Real-world genomic testing and treatment patterns of newly diagnosed adult acute myeloid leukemia patients within a comprehensive health system.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the frequency of genomic testing and treatment patterns by age category in patients with newly diagnosed (ND) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated in both academic- and community-based health systems within a single Midwestern State. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from the Indiana University Health System Enterprise Data Warehouse and two local cancer registries, of 629 patients aged ≥18 years with ND AML during 2011-2018. Primary outcome variables were, proportion of patients with genomic analysis and frequency of mutations. Chemotherapy was categorized as "standard induction" or "other chemotherapy"/targeted therapy, and hypomethylating agents. RESULTS: Overall, 13% of ND AML patients between 2011 and 2018 had evidence of a genomic sequencing report with a demonstrated increase to 37% since 2016. Genomic testing was more likely performed in patients: aged ≤60 years than >60 years (45% vs. 30%; p = 0.03), treated in academic versus community hospitals (44% vs. 26%; p = 0.01), and in chemotherapy recipients than non-therapy recipients (46% vs. 19%; p < 0.001). Most common mutations were ASXL1, NPM1, and FLT3. Patients ≥75 years had highest proportion (46%) of multiple (≥3) mutations. Overall, 31.2% of patients with AML did not receive any therapy for their disease. This subgroup was older than chemotherapy recipients (mean age: 71.4 vs. 55.7 years, p < 0.001), and was highest (66.2%) in patients ≥75 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the unmet medical need to increase access to genomic testing to afford treatment options, particularly to older AML patients in the real-world setting, in this new era of targeted therapies.

Real-world utilization of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing in RNA positive patients across the United States.

BACKGROUND: As diagnostic tests for COVID-19 were broadly deployed under Emergency Use Authorization, there emerged a need to understand the real-world utilization and performance of serological testing across the United States. METHODS: Six health systems contributed electronic health records and/or claims data, jointly developed a master protocol, and used it to execute the analysis in parallel. We used descriptive statistics to examine demographic, clinical, and geographic characteristics of serology testing among patients with RNA positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Across datasets, we observed 930,669 individuals with positive RNA for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 35,806 (4%) were serotested within 90 days; 15% of which occurred <14 days from the RNA positive test. The proportion of people with a history of cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic lung, or kidney disease; or presenting with shortness of breath or pneumonia appeared higher among those serotested compared to those who were not. Even in a population of people with active infection, race/ethnicity data were largely missing (>30%) in some datasets-limiting our ability to examine differences in serological testing by race. In datasets where race/ethnicity information was available, we observed a greater distribution of White individuals among those serotested; however, the time between RNA and serology tests appeared shorter in Black compared to White individuals. Test manufacturer data was available in half of the datasets contributing to the analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results inform the underlying context of serotesting during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and differences observed between claims and EHR data sources-a critical first step to understanding the real-world accuracy of serological tests. Incomplete reporting of race/ethnicity data and a limited ability to link test manufacturer data, lab results, and clinical data challenge the ability to assess the real-world performance of SARS-CoV-2 tests in different contexts and the overall U.S. response to current and future disease pandemics.

Real-world performance of SARS-Cov-2 serology tests in the United States, 2020.

BACKGROUND: Real-world performance of COVID-19 diagnostic tests under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) must be assessed. We describe overall trends in the performance of serology tests in the context of real-world implementation. METHODS: Six health systems estimated the odds of seropositivity and positive percent agreement (PPA) of serology test among people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular test. In each dataset, we present the odds ratio and PPA, overall and by key clinical, demographic, and practice parameters. RESULTS: A total of 15,615 people were observed to have at least one serology test 14-90 days after a positive molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. We observed higher PPA in Hispanic (PPA range: 79-96%) compared to non-Hispanic (60-89%) patients; in those presenting with at least one COVID-19 related symptom (69-93%) as compared to no such symptoms (63-91%); and in inpatient (70-97%) and emergency department (93-99%) compared to outpatient (63-92%) settings across datasets. PPA was highest in those with diabetes (75-94%) and kidney disease (83-95%); and lowest in those with auto-immune conditions or who are immunocompromised (56-93%). The odds ratios (OR) for seropositivity were higher in Hispanics compared to non-Hispanics (OR range: 2.59-3.86), patients with diabetes (1.49-1.56), and obesity (1.63-2.23); and lower in those with immunocompromised or autoimmune conditions (0.25-0.70), as compared to those without those comorbidities. In a subset of three datasets with robust information on serology test name, seven tests were used, two of which were used in multiple settings and met the EUA requirement of PPA ≥87%. Tests performed similarly across datasets. CONCLUSION: Although the EUA requirement was not consistently met, more investigation is needed to understand how serology and molecular tests are used, including indication and protocol fidelity. Improved data interoperability of test and clinical/demographic data are needed to enable rapid assessment of the real-world performance of in vitro diagnostic tests.

Intrauterine device-related uterine perforation incidence and risk (APEX-IUD): a large multisite cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Reports of perforation risk related to intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted immediately post partum and among non-post-partum individuals are scarce, and previous studies with only 12-month follow-ups underestimate the risk. Breastfeeding at IUD insertion and insertion within 36 weeks post partum have been associated with increased risk of uterine perforation. The aim of these analyses was to compare the incidence and risks of IUD-related uterine perforations by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion, and among post-partum individuals, to assess the impact of breastfeeding on these outcomes. METHODS: We did a multisite cohort study in the USA, using electronic health records (EHR). Study sites were three health-care systems and a site that used data from a health-care information exchange. The study population included individuals who were aged 50 years or younger and had an IUD insertion between Jan 1, 2001, and April 30, 2018. Individuals were excluded if they had not been in the health-care system for at least 12 months before IUD insertion. The primary outcome for this analysis was any IUD-related uterine perforation diagnosis for the first IUD insertion in this time period. Both complete and partial IUD-related perforations were identified. Chart abstraction was done to validate EHR-based algorithms or confirm perforations. The crude rate and cumulative incidence of uterine perforation were evaluated by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion in the full cohort, and by breastfeeding status in a subcohort of post-partum individuals. Cox models estimated crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). FINDINGS: Data from 326 658 individuals in the full cohort and 94 817 individuals in the post-partum subcohort were analysed. In the full cohort, we identified 1008 uterine perforations (51·2% complete), with the 5-year cumulative incidence being the lowest in the non-post-partum group (0·29%, 95% CI 0·26-0·34). The aHR for the post-partum interval relative to non-post partum ranged from 2·73 (95% CI 1·33-5·63; 0 to 3 days post partum) to 6·71 (4·80-9·38; 4 days to ≤6 weeks post partum). The post-partum subcohort of individuals with breastfeeding information had 673 uterine perforations (62% complete), with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 1·37% (95% CI 1·24-1·52) and an increased risk with breastfeeding (aHR 1·37, 95% CI 1·12-1·66). INTERPRETATION: Although the risk for uterine perforation with IUD insertion 4 days to 6 weeks or less post partum is nearly seven times that of insertion non-post partum, perforation remains an incredibly rare event for all clinical time points. Despite a slight increased risk of perforation with breastfeeding at IUD insertion, the benefits of breastfeeding and effective contraception generally outweigh risks and should have little clinical impact. Therefore, IUD insertion timing should be based on individual desire for IUD contraception and patient convenience to assure an IUD insertion can occur. Careful follow-up of individuals at higher risk of uterine perforation is warranted. FUNDING: Bayer AG.

Association between intrauterine device type and risk of perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine devices, including levonorgestrel-releasing and copper devices, are highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptives. The potential risks associated with intrauterine devices are low and include uterine perforation and device expulsion. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing devices vs copper devices in clinical practice in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: The Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study was a retrospective cohort study of women aged ≤50 years with an intrauterine device insertion during 2001 to 2018 and information on intrauterine device type and patient and medical characteristics. Of note, 4 research sites with access to electronic health records contributed data for the study: 3 Kaiser Permanente-integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and 1 healthcare system using data from a healthcare information exchange in Indiana (Regenstrief Institute). Perforation was classified as any extension of the device into or through the myometrium. Expulsion was classified as complete (not visible in the uterus or abdomen or patient reported) or partial (any portion in the cervix or malpositioned). We estimated the crude incidence rates and crude cumulative incidence by intrauterine device type. The risks of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices vs copper intrauterine devices were estimated using Cox proportional-hazards regression with propensity score overlap weighting to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Among 322,898 women included in this analysis, the incidence rates of perforation per 1000 person-years were 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.53-1.76) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.48) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 0.22% (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.24) and 0.63% (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.68) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 0.16% (95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.20) and 0.55% (95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.68) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. The incidence rates of expulsion per 1000 person-years were 13.95 (95% confidence interval, 13.63-14.28) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 14.08 (95% confidence interval, 13.44-14.75) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.24-2.36) and 4.52% (95% confidence interval, 4.40-4.65) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.18-2.44) and 4.82 (95% confidence interval, 4.56-5.10) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. Comparing levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices with copper intrauterine devices, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.49 (95% confidence intervals, 1.25-1.78) for perforation and 0.69 (95% confidence intervals, 0.65-0.73) for expulsion. CONCLUSION: After adjusting for potential confounders, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices were associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation and a decreased risk of expulsion relative to copper intrauterine devices. Given that the absolute numbers of these events are low in both groups, these differences may not be clinically meaningful.

Design of the Association of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study: a multisite retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine devices are effective and safe, long-acting reversible contraceptives, but the risk of uterine perforation occurs with an estimated incidence of 1 to 2 per 1000 insertions. The European Active Surveillance Study for Intrauterine Devices, a European prospective observational study that enrolled 61,448 participants (2006-2012), found that women breastfeeding at the time of device insertion or with the device inserted at ≤36 weeks after delivery had a higher risk of uterine perforation. The Association of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device (APEX-IUD) study was a Food and Drug Administration-mandated study designed to reflect current United States clinical practice. The aims of the APEX-IUD study were to evaluate the risk of intrauterine device-related uterine perforation and device expulsion among women who were breastfeeding or within 12 months after delivery at insertion. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the APEX-IUD study design, methodology, and analytical plan and present population characteristics, size of risk factor groups, and duration of follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: APEX-IUD study was a retrospective cohort study conducted in 4 organizations with access to electronic health records: Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and Regenstrief Institute in Indiana. Variables were identified through structured data (eg, diagnostic, procedural, medication codes) and unstructured data (eg, clinical notes) via natural language processing. Outcomes include uterine perforation and device expulsion; potential risk factors were breastfeeding at insertion, postpartum timing of insertion, device type, and menorrhagia diagnosis in the year before insertion. Covariates include demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and procedure-related variables, such as difficult insertion. The first potential date of inclusion for eligible women varies by research site (from January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2010). Follow-up begins at insertion and ends at first occurrence of an outcome of interest, a censoring event (device removal or reinsertion, pregnancy, hysterectomy, sterilization, device expiration, death, disenrollment, last clinical encounter), or end of the study period (June 30, 2018). Comparisons of levels of exposure variables were made using Cox regression models with confounding adjusted by propensity score weighting using overlap weights. RESULTS: The study population includes 326,658 women with at least 1 device insertion during the study period (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 161,442; Kaiser Permanente Southern California, 123,214; Kaiser Permanente Washington, 20,526; Regenstrief Institute, 21,476). The median duration of continuous enrollment was 90 (site medians 74-177) months. The mean age was 32 years, and the population was racially and ethnically diverse across the 4 sites. The mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m2, and of the women included in the study, 10.0% had menorrhagia ≤12 months before insertion, 5.3% had uterine fibroids, and 10% were recent smokers; furthermore, among these women, 79.4% had levonorgestrel-releasing devices, and 19.5% had copper devices. Across sites, 97,824 women had an intrauterine device insertion at ≤52 weeks after delivery, of which 94,817 women (97%) had breastfeeding status at insertion determined; in addition, 228,834 women had intrauterine device insertion at >52 weeks after delivery or no evidence of a delivery in their health record. CONCLUSION: Combining retrospective data from multiple sites allowed for a large and diverse study population. Collaboration with clinicians in the study design and validation of outcomes ensured that the APEX-IUD study results reflect current United States clinical practice. Results from this study will provide valuable information based on real-world evidence about risk factors for intrauterine devices perforation and expulsion for clinicians.

Treatment patterns and health care costs for patients with psoriatic arthritis on biologic therapy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies have been used in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have been inadequately treated with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). OBJECTIVE: Examine treatment patterns and health care costs among patients with PsAs who initiated biologic therapy either as monotherapy or adjunctively with traditional DMARDs. METHODS: The MarketScan(®) database was used to identify adults with PsA who initiated therapy with a biologic (with first use identified as index date). Patients were required to have a 6-month pre-period with no biologic use and 1 year insurance eligibility pre- and post-index date. Cohorts of patients initiating biologic therapy either as monotherapy or adjunctively with traditional DMARDs were created. Medication use patterns including discontinuation, switching, and restarting were identified during the 1-year follow-up period. Cox proportional hazards models were conducted to compare time to discontinuation of index biologic, and logistic models were used to compare the rate of discontinuation and biologic switching between the 2 cohorts. All-cause and PsA-related costs were compared between the 2 cohorts using propensity score-adjusted bootstrapping methods. All comparisons were made after adjusting for age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and PsA-related total cost over 1-year pre-index date. RESULTS: Among the 3164 PsA patients identified, 67.7% initiated biologics as monotherapy and 32.3% initiated biologics adjunctively with traditional DMARDs. The number of patients on pain medications, topical medications, and traditional DMARDs was significantly lower post index date compared to pre-index date (P < 0.01), while use of antihypertensives, antidiabetics, and statins increased after patients initiated biologic therapy. In 1-year post-period, approximately half of the patients (50.9%) who initiated a biologic continued their index biologic with an average time to discontinuation of 279.8 days for all patients. Rates of discontinuation, switching, and restart were 33.1%, 9.9%, and 6.1%, respectively, for all patients. Rates of switching and restart were similar between the 2 cohorts, but a significantly lower rate of discontinuation was observed in the biologic plus traditional DMARDs cohort than the biologic monotherapy cohort. Pharmacy expenditures were higher for the biologic + DMARD cohort than the biologic-monotherapy cohort ($14,486 vs $14,062; P = 0.0348). No statistically significant differences for either all-cause or PsA-specific costs were observed across the treatment cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional DMARDs used in combination with biologic therapy appear to reduce rates of biologic therapy discontinuation.

Predictors of relapse or recurrence in bipolar I disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Bipolar disorder represents a major public health concern and, despite treatment, is characterized by recurring episodes of mania, depression, or mixed states. Prevention of relapse or recurrence is a primary treatment objective in the management of the disorder. The objective of the current study was to identify predictors of relapse/recurrence in patients with bipolar I disorder treated with olanzapine, lithium, divalproex, or olanzapine plus divalproex/lithium. METHODS: Data from four clinical trials studying the efficacy of olanzapine compared to placebo and active comparators (lithium, divalproex, olanzapine plus divalproex/lithium) for bipolar I disorder were pooled for this analysis. Patients achieving remission after pharmacological treatment and entering randomized double-blind maintenance phase for 44 to 72 weeks were included. Cox Proportional Hazard models and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine predictors of relapse/recurrence for the pooled data and within each treatment group. RESULTS: A total of 929 patients meeting the criteria for remission and followed by maintenance treatment were included in this analysis, and 427 patients (46.0%) experienced symptomatic relapse/recurrence during the follow-up period. A 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-21) total score<4, gender, rapid cycling and treatment emerged as significant predictors of relapse/recurrence and may be generalized to treatment with olanzapine and to some extent to treatment with lithium and divalproex. The results on treatment-specific predictors of relapse/recurrence are considered to be exploratory and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: The major findings from this study suggest that a HAMD-21 total score<4 may be a better predictor of maintenance of remission in bipolar I patients than HAMD-21 total score<8. The prophylactic effect of olanzapine, lithium, divalproex, olanzapine plus divalproex or lithium, and placebo was assessed and baseline predictors of relapse/recurrence were identified.

Symptoms predicting remission after divalproex augmentation with olanzapine in partially nonresponsive patients experiencing mixed bipolar I episode: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Rating scale items in a 6-week clinical trial of olanzapine versus placebo augmentation in patients with mixed bipolar disorder partially nonresponsive to ≥14 days of divalproex monotherapy were analyzed to characterize symptom patterns that could predict remission. At baseline, the two treatment groups were similar. FINDINGS: Factor analysis with Varimax rotation was performed post hoc on baseline items of the 21-Item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-21) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). Backwards-elimination logistic regression ascertained factors predictive of protocol-defined endpoint remission (HDRS-21 score ≤ 8 and YMRS score ≤ 12) with subsequent determination of optimally predictive factor score cutoffs.Factors for Psychomotor activity (YMRS items for elevated mood, increased motor activity, and increased speech and HDRS-21 agitation item) and Guilt/Suicidality (HDRS-21 items for guilt and suicidality) significantly predicted endpoint remission in the divalproex+olanzapine group. No factor predicted remission in the divalproex+placebo group. Patients in the divalproex+olanzapine group with high pre-augmentation psychomotor activity (scores ≥10) were more likely to remit compared to those with lower psychomotor activity (odds ratio [OR] = 3.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.22-7.79), and patients with marginally high Guilt/Suicidality (scores ≥2) were less likely to remit than those with lower scores (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.13-1.03). Remission rates for divalproex+placebo vs. divalproex+olanzapine patients with high psychomotor activity scores were 22% vs. 45% (p = 0.08) and 33% vs. 48% (p = 0.29) for patients with low Guilt/Suicidality scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were partially nonresponsive to divalproex treatment with remaining high vs. low psychomotor activity levels or minimal vs. greater guilt/suicidality symptoms were more likely to remit with olanzapine augmentation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00402324?term=NCT00402324&rank=1, Identifier: NCT00402324.

Do depressive symptoms predict Alzheimer's disease and dementia?

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms are common in seniors and may predict dementia. The objective of this study was to evaluate multiple measures of depressive symptoms to determine whether they predict subsequent Alzheimer's disease (AD) or dementia. METHODS: This population-based cohort study with 5-year follow-up included 766 community-dwelling seniors (ages 65+ years) in Manitoba, Canada. Measurements considered were the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale, participant-reported medical history, and duration of depression. RESULTS: Total CES-D score was a significant predictor of AD and dementia when categorized as a dichotomous variable according to the cutoff scores of 16 and 17; a CES-D cutoff of 21 was a significant predictor of AD and a marginally significant predictor of dementia. When analyzed as a continuous variable, CES-D score was marginally predictive of AD and dementia. Neither participant-reported history of depression nor participant-reported duration of depression was significant in predicting AD or dementia. CONCLUSION: Because depressive symptoms as measured by the CES-D predict the development of AD and dementia over 5 years, clinicians should monitor their older patients with these symptoms for signs of cognitive impairment.