Association of global longitudinal strain by feature tracking cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with adverse outcomes among community-dwelling adults without cardiovascular disease: The Dallas Heart Study.

AIM: Left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) may detect subtle abnormalities in myocardial contractility among individuals with normal LV ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the prognostic implications of GLS among healthy, community-dwelling adults is not well-established. METHODS AND RESULTS: Overall, 2234 community-dwelling adults (56% women, 47% Black) with LVEF ≥50% without a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) from the Dallas Heart Study who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) with GLS assessed by feature tracking CMR (FT-CMR) were included. The association of GLS with the risk of incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of incident myocardial infarction, incident heart failure [HF], hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, coronary revascularization, and all-cause death), and incident HF or death were assessed with adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. A total of 309 participants (13.8%) had MACE during a median follow-up duration of 17 years. Participants with the worst GLS (Q4) were more likely male and of the Black race with a history of tobacco use and diabetes with lower LVEF, higher LV end-diastolic volume, and higher LV mass index. Cumulative incidence of MACE was higher among participants with worse (Q4 vs. Q1) GLS (20.4% vs. 9.0%). In multivariable-adjusted Cox models that included clinical characteristics, cardiac biomarkers and baseline LVEF, worse GLS (Q4 vs. Q1) was associated with a significantly higher risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-2.24, p = 0.02) and incident HF or death (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03-2.38, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Impaired LV GLS assessed by FT-CMR among adults free of cardiovascular disease is associated with a higher risk of incident MACE and incident HF or death independent of cardiovascular risk factors, cardiac biomarkers and LVEF.

Survival of cancer survivors with a new pancreatic cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Persons newly diagnosed with pancreas cancer and who have survived a previous cancer are often excluded from clinical trials, despite limited evidence about their prognosis. We examined the association between previous cancer and overall survival. METHODS: This US population-based cohort study included older adults (aged ≥66 years) diagnosed with pancreas cancer between 2005 and 2015 in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate stage-specific effects of previous cancer on overall survival, adjusting for sociodemographic, treatment, and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Of 32,783 patients, 18.7% were previously diagnosed with another cancer. The most common previous cancers included prostate (29.0%), breast (18.9%), or colorectal (9.7%) cancer. More than half of previous cancers (53.9%) were diagnosed 5 or more years prior to pancreas cancer diagnosis or at an in situ or localized stage (47.8%). The proportions of patients surviving 1, 3, and 5 years after pancreas cancer were nearly identical for those with and without previous cancer. Median survival in months was as follows for those with and without previous cancer respectively: 7 versus 8 (Stage 0/I), 10 versus 10 (Stage II), 7 versus 7 (Stage III), and 3 versus 2 (Stage IV). Cox models indicated that patients with previous cancer had very similar or statistically equivalent survival to those with no previous cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Given nearly equivalent survival compared to those without previous cancer, cancer survivors newly diagnosed with pancreas cancer should be considered for inclusion in pancreas cancer clinical trials.

Association of US County-Level Eviction Rates and All-Cause Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Housing instability is a key social determinant of health and has been linked to adverse short- and long-term health. Eviction reflects a severe form of housing instability and disproportionately affects minority and women residents in the USA; however, its relationship with mortality has not previously been described. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the independent association of county-level eviction rates with all-cause mortality in the USA after adjustment for county demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related characteristics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred eighty-six US counties with available 2016 county-level eviction and mortality data. EXPOSURE: 2016 US county-level eviction rate. OUTCOME: 2016 US county-level age-adjusted all-cause mortality. KEY RESULTS: Among 686 counties (66.1 million residents, 50.5% [49.7-51.2] women, 2% [0.5-11.1] Black race) with available eviction and mortality data in 2016, we observed a significant and graded relationship between county-level eviction rate and all-cause mortality. Counties in the highest eviction tertile demonstrated a greater proportion of residents of Black race and women and a higher prevalence of poverty and comorbid health conditions. After adjustment for county-level sociodemographic traits and prevalent comorbid health conditions, age-adjusted all-cause mortality was highest among counties in the highest eviction tertile (Tertile 3 vs 1 (per 100,000 people) 33.57: 95% CI: 10.5-56.6 p=.004). Consistent results were observed in continuous analysis of eviction, with all-cause mortality increasing by 9.32 deaths per 100,000 people (4.77, 13.89, p<.0001) for every 1% increase in eviction rates. Significant interaction in the relationship between eviction and all-cause mortality was observed by the proportion of Black and women residents. CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-sectional analysis, county-level eviction rates were significantly associated with all-cause mortality with the strongest effects observed among counties with the highest proportion of Black and women residents. State and federal protections from evictions may help to reduce the health consequences of housing instability and address disparities in health outcomes.

Evaluation of a Web-Based Medication Reconciliation Application Within a Primary Care Setting: Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite routine review of medication lists during patient encounters, patients' medication lists are often incomplete and not reflective of actual medication use. Contributing to this situation is the challenge of reconciling medication information from existing health records, along with external locations (eg, pharmacies, other provider/hospital records, and care facilities) and patient-reported use. Advances in the interoperability and digital collection of information provides a foundation for integration of these once disparate information sources. OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of and satisfaction with an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated web-based medication reconciliation application, MedTrue (MT). METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial of MT in 6 primary care clinics within an integrated health care delivery system. Our primary outcome was medication list accuracy, as determined by a pharmacist-collected best-possible medication history (BPMH). Patient and staff perspectives were evaluated through surveys and semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Overall, 224 patients were recruited and underwent a BPMH with the pharmacist (n=118 [52.7%] usual care [UC], n=106 [47.3%] MT). For our primary outcome of medication list accuracy, 8 (7.5%) patients in the MT arm and 9 (7.6%) in the UC arm had 0 discrepancies (odds ratio=1.01, 95% CI 0.38-2.72, P=.98). The most common discrepancy identified was patients reporting no longer taking a medication (UC mean 2.48 vs MT mean 2.58, P=.21). Patients found MT easy to use and on average would highly recommend MT (average net promoter score=8/10). Staff found MT beneficial but difficult to implement. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a web-based application integrated into the EHR which combines EHR, patient-reported data, and pharmacy-dispensed data did not improve medication list accuracy among a population of primary care patients compared to UC but was well received by patients. Future studies should address the limitations of the current application and assess whether improved implementation strategies would impact the effectiveness of the application.

Survival of patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer and with a history of previous cancer.

Patients with previous cancer are often excluded from clinical trials despite limited evidence about their prognosis. We examined the effect of previous cancer on overall and colorectal cancer (CRC)-specific survival of patients newly diagnosed with CRC. This population-based cohort study from the U.S.A. included patients aged ≥66 years and diagnosed with CRC between 2005 and 2015 in linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. We estimated the stage-specific effects of a previous cancer on overall survival using Cox regression and on CRC-specific survival using competing risk regression. We also examined the effect of previous cancer type, timing, and stage on overall survival. Of 112,769 patients, 14.1% were previously diagnosed with another cancer--commonly prostate (32.9%) or breast (19.4%) cancer, with many (47.1%) diagnosed <5 years of CRC. For all CRC stages except IV, in which there was no difference, patients with previous cancer (vs. without) had worse overall survival. However, patients with previous cancer had improved CRC-specific survival. Overall survival for those with stage 0-III CRC varied by previous cancer type, timing, and stage; for example, patients with previous melanoma had overall survival equivalent to those with no previous cancer. Our results indicate that, in general, CRC patients with previous cancer have worse overall survival but superior CRC-specific survival. Given their equivalent survival to those without previous cancer, patients with previous melanoma and those with stage IV CRC with any type of previous cancer should be eligible to participate in clinical trials.

Survival of women diagnosed with breast cancer and who have survived a previous cancer.

PURPOSE: Many women diagnosed with breast cancer have survived previous cancer; yet little is known about the impact of previous cancer on overall and cancer-specific survival. METHODS: This population-based cohort study using SEER-Medicare data included women (age ≥ 66 years) diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2015. Separately by breast cancer stage, we estimated effect of previous cancer on overall survival using Cox regression and on cause-specific survival using competing risk regression; all survival analyses adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: Of 138,576 women diagnosed with breast cancer, 8% had a previous cancer of another organ site, most commonly colorectal or uterine cancer or melanoma. Many of these women (46.3%) were diagnosed within 5 years of breast cancer. For all breast cancer stages except IV wherein there was no difference, women with vs. without previous cancer had worse overall survival. This survival disadvantage was driven by deaths due to the previous cancer and other causes. In contrast, women with previous cancer generally had favorable breast-cancer-specific survival, although this varied by stage. Overall survival varied by previous cancer type, timing, and stage; previous lung cancer, cancer diagnosed within 1 year of incident breast cancer, and previous cancer at a distant stage were associated with the worst survival. In contrast, women with a previous melanoma had equivalent overall survival to women without previous cancer. CONCLUSION: We observed variable impact of previous cancer on overall and breast-cancer-specific survival depending on breast cancer stage at diagnosis and the type, timing, and stage of previous cancer.

Rise, and pronounced regional variation, in methylphenidate, amphetamine, and lisdexamfetamine distribution in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The prescription stimulants methylphenidate, amphetamine, and lisdexamfetamine are sympathomimetic drugs with therapeutic use. They are designated in the United States as Schedule II substances, defined by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act as having a "high potential for abuse". Changing criteria for the diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in 2013 and the approval of lisdexamfetamine for binge eating disorder in 2015 may have impacted usage patterns. This report compared the pharmacoepidemiology of these stimulants in the United States from 2010-2017. METHODS: Distribution of amphetamine, methylphenidate, lisdexamfetamine were examined via weights extracted from the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System (ARCOS). Median stimulant Daily Dosage per patient was determined for a regional analysis. The percent of cost and prescriptions attributable to each stimulant and atomoxetine in Medicaid from the "Drug Utilization 2018 - National Total" from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid was determined. RESULTS: There was a rise in amphetamine (+67.5%) and lisdexamfetamine (+76.7%) from 2010-2017. The change in methylphenidate (-3.0%) was modest. Persons/day stimulant usage was lower in the West than in other US regions from 2014-2017. There was a negative correlation (r(48) = -0.43 to -0.65, p < .05) between the percent Hispanic population per state and the Daily Dosage/population per stimulant. Methylphenidate formulations accounted for over half (51.7%) of the $3.8 billion reimbursed by Medicaid and the plurality (45.4%) of the 22.0 million prescriptions. Amphetamine was responsible for less than one-fifth (18.4%) of cost but one-third of prescriptions (33.6%). Lisdexamfetamine's cost (26.0%) exceeded prescriptions (16.3%). CONCLUSION: The rising amphetamine and lisdexamfetamine distribution may correspond with a rise in adult ADHD diagnoses. Regional analysis indicates that stimulant distribution in the West may be distinct from that in other regions. The lower stimulant distribution in areas with greater Hispanic populations may warrant further study.