Patient-Reported Distress and Clinical Outcomes with Immuno-Oncology Agents in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (mNSCLC): A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: There are limited real-world data about patient-reported outcomes with immunotherapies (IO) in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). We describe patient-reported distress and clinical outcomes with IO-based treatments or cytotoxic chemotherapies (Chemo). METHODS: We conducted a single-institution retrospective chart review of adults with mNSCLC treated at Duke from 03/2015 to 06/2020. At each visit, patients self-reported their distress level and sources of distress using the NCCN Distress Thermometer (DT) and its 39-item Problem List. We abstracted demographic, clinical, distress, and investigator assessed-clinical response data, then analyzed these using descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Data from 152 patients were analyzed in four groups: Chemo alone, IO + Chemo, single agent IO, dual agent IO. Distress was worse before treatment start in all groups, and the odds of actionable distress (DT score > 4) decreased by 10 % per month. The most frequent sources of distress were physical symptoms (e.g., fatigue, pain), which remained high longitudinally. Patients receiving IO had higher clinical response rates and a lower rate of unplanned healthcare encounters compared to patients treated with Chemo alone. Only one-third of all patients were seen by palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: This single-center, real-world evidence study demonstrates that patients with mNSCLC experience significant distress prior to starting first-line treatment. IO treatment was associated with higher clinical benefit rates and lower healthcare utilization compared to chemotherapy. Symptom distress persists over time, highlighting potential unmet palliative and supportive care needs in mNSCLC care in the IO treatment era.

U.S. publication trends in social and administrative pharmacy: implications for promotion and tenure.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the preferred approach to assess journal quality. Procedures previously used include journal acceptance or rejection policies, impact factors, number of subscribers, citation counts, whether the articles were refereed or not, and journals cited in books within the discipline. This study built on the work of previous authors by using a novel approach to assess journal quality in social and administrative pharmacy (SAdP). OBJECTIVES: To determine U.S. SAdP faculty perceptions of prestigious journals for their research, SAdP faculty perceptions of prestigious journals by their promotion and tenure (P&T) committees, and current research trends in SAdP. METHODS: A census of U.S. colleges and schools of pharmacy was conducted using an e-mailed survey and an open-ended approach requiring respondents to list their preferred journals. RESULTS: Seventy-nine SAdP faculty reported that the 5 most prestigious journals were JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, Health Affairs, Health Services Research, and Medical Care. These journals were selected because respondents wished to seek broad readership. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study can be used as a guide by U.S. SAdP faculty and P&T committees to assess the quality of publications by pharmacy administration faculty with the caveat being that pharmacy versus nonpharmacy journals will be chosen based on the fit of the article with the audience.