Polypharmacy and patterns of prescription medication use among cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: The population of cancer survivors is rapidly growing in the United States. Long-term and late effects of cancer, combined with the ongoing management of other chronic conditions, make survivors particularly vulnerable to polypharmacy and its adverse effects. In the current study, the authors examined patterns of prescription medication use and polypharmacy in a population-based sample of cancer survivors. METHODS: Using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), the authors matched cancer survivors (5216 survivors) with noncancer controls (19,588 controls) by age, sex, and survey year. Polypharmacy was defined as ≥5 unique medications. The authors estimated the percentage of respondents prescribed medications within therapeutic classes and total prescription expenditures. RESULTS: A higher percentage of cancer survivors were prescribed ≥5 unique medications (64.0%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 62.3%-65.8%) compared with noncancer controls (51.5%; 95% CI, 50.4%-52.6%), including drugs with abuse potential. Across all therapeutic classes, a higher percentage of newly (≤1 year since diagnosis) and previously (>1 years since diagnosis) diagnosed survivors were prescribed medications compared with controls, with large differences observed with regard to central nervous system agents (65.8% [95% CI, 62.3%-69.3%] vs 57.4% [95% CI, 55.3%-59.5%] vs 46.0% [95% CI, 45.0%-46.9%]). Specifically, nearly 10% of survivors were prescribed benzodiazepines and/or opioids compared with approximately 5% of controls. Survivors had more than double the prescription expenditures (median of $1633 vs $784 among controls). Findings persisted across age and comorbidity categories. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors were prescribed a higher number of unique medications, including drugs with abuse potential, thereby increasing their risk of adverse drug events, financial toxicity, poor adherence, and drug-drug interactions. Cancer 2018;124:2850-2857. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Mechanisms of self-persuasion intervention for HPV vaccination: Testing memory and autonomous motivation.

Objective: Optimizing a self-persuasion intervention app for adolescent HPV vaccination requires investigating its hypothesized mechanisms. Guided by the experimental medicine approach, we tested whether (a) self-persuasion intervention components (verbalize vaccination reasons, choose HPV topics) changed putative mechanisms (memory, autonomous motivation) and (b) measures of the putative mechanisms were associated with HPV vaccination. Method: These are secondary analyses from a randomized 2 (cognitive processing: verbalize reasons vs. listen) × 2 (choice: choose HPV topics vs. assigned) factorial trial (Tiro et al., 2016). Undecided parents (N = 161) with an unvaccinated child (11-17 years old) used the self-persuasion app, recalled reasons for vaccination (memory measure), and completed an autonomous motivation measure. Adolescent vaccination status was extracted from electronic medical records 12 months postintervention. Results: The verbalize component resulted in greater recall accuracy of vaccination reasons (p < .001); however, the choose topics component did not increase autonomous motivation scores (p = .74). For associations with HPV vaccination, recall accuracy was not associated (ps > .51), but autonomous motivation scores significantly predicted vaccination (ps < .03), except when controlling for baseline motivation (p = .22). Conclusion: The intervention app engages parents in reasons for vaccination; however, memory may not be a viable mechanism of vaccination. Although the intervention did not affect autonomous motivation, associations with vaccination status suggest it is a viable intervention target for HPV vaccination but alternative strategies to change it are needed. Future testing of a refined app should examine implementation strategies to optimize delivery in clinical or community settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Adherence to oral therapies among patients with renal cell carcinoma: Post hoc analysis of the ECOG-ACRIN E2805 trial.

BACKGROUND: As use of oral cancer therapies increases, patient adherence has become critical when evaluating the effectiveness of therapy. In a phase III trial for renal cell carcinoma, we: (a) characterized adherence to sorafenib, sunitinib, and/or placebo and (b) identified factors associated with non-adherence. METHODS: ECOG-ACRIN E2805 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial comparing adjuvant sorafenib or sunitinib in patients with resected primary renal cell carcinoma at high risk for recurrence. We used patient-completed pill diaries to measure adherence as the number of pills taken divided by the number of pills prescribed. Log-binomial regression was used to identify correlates of non-adherence (<80% of prescribed pills reported as taken). RESULTS: Mean adherence was 90.7% among those assigned to sunitinib (n = 613) and 84.8% among those assigned to sorafenib (n = 616). Among those assigned to placebo, mean adherence was 94.9% and 92.4% to sunitinib and sorafenib placebo, respectively. Non-adherence was associated with race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic Black: prevalence ratio [PR] 2.22, 95% CI 1.63, 3.01; Hispanic: PR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05, 2.26), high volume enrollment (≥10 patients: PR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03, 1.64), treatment group (sunitinib: PR 2.24, 95% CI 1.66, 3.02; sorafenib: PR 2.37, 95% CI 1.74, 3.22), and skin rash (PR 1.36, 95% CI 1.03, 1.80). CONCLUSION: Among patients participating in a randomized clinical trial, adherence to oral cancer therapies was lower compared to placebo. Adherence was also worse in racial/ethnic minorities, those experiencing toxicities, and high volume enrolling sites. Our findings highlight several challenges to address in clinical practice as use of oral therapies continues to increase. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00326898.

Colorectal Neoplasia among Patients with and without Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

BACKGROUND: Increasing availability of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has led to prolonged survival and rising incidence of non-HIV-defining cancers among patients with HIV. Compared with the general population, risk of colorectal cancer may differ among those with HIV due to immunosuppression, oncogenic viral coinfections, and higher prevalence of risk factors. METHODS: We identified patients (age ≥50 years) diagnosed with HIV, prescribed HAART for ≥6 months, and receiving care in two large health care systems in Dallas, TX. Patients received a first colonoscopy between January 2009 and December 2017. We calculated a standardized prevalence ratio as the ratio of observed to expected number of advanced neoplasia (high-risk adenoma or colorectal cancer) using an age- and sex-matched cohort of patients without HIV (n = 10,250). RESULTS: Among patients with HIV (n = 839), about two thirds (60.1%) had normal findings at colonoscopy; 6.8% had hyperplastic polyps only, 20.4% had low-risk adenomas, 11.7% had high-risk adenomas, and 1.1% had colorectal cancer. Prevalence of advanced neoplasia was similar between patients with and without HIV, with a standardized prevalence ratio of 0.99 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia between patients with and without HIV. IMPACT: Patients with HIV appear to have similar risk of colorectal neoplasia compared to those without HIV and can therefore follow average-risk colorectal cancer screening guidelines.

Patient and provider perspectives on delivery of oral cancer therapies.

OBJECTIVE: The introduction of oral cancer therapies presents new challenges to delivery of quality cancer care. Little is known about how patients and providers address and overcome these challenges. We conducted a qualitative study exploring the range of patient and provider perspectives on oral cancer therapies. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and providers at a tertiary referral center and county safety-net hospital in Dallas, TX. Interviews probed perspectives on differences between parenteral chemotherapy and oral therapies, adherence, communication, and cost/insurance. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically using a deductively-driven coding scheme corresponding to the interview guide. RESULTS: We conducted 22 patient (13 at tertiary referral center, 9 at safety-net hospital) and 10 provider (7 oncologists, 2 nurses, 1 pharmacist) interviews. Key themes from interviews included: (1) differences in parenteral chemotherapy vs. oral therapy; (2) adherence and dosing; and (3) experiences related to cost and communication. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all providers described challenges engaging with and educating patients about oral cancer therapies. Despite our initial hypothesis, safety-net patients encountered few barriers accessing oral therapies compared to patients receiving care in the tertiary referral center. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings will guide future interventions to monitor and support cancer patients receiving oral therapies.