Correction to: Analysis of cardiac monitoring and safety data in patients initiating fingolimod treatment in the home or in clinic.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported a mistake regarding the year found in the paragraph of the Background section.

Analysis of cardiac monitoring and safety data in patients initiating fingolimod treatment in the home or in clinic.

BACKGROUND: Fingolimod (Gilenya®) is approved for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the USA. Owing to transient heart-rate effects when initiating fingolimod, eligible patients undergo precautionary baseline assessment and first-dose observation (FDO) for ≥6 h. Prior to 2014, FDO was undertaken only in clinics. As the FDO period is short, and fingolimod has accumulated evidence of a positive benefit:risk ratio, an in-home treatment-initiation program, Gilenya@Home, was developed to offer a convenient alternative. METHODS: Cardiac parameters and adverse events (AEs) were recorded by healthcare professionals performing fingolimod FDOs in the US Gilenya@Home program or in US Gilenya Assessment Network clinics. Anonymized data were collated retrospectively from the first 34 months in the home setting and from 78 months in clinics; data are reported descriptively. Satisfaction with Gilenya@Home was rated by patients using a 7-item questionnaire that considered aspects such as ease of scheduling, courtesy, and competency. RESULTS: Data were captured as part of standard care from 5573 patients initiating fingolimod in-home (October 2014 to July 2017) and from 15,025 patients initiating in-clinic (July 2010 to December 2016). In the Gilenya@Home questionnaire, 91.7% of 1848 respondents rated their overall satisfaction as "very good," and 7.6% rated their satisfaction as "good." AEs were reported for 30.7 and 32.6% of in-home and in-clinic patients, respectively. In total, 557 in-home (10.0%) and 398 in-clinic (2.6%) patients were monitored for > 6 h; 15 (0.3%) in-home and 129 (0.9%) in-clinic patients were transferred to an emergency room for overnight monitoring. The mean (standard deviation) heart rate (HR; bpm) pre-FDO was 74.8 (12.2) in-home and 74.2 (11.3) in-clinic; reduction in HR at 6 h postdose was 10.6 (12.0) and 6.3 (9.6), respectively. New-onset first-degree atrioventricular block was experienced by 132 (2.4%) in-home and 74 (0.5%) in-clinic patients, and Wenckebach (Mobitz type I) second-degree atrioventricular block by four (0.07%) and nine (0.1%) patients, with no cases of third-degree atrioventricular block. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of patients have initiated fingolimod at home, reporting very high levels of satisfaction. Gilenya@Home was as rigorous as the clinic setting in detecting cardiovascular events. Overall, FDO safety outcomes were similar with Gilenya@Home and in-clinic.

An exploratory retrospective assessment of a quantitative measure of diabetes risk: medical management and patient impact in a primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers with limited time and resources bear a heavy responsibility for chronic disease prevention or progression. Reliable clinical tools are needed to risk stratify patients for more targeted care. This exploratory study examined the care of patients who had been risk stratified regarding their likelihood of clinically progressing to type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review pilot study conducted to assess a primary care provider's use of a risk screening test. In this quality improvement project, the result of the risk screening was examined in relation to its influence on medical management and clinical impact on patients at risk for diabetes. All providers were board certified in family medicine and had more than 10 years clinical experience in managing diabetes and prediabetes. No specific clinical practice guidelines were mandated for patient care in this pilot study. Physicians in the practice group received an orientation to the diabetes risk measure and its availability for use in a pilot study to be conducted over a 6-month period. We identified the 696 nondiabetic adults in family practices who received a risk screening test (PreDx(®), a multi-marker blood test that estimates the 5-year likelihood of conversion to type 2 diabetes) between June and November 2011 for a 6-month sample. A comparison group of 2,002 patients from a total database of 3.2 million patients who did not receive the risk test was randomly selected from the same clinical database after matching for age, sex, selected diagnoses, and metabolic risk factors. Patient groups were compared for intensity of care provided and clinical impact. RESULTS: Compared to patients with a similar demographic and diagnostic profile, patients who had the risk test received more intensive primary care and had better clinical outcome than comparison patients. Risk-tested patients were more likely to return for follow-up visits, be monitored for relevant cardio-metabolic risk factors, and receive prescription medications with P<0.001. Further, intensity of care was associated with the level of risk test result: patients with moderate or high scores were more likely to return for follow-up visits and receive prescription medications than patients with low scores. All P-values for comparison patients between the low and moderate groups, low and high groups, and moderate and high groups resulted in P<0.001. Risk-tested patients were more likely than their comparison group counterparts to achieve weight reduction, lowered blood pressure, and improved blood glucose and cholesterol as demonstrated by P-values of <0.001. CONCLUSION: Use of a risk stratification test in primary care may help providers to more effectively identify high risk patients, manage diabetes risk, increase patient involvement in diabetes risk management, and improve clinical outcomes. A randomized controlled study is the next step to investigate the impact of diabetes risk stratification in primary care.