1% (n = 1140) received TDRs, and 13.5% (n = 1685) received NGRs. In 2006, AC-T (cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin, paclitaxel) was the most common regimen, with TC (cyclophosphamide-docetaxel) becoming the most prevalent by 2019. NGRs were more common in cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-5-fluorouracil (CMF); cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-paclitaxel-trastuzumab (ACTH); and paclitaxel-trastuzumab (TH). The use of GR has increased over time (p-trend < 0.001), while use of NGR (both in terms of administration schedule and drug combination) and TDR have decreased, although patterns vary by drug combination. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy delivery has changed markedly over time, with a move toward more use of GR. These data are important for understanding the landscape of chemotherapy delivery in community healthcare settings.

Baseline representativeness of patients in clinics enrolled in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial: comparison of trial and non-trial clinics in the same health systems.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic primary care trials aim to test interventions in "real world" health care settings, but clinics willing and able to participate in trials may not be representative of typical clinics. This analysis compared patients in participating and non-participating clinics from the same health systems at baseline in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial. METHODS: This observational analysis relied on secondary electronic health record and administrative claims data in 5 of 6 health systems in the PROUD trial. The sample included patients 16-90 years at an eligible primary care visit in the 3 years before randomization. Each system contributed 2 randomized PROUD trial clinics and 4 similarly sized non-trial clinics. We summarized patient characteristics in trial and non-trial clinics in the 2 years before randomization ("baseline"). Using mixed-effect regression models, we compared trial and non-trial clinics on a baseline measure of the primary trial outcome (clinic-level patient-years of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, scaled per 10,000 primary care patients seen) and a baseline measure of the secondary trial outcome (patient-level days of acute care utilization among patients with OUD). RESULTS: Patients were generally similar between the 10 trial clinics (n = 248,436) and 20 non-trial clinics (n = 341,130), although trial clinics' patients were slightly younger, more likely to be Hispanic/Latinx, less likely to be white, more likely to have Medicaid/subsidized insurance, and lived in less wealthy neighborhoods. Baseline outcomes did not differ between trial and non-trial clinics: trial clinics had 1.0 more patient-year of OUD treatment per 10,000 patients (95% CI: - 2.9, 5.0) and a 4% higher rate of days of acute care utilization than non-trial clinics (rate ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: trial clinics and non-trial clinics were similar regarding most measured patient characteristics, and no differences were observed in baseline measures of trial primary and secondary outcomes. These findings suggest trial clinics were representative of comparably sized clinics within the same health systems. Although results do not reflect generalizability more broadly, this study illustrates an approach to assess representativeness of clinics in future pragmatic primary care trials.

Offering nurse care management for opioid use disorder in primary care: Impact on emergency and hospital utilization in a cluster-randomized implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) have increased emergency and hospital utilization. The PROUD trial showed that implementation of office-based addiction treatment (OBAT) increased OUD medication treatment compared to usual care, but did not decrease acute care utilization in patients with OUD documented pre-randomization (clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03407638). This paper reports secondary emergency and hospital utilization outcomes in patients with documented OUD in the PROUD trial. METHODS: This cluster-randomized implementation trial was conducted in 12 clinics from 6 diverse health systems (March 2015-February 2020). Patients who visited trial clinics and had an OUD diagnosis within 3 years pre-randomization were included in primary analyses; secondary analyses added patients with OUD who were new to the clinic or with newly-documented OUD post-randomization. Outcomes included days of emergency care and hospital utilization over 2 years post-randomization. Explanatory outcomes included measures of OUD treatment. Patient-level analyses used mixed-effect regression with clinic-specific random intercepts. RESULTS: Among 1988 patients with documented OUD seen pre-randomization (mean age 49, 53 % female), days of emergency care or hospitalization did not differ between intervention and usual care; OUD treatment also did not differ. In secondary analyses among 1347 patients with OUD post-randomization, there remained no difference in emergency or hospital utilization despite intervention patients receiving 32.2 (95 % CI 4.7, 59.7) more days of OUD treatment relative to usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of OBAT did not reduce emergency or hospital utilization among patients with OUD, even in the sample with OUD first documented post-randomization in whom the intervention increased treatment.

Nurse Care Management for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: The PROUD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few primary care (PC) practices treat patients with medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) despite availability of effective treatments. Objective: To assess whether implementation of the Massachusetts model of nurse care management for OUD in PC increases OUD treatment with buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone and secondarily decreases acute care utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Primary Care Opioid Use Disorders Treatment (PROUD) trial was a mixed-methods, implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 6 diverse health systems across 5 US states (New York, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Washington). Two PC clinics in each system were randomized to intervention or usual care (UC) stratified by system (5 systems were notified on February 28, 2018, and 1 system with delayed data use agreement on August 31, 2018). Data were obtained from electronic health records and insurance claims. An implementation monitoring team collected qualitative data. Primary care patients were included if they were 16 to 90 years old and visited a participating clinic from up to 3 years before a system's randomization date through 2 years after. Intervention: The PROUD intervention included 3 components: (1) salary for a full-time OUD nurse care manager; (2) training and technical assistance for nurse care managers; and (3) 3 or more PC clinicians agreeing to prescribe buprenorphine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a clinic-level measure of patient-years of OUD treatment (buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone) per 10 000 PC patients during the 2 years postrandomization (follow-up). The secondary outcome, among patients with OUD prerandomization, was a patient-level measure of the number of days of acute care utilization during follow-up. Results: During the baseline period, a total of 130 623 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 48.6 [17.7] years; 59.7% female), and 159 459 patients were seen in UC clinics (mean [SD] age, 47.2 [17.5] years; 63.0% female). Intervention clinics provided 8.2 (95% CI, 5.4-∞) more patient-years of OUD treatment per 10 000 PC patients compared with UC clinics (P = .002). Most of the benefit accrued in 2 health systems and in patients new to clinics (5.8 [95% CI, 1.3-∞] more patient-years) or newly treated for OUD postrandomization (8.3 [95% CI, 4.3-∞] more patient-years). Qualitative data indicated that keys to successful implementation included broad commitment to treat OUD in PC from system leaders and PC teams, full financial coverage for OUD treatment, and straightforward pathways for patients to access nurse care managers. Acute care utilization did not differ between intervention and UC clinics (relative rate, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.47-2.92; P = .70). Conclusions and Relevance: The PROUD cluster randomized clinical trial intervention meaningfully increased PC OUD treatment, albeit unevenly across health systems; however, it did not decrease acute care utilization among patients with OUD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03407638.

Physical and Mental Health of US Air Force Military Training Instructors.

INTRODUCTION: Many epidemiologic studies have been performed in military recruit populations, but little is known about the health of those who conduct the training. This study aims to characterize the physical and mental health of a military trainer cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All US Air Force military training instructors (MTIs) who served between 1 October 2011 and 30 September 2016 were included in this retrospective descriptive study. All International Classification of Diseases, Ninth or Tenth Revision codes received by MTIs as inpatients or outpatients in the TRICARE system were obtained and mapped to Clinical Classifications Software levels. After excluding routine and administrative codes, the relative burden of disease by diagnostic category and subcategory was calculated, with further classification of musculoskeletal conditions by anatomic site. For all conditions accounting for at least 1.0% of the burden of care, incidence density rates and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare males and females. RESULTS: A total of 1,269 MTIs received 32,601 non-administrative, non-routine diagnoses while accumulating 50,376 person-months of exposure during the surveillance period. Musculoskeletal conditions were the greatest contributor to overall disease burden, accounting for 39.1% of all diagnoses, followed by mental health (10.4%), respiratory (10.1%), and neurologic and sensory (9.8%). The burden attributed to mental health conditions decreased by 54% over the 5-year period. Twenty-three conditions accounted for at least 1.0% of the healthcare burden. The highest incidence conditions were connective tissue disease (27.18 per 1,000 person-months), non-traumatic joint disorders (25.74), upper respiratory infections (25.14), and back pain (23.70). As compared to males, females had a higher incidence of several conditions, including adjustment disorders (IRR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.61, 4.11) and anxiety disorders (IRR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.33, 3.77). CONCLUSIONS: Musculoskeletal conditions are the leading contributor to burden of care among US Air Force MTIs, followed by mental health, respiratory, and neurologic and sensory conditions. The burden of healthcare among US Air Force MTIs more closely resembles active component service members than recruit trainees.

Evaluation of serological testing for Lyme disease in Military Health System beneficiaries in Germany, 2013-2017.

Lyme disease diagnostic workups conducted on active and retired U.S. service members and their dependents at U.S. Air Force military treatment facilities (MTFs) in Germany between 2013 and 2017 were assessed to determine the appropriateness of laboratory testing and antibiotic prescriptions. Of the 1,176 first-tier immunoassays, 1,114 (94.7%) were negative, and of the 285 immunoglobulin M (IgM) immunoblots, 242 (84.9%) followed a negative first-tier assay or were performed without an antecedent first-tier assay. Eighty-three positive IgM immunoblot tests were adjudicated using modified published criteria, of which 40 (48.2%) were deemed false positives. Thirtytwo patients with false-positive tests were treated with an antibiotic. Additionally, 30 patients with uncomplicated erythema migrans could have been treated without laboratory confirmation. Understanding the use and limitations of 2-tier diagnostic criteria, as well as the common pitfalls in diagnosing Lyme disease, may help prevent overdiagnosis, reduce unnecessary testing, and promote antibiotic stewardship.