Prevalence of Psoriasis in Children and Adolescents in the United States: A Claims-Based Analysis.

IMPORTANCE: While psoriasis (Ps) is mainly characterized as an adult disease, it can also develop during childhood. However, prevalence estimates of pediatric psoriasis in the United States (US) are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the 2015 annual prevalence of Ps and moderate-to-severe Ps in pediatric individuals in the US. DESIGN: This is a retrospective study based on a large administrative insurance claims database in the US. SETTING: Data were extracted from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters database, which covers over 60 million individuals with employer-provided health insurance across the US. PARTICIPANTS: Over 4.3 million of individuals continuously enrolled in their healthcare plan in 2015 and under 18 years of age were included in the study. Intervention(s) for Clinical Trials or Exposure(s) for Observational Studies: Not applicable. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Ps was defined based on medical claims with a diagnosis of Ps (ICD-9-CM: 696.1); moderate-to-severe Ps was defined based on medical or pharmacy claims for a systemic treatment (biologic, conventional systemic, or phototherapy) for Ps. Overall and age- and gender-stratified prevalence was estimated for both Ps and moderate-to-severe Ps. RESULTS: The prevalence of Ps was estimated at 128 cases per 100,000 individuals (95% CI: 124-131), that of moderate-to-severe Ps at 16 cases per 100,000 individuals (95% CI: 15-17) in 2015. For both Ps and moderate-to-severe Ps, prevalence estimates were numerically higher in females than in males (146 per 100,000 vs. 110 per 100,000 and 17 per 100,000 vs. 15 per 100,000) and increased with age, ranging from 30 per 100,000 in the 0-3 year old group to 205 per 100,000 in the 12-17 year old group. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This study provides robust estimates of the prevalence of pediatric Ps that can inform decisions pertaining to the management of pediatric patients with Ps. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(2):187-194.

Assessment of Evidence-Based Standards in the Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer in a Community Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Although the monitoring of patients with advanced prostate cancer is essential to optimize treatment, little is known about adherence to guidelines. In this study we compared testing practices at an integrated urology/radiation oncology group practice with evidence-based guidelines and best practices. METHODS: Electronic medical records up to December 2014 from the integrated urology/radiation oncology group practice were queried to identify patients who received androgen deprivation therapy and in whom advanced disease was staged as androgen deprivation therapy sensitive, subcastration resistant (incompletely defined probable castration resistant prostate cancer) or castration resistant after April 2011 and for 6 months or more. Frequency of prostate specific antigen and testosterone level testing as well as imaging (magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomography, positron emission tomography/computerized tomography, bone scan or x-ray) was evaluated, and compared to national guidelines and best practices. RESULTS: Overall 346 patients with androgen deprivation therapy sensitive prostate cancer, 90 with subcastration resistant prostate cancer and 102 with castration resistant prostate cancer met the study inclusion criteria. On average, prostate specific antigen was tested every 4.7, 3.7 and 3.3 months for patients with androgen deprivation therapy sensitive disease, subcastration resistant prostate cancer and castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively, compared with the 3 to 12 months and 3 months recommendations of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and RADAR (Prostate Cancer Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence) for patients with androgen deprivation therapy sensitive disease and nonmetastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively. Testosterone levels were assessed within 6 months of classification for 23% and 46% of patients with subcastration resistant prostate cancer and castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively. Finally, 28% and 46% of patients with subcastration resistant prostate cancer and castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively, underwent some type of imaging within 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study of patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy at a particular integrated urology/radiation oncology group practice demonstrated adherence to prostate specific antigen best practices. However, there was some room for improvement in terms of testosterone testing and imaging.

An Evaluation of Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Elderly Patients Newly Diagnosed With Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Retrospective Analysis of Electronic Medical Records From US Community Oncology Practices.

BACKGROUND: Many elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are considered ineligible for standard intensive induction therapy due to performance status and comorbidities. We analyzed treatment patterns and outcomes among elderly patients newly diagnosed with AML in the US community oncology setting. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted using patient-level data from a network of US community oncology practices provided by Altos Solutions. Patients aged ≥ 60 years, diagnosed with AML between November 2005 and February 2014, with ≥ 1 recorded visit and ≥ 6 months between diagnosis and data cutoff, were included. Only patients who received active treatment or best supportive care (BSC) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) AML Guidelines were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 1139 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 922 (median age 76 years) received NCCN-recommended treatments: standard induction (n = 5), low-intensity therapy (n = 425), BSC with hydroxyurea (HU) (n = 36), or BSC without HU (n = 455). For the low-intensity therapy cohort, median time from diagnosis to treatment initiation was 17 days; median duration of therapy was 5.1 months. Median overall survival (OS) from diagnosis in the low-intensity, BSC with HU, and BSC without HU groups was 12.3, 7.0, and 49.4 months, respectively. Median time to next therapy/death was 10.1 months in patients receiving low-intensity therapy. A higher proportion of patients receiving low-intensity therapy required transfusion or other supportive care versus those receiving BSC. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, OS in patients receiving low-intensity therapy or BSC with HU is poor for elderly patients with AML. Remarkably, intensive induction strategies are rarely used for older patients in community oncology practice.