Using the Healthy Days Measure to Assess Factors Associated with Poor Health-Related Quality of Life for Patients with Metastatic Breast, Lung, or Colorectal Cancer Enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Health Plan.

This study investigated factors associated with patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthy Days tool for patients with Medicare Advantage undergoing treatment for metastatic breast, lung, and colorectal cancer. In 2015, a total of 6390 patients were mailed surveys regarding factors that may influence their HRQoL, including cancer-related symptoms. HRQoL was measured as the number of physically and mentally unhealthy days experienced in the past 30 days and summed for the total number of unhealthy days. Frequent unhealthy days was defined as ≥14 total unhealthy days in the prior month. Of 1567 respondents, the mean number of total unhealthy days (standard deviation) was 14.0 (11.9) with 46.2% experiencing frequent unhealthy days. On average, patients reported 10.5 (10.5) physically and 6.7 (9.4) mentally unhealthy days. Cancer-related symptoms, particularly pain and fatigue, were significantly associated with increased unhealthy days. In adjusted models, patients with pain had 83% more unhealthy days than patients without pain; patients with fatigue had 104% more unhealthy days than patients without fatigue. Diarrhea/constipation and shortness of breath also were associated with more unhealthy days. Cancer-related symptoms, most notably pain and fatigue, were associated with worse HRQoL for patients with metastatic cancer. Interventions aimed at ameliorating symptoms may improve quality of life for patients undergoing cancer treatment.

A Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument to Assess Symptom Burden and Predict Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer: Flipping the Paradigm to Improve Timing of Palliative and End-of-Life Discussions and Reduce Unwanted Health Care Costs.

BACKGROUND: Discussions regarding palliative care and end-of-life care issues are frequently delayed past the time of usefulness, resulting in unwanted medical care. We sought to develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument that allows patients to voice their symptom burdens and facilitate timing of discussions. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: A seven-item PRO instrument (Cota Patient Assessed Symptom Score-7 item [CPASS-7]) covering physical performance status, pain, burden, and depression was administered (September 2015 through October 2016) with correlation to overall survival, correcting for time to complete survey since diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 1,191 patients completed CPASS-7 at a median of 560 days following the diagnosis of advanced cancer. Of these patients, 49% were concerned that they could not do the things they wanted; 35% reported decreased performance status. Financial toxicity was reported by 39% of patients, with family burdens noted in 25%. Although depression was reported by 15%, 43% reported lack of pleasure. Pain was reported by 33%. The median CPASS-7 total symptom burden score was 16 (possible 0-112). With a median follow-up of 15 months from initial survey, 46% had died. Patients with symptom burden scores <29 and ≥29 had a 6-month overall survival rate of 87% and 67%, respectively, and 12-month survival rates of 72% and 50%. A one-point score increase resulted in a 1.8% increase in expected hazard. CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced cancer with higher levels of symptom burden, as self-reported on the CPASS-7, had inferior survival. The PRO facilitates identification of patients appropriate for reassessment of treatment goals and potentially palliative and end-of-life care in response to symptom burden concerns. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A seven-item patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument was administered to 1,191 patients with advanced cancers. Patients self-reporting higher levels of physical and psychological symptom burden had inferior overall survival rates. High individual item symptom PRO responses should serve as a useful trigger to initiate supportive interventions, but when scores indicate global problems, discussions regarding end-of-life care might be appropriate.

Retracted: Using the Healthy Days Measure to Assess Factors Associated with Poor Health-Related Quality of Life for Patients with Metastatic Breast, Lung, or Colorectal Cancer Enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Health Plan.

The article entitled, "Using the Healthy Days Measure to Assess Factors Associated with Poor Health-Related Quality of Life for Patients with Metastatic Breast, Lung, or Colorectal Cancer Enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Health Plan," by Casebeer AW et al, which published online ahead of print in Population Health Management [doi: 10.1089/pop.2018.0024], is being retracted by the authors so that they can remove references to the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and republish the article without such references. Dr. Casebeer's team obtained a license to use the MMAS-8 scale from Dr. Morisky prior to conducting the study. Nevertheless, after publication of a separate article in the Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes that also cited the MMAS-8, as the lead author, Dr. Casebeer was contacted by Dr. Morisky who requested that a number of changes be made to the article. Dr. Casebeer and her team have no desire to engage in a dispute with Dr. Morisky and therefore proactively contacted the Editor of Population Health Management and requested that the scale be removed from her published paper. After assessing all of the provided information, the Editor agreed to the authors' request. It is important to note that the retraction of Dr. Casebeer's article is not the result of any misconduct on her part or that of her team. The retraction serves to remove the published version of the article that contains the MMAS-8 scale and a revised version that does not contain the tool or any references to it will be published. The elimination of the scale does not alter the results or conclusions of the study. Population Health Management is committed to upholding the highest standards of peer review and the community it serves.

The relationship between comorbidity medication adherence and health related quality of life among patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated that comorbidities compound the adverse influence of cancer on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Comorbidities adversely impact adherence to cancer treatment. Additionally, adherence to medications for comorbidities is positively associated with HRQoL for various diseases. This study used the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthy Days measure of HRQoL to explore the association between HRQoL and adherence to comorbidity medication for elderly patients with cancer and at least one comorbid condition. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey combined with retrospective claims data. Patients with metastatic breast, lung or colorectal cancer were surveyed regarding their HRQoL, comorbidity medication adherence and cancer-related symptoms. Patients reported the number of physical, mental and total unhealthy days in the prior month. The Morisky Medication Adherence 8-point scale was differentiated into moderate/high (> 6) and low (≤ 6) comorbidity medication adherence. RESULTS: Of the 1847 respondents, the mean age was 69.2 years, most were female (66.8%) and the majority of the sample had Medicare coverage (88.2%). Low comorbidity medication adherence was associated with significantly more total, mental and physical unhealthy days. Low comorbidity medication adherence was associated with the presence of patient-reported cancer-related symptoms. Patients reporting low, as compared to moderate/high, comorbidity medication adherence had 23.4% more unhealthy days in adjusted analysis, P = 0.007. CONCLUSION: The positive association between low comorbidity medication adherence and the number of unhealthy days suggests that addressing barriers to comorbidity medication adherence during cancer treatment may be an avenue for improving or maintaining HRQoL for older patients with cancer and comorbid conditions.

The Relationship Between Guideline-Recommended Initiation of Therapy, Outcomes, and Cost for Patients with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Guideline-recommended therapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) encourages evidence-based treatment; however, there is a knowledge gap regarding the influence of guideline-recommended initiation of therapy on outcomes and cost. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if lack of guideline-recommended initiation of first-line systemic therapy was associated with worse patient outcomes and increased costs for patients with mNSCLC. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, 1,344 Medicare patients with mNSCLC were identified from Humana data. Performance status (PS) was imputed using procedure, diagnosis, and durable medical equipment codes pre-index. Guideline-recommended initiation of therapy was defined as ≥1 cycle of National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended first-line therapy based on age and PS or targeted therapies regardless of age and PS. Demographics and clinical characteristics were compared by guideline-recommended initiation of therapy. A Cox model assessed factors associated with 6-month mortality. End-of-life quality of care indicators included hospital admission and oncology infusions 30 days preceding death and were evaluated using logistic regression models. A generalized linear model assessed the relationship between guideline-recommended initiation of therapy and total health care costs in the 6 months post-index controlling for clinical, demographic, and treatment characteristics. Logistic models for inpatient stays and emergency department visits were also evaluated. RESULTS: Guideline-recommended therapy initiation was observed in 75.5% of patients. Patients not initiating guideline-recommended therapy were older, with a mean (SD) age of 72.5 (6.7) versus 71.2 (6.2) years (P = 0.001), and more frequently identified as having a low-income subsidy (30.0% vs. 16.4%; P < 0.001). Among the 24.6% of patients who died ≤ 6 months post-index, a greater percentage had not initiated guideline-recommended therapy (28.8% vs. 23.2%; P = 0.040). In adjusted models, PS (not initiation of guideline-recommended therapy) was predictive of mortality (patients with poor PS had an 84% higher probability of death [P = 0.014]). Among decedents, 64.2% were hospitalized, and 33.9% had an oncology-related infusion within 30 days of death, with no differences by guideline-recommended initiation of therapy. These end-of-life quality indicators were not associated with guideline-recommended initiation of therapy in adjusted models. Overall, 47.5% of patients who initiated guideline-recommended therapy were hospitalized compared with 55.0% of patients who did not (P = 0.026). Patients initiating guideline-recommended therapy had higher post-index total and oncology-related health care costs and fewer hospitalizations. In models, these differences in costs and hospitalizations were not associated with initiation of guideline-recommended therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients initiated guideline-recommended therapy, with no differences in mortality and quality of care at the end of life by guideline-recommended initiation of therapy, though adherence beyond treatment initiation was not assessed. Unadjusted hospitalization rates were lower and costs were higher for patients who initiated guideline-recommended therapy. These differences were no longer observed after risk adjustment, suggesting that they may have been influenced by patient characteristics, disease progression, and subsequent treatment decisions. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Genentech. Khoury, Michael, Parikh, and Bunce are employed by Genentech. Casebeer, Drzayich Antol, DeClue, Hopson, Li, and Stemkowski are employed by Comprehensive Health Insights, Humana, which was contracted by Genentech to conduct this study. Sehman is employed by Humana. Based on this research, 2 posters were presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2017 on October 16-19, 2017, in Dallas, Texas. Another poster was also presented at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Annual European Congress on October 29-November 2, 2016, in Vienna, Austria.

Tools for Communication: Novel infrastructure to address patient-perceived gaps in oncology care
.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers (HCPs) and patient communication are integral to high-quality oncology care. The patient and HCP perspectives are needed to identify gaps in care and develop communication tools.
. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand patient- and HCP-perceived elements of and gaps in high-quality care to develop novel communication tools to improve care. 
. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted among 16 patients with cancer and 10 HCPs in the United States. Trained interviewers elicited patients' and HCPs' concerns, views, and perceived needs for communication tools. A thematic analysis was used to identify four quality of care domains, depicted in a conceptual model, and two draft communication tools were developed to address identified gaps.
. FINDINGS: No patients reported previously using a communication tool, and gaps in communication regarding treatment aims and education were evident. Two tools were developed to assess patients' life and treatment goals and the importance of ongoing education.

Factors in Patient Empowerment: A Survey of an Online Patient Research Network.

BACKGROUND: Providers and healthcare organizations have begun recognizing the importance of patient empowerment as a driver of patient-centered care. Unfortunately, most studies have investigated empowerment with single diseases. Identifying factors of empowerment across conditions and populations would enable a greater understanding of this construct. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand empowerment in relation to health information-seeking, interactions with providers and peers, and healthcare access in chronic disease patients. This study also sought to identify key empowerment factors and their association with patient characteristics. METHODS: Participants were recruited through PatientsLikeMe, an online research platform where patients share their personal and medical history data. Patients completed an online survey that assessed self-reported health behavior (e.g. knowledge-seeking, experiences with healthcare providers, and peer interactions) and healthcare access. An exploratory factor analysis identified key empowerment domains. Domain level sum scores and sum of all domains (total score) were compared across patient characteristics and diseases. RESULTS: Overall, 3988 participants were included in the study, with the majority actively involved in their healthcare, but many cited difficulties with matching their treatment goals with those of their physician (34 %) and spending sufficient time with the physician (36 %). Factor analysis identified two domains-Positive Patient-Provider Interaction, and Knowledge and Personal Control-that explained >60 % of the overall variance in the observed variables. Mean total empowerment scores for patients with a primary complaint of Parkinson's disease (61.8) and multiple sclerosis (60.3) were significantly greater than fibromyalgia (55.3) and chronic fatigue syndrome (54.8). Patients who were older, male, more educated, and insured also reported significantly greater levels of empowerment. CONCLUSIONS: The two domains of empowerment identified in this study are consistent with previous studies, but the differences in empowerment levels across diseases suggest a need for further studies on disease-related attributes of empowerment. Future research should examine the pathways for empowerment, as well as the relationship between empowerment domains and clinical outcomes.

Advancing the competency of infection preventionists.

The Association of Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) has identified advancing infection prevention competency as a core goal in their Strategic Plan 2020. To achieve this goal, APIC has published a self-assessment tool to help infection preventionists identify where they are on a predefined scale. This project trialed APIC's self-assessment tool along with an internally developed objective assessment. The objective was to determine if the tools help identify areas for improvement to advance overall group competency at BJC HealthCare, a large Midwestern health care system with nearly 30 infection preventionists.