Cytomegalovirus infection and rehospitalization rates after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell and solid organ transplantation: a retrospective cohort study using German claims data.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe the cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection rate, rehospitalizations, and comorbidities following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) and solid organ transplantation (SOT). METHODS: Patients who received allo-HSCT or SOT in 01/07/2015-30/06/2018 were identified using anonymized German claims data. The transplantation-related hospital admission date was defined as the index date, and patients were followed for up to 12 months (or death, first event relevant). The frequency of CMV infections (confirmed outpatient/inpatient diagnoses, ICD-10-GM codes: B25.-/B27.1) and the rate, number, and duration of all-cause rehospitalizations in the follow-up period were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 226 allo-HSCT and 250 SOT patients were identified (mean age 52.8 years, 38.9% female). During the 12 months after transplantation, 29.2% of allo-HSCT patients and 16.8% of SOT patients received a CMV diagnosis. The majority of these diagnoses were given during the initial hospitalization or within the following 3 months. Across transplantation types, CMV patients had more hospital readmission days per patient-year (allo-HSCT 93.3 vs. 49.4, p = 0.001; SOT 42.0 vs. 20.7, p = 0.005), with a longer mean duration of readmissions (allo-HSCT 22.4 vs. 15.4 days, p < 0.001; SOT 11.6 vs. 7.5 days, p = 0.003). Comorbidity burden in transplantation patients was substantial, with several diagnoses being significantly more common among patients with CMV vs. non-CMV. One-year mortality did not differ significantly between patients with/without CMV. CONCLUSION: Burden of transplant recipients with CMV in terms of rehospitalizations and comorbidities is substantial, highlighting the need for improved CMV prevention and treatment.

A Systematic Literature Review of Injection Site Pain Perception in Adult Patients Treated with Citrate-Free and Citrate-Containing Biologic Agents.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate injection site pain (ISP) and other injection site outcomes caused by biologics administered alongside citrate-free (CF) and citrate-containing (CC) formulations. METHODS: Electronic literature databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for clinical trials and observational studies reporting on injection site outcomes after subcutaneous administration of biologics. Studies with unknown excipient formulations were excluded. The primary outcome was ISP, and secondary outcomes included any other reported injection site reactions (ISRs). Meta-analysis approaches were used to aggregate evidence identified via the conducted systematic literature review. RESULTS: A total of two observational studies, two cross-over/sequential trials, and three head-tohead comparison trials directly comparing CF with CC biologics were identified, as well as seven placebo-controlled trials. Evidence from five of the seven direct comparison studies suggested reduced pain perception at the injection site when CF formulations were applied. Findings for other ISRs were balanced between both formulations, with slightly favorable results for preparations without citrate. A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials found no significant difference between arms with CF formulations and placebo regarding the proportion of patients experiencing ISP (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.30-1.28). CONCLUSION: Excipient formulations are rarely specified in studies assessing pain and other ISRs of subcutaneously administered biologics. The available data indicate that subcutaneous administration of biologic agents without citrate may be associated with lower pain perception outcomes compared with treatment using CC formulations. Importantly, ISP is influenced by many factors which may have affected the results. More research is needed to assess how formulation excipients influence ISRs.

Questionnaire for the assessment of adherence barriers of intravitreal therapy: the ABQ-IVT.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a questionnaire for the investigation of non-adherence (NA) barriers in patients receiving intravitreal injection (IVT). DESIGN: Questionnaire development and cross-sectional patient survey combined with a retrospective medical chart review. PARTICIPANTS: German patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) or diabetic macular edema (DME) receiving anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment via IVT. METHODS: The previously validated (indications: atrial fibrillation, human immunodeficiency virus, chronic inflammatory lung disease) Adherence Barriers Questionnaire (ABQ) was revised according to specifications of IVT, within the framework of an expert panel. The ABQ-IVT, which initially consisted of 24 items formulated as statements (4-point-Likert-scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree"), was applied in a cross-sectional survey. Evaluation of the questionnaire included an assessment of internal consistency and factor analysis. The occurrence of potential barriers in the patient sample was evaluated using descriptive statistics. To identify patient subpopulations, hierarchical cluster analysis was performed using ABQ-IVT answers as predictors. Due to difficulties in capturing NA as an external criterion, the evaluation of the questionnaire was limited to its internal validity and reliability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' answers to the ABQ-IVT questionnaire and interviews. RESULTS: Of 253 patients, 234 (92%) were able to complete the ABQ-IVT questionnaire. Within the reliability analysis, the ABQ-IVT was reduced to 17 items. The condensed questionnaire demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.78), and factor analysis showed no evidence for subscales of the questionnaire. Nearly half of the patients (49%) reported being affected by at least three different barriers. On average, a patient was affected by 3.1 barriers. The most frequently reported barriers were "Challenge due to time commitment of physician visits" (45% of the patients), "Depression" (29%) and "Travel and opportunity costs" (27%). Cluster analysis identified six patient subpopulations, each affected by different sets of barriers and differed regarding their patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The ABQ-IVT is a practical and reliable instrument for identifying patient-specific barriers to IVT treatment adherence. In practice, the questionnaire may be useful in assessing whether individual patients are at higher risk of NA due to specific adherence barriers. Aside from better awareness, this allows earlier interventions, though these still need to be validated. Patient subpopulations face different barriers and may, therefore, need distinct preventative care.