Labels Are For Soup Cans: How Self-Labeling as "Addicted" to Pornography Is Associated with Negative Outcomes.

Pornography viewers often report being addicted to pornography even if their behavior does not indicate such addiction. In this study with 1099 participants (52% male), we explored how the specific belief in being addicted to pornography could predict both individual and relational outcomes beyond actual pornography use and reported compulsive pornography use (i.e., considering one's use to be out of control). Using a structural equation model, our results showed that higher agreement with the pornography addiction label, without accounting for compulsivity, was associated with higher depression, suicide ideation, communication discomfort about pornography, and higher odds of having a relationship end solely because of pornography. After accounting for compulsivity, higher agreement with the pornography addiction label was only associated with higher communication discomfort about pornography and higher odds of having a relationship end solely because of pornography. This study highlights that identifying as addicted to pornography may include a stigma that is particularly detrimental to relationship outcomes.

Systematic literature review of real-world evidence for treatments in HR+/HER2- second-line LABC/mBC after first-line treatment with CDK4/6i.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) combined with endocrine therapy (ET) are currently recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines as the first-line (1 L) treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC). Although there are many treatment options, there is no clear standard of care for patients following 1 L CDK4/6i. Understanding the real-world effectiveness of subsequent therapies may help to identify an unmet need in this patient population. This systematic literature review qualitatively synthesized effectiveness and safety outcomes for treatments received in the real-world setting after 1 L CDK4/6i therapy in patients with HR+/ HER2- LABC/mBC. METHODS: MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane were searched using the Ovid® platform for real-world evidence studies published between 2015 and 2022. Grey literature was searched to identify relevant conference abstracts published from 2019 to 2022. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023383914). Data were qualitatively synthesized and weighted average median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was calculated for NCCN/ESMO-recommended post-1 L CDK4/6i treatment regimens. RESULTS: Twenty records (9 full-text articles and 11 conference abstracts) encompassing 18 unique studies met the eligibility criteria and reported outcomes for second-line (2 L) treatments after 1 L CDK4/6i; no studies reported disaggregated outcomes in the third-line setting or beyond. Sixteen studies included NCCN/ESMO guideline-recommended treatments with the majority evaluating endocrine-based therapy; five studies on single-agent ET, six studies on mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) ± ET, and three studies with a mix of ET and/or mTORi. Chemotherapy outcomes were reported in 11 studies. The most assessed outcome was median rwPFS; the weighted average median rwPFS was calculated as 3.9 months (3.3-6.0 months) for single-agent ET, 3.6 months (2.5-4.9 months) for mTORi ± ET, 3.7 months for a mix of ET and/or mTORi (3.0-4.0 months), and 6.1 months (3.7-9.7 months) for chemotherapy. Very few studies reported other effectiveness outcomes and only two studies reported safety outcomes. Most studies had heterogeneity in patient- and disease-related characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The real-world effectiveness of current 2 L treatments post-1 L CDK4/6i are suboptimal, highlighting an unmet need for this patient population.

Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Background: Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models. Design: Mixed-methods realist evaluation. Methods: Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development. Results: General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models. Limitations: The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored. Conclusion: Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services. Future work: The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Hospital emergency departments are under huge pressure. Patients are waiting many hours to be seen, some with problems that general practitioners could deal with. To reduce waiting times and improve patient care, arrangements have been put in place for general practitioners to work in or alongside emergency departments (general practitioner­emergency department models). We studied the different ways of working to find out what works well, how and for whom. We brought together a lot of information. We reviewed existing evidence, sent out surveys to 184 emergency departments, spent time in the emergency departments observing how they operated and interviewing 106 staff in 13 hospitals and 24 patients who visited those emergency departments. We also looked at statistical information recorded by hospitals. Two public contributors were involved from the beginning, and we held two stakeholder events to ensure the relevance of our research to professionals and patients. Getting reliable figures to compare the various general practitioner­emergency department set-ups (inside, parallel to or outside the emergency department) was difficult. Our findings suggest that over time more people are coming to emergency departments and overall waiting times did not generally improve due to general practitioner­emergency department models. Evidence that general practitioners might admit fewer patients to hospital was mixed, with limited findings of cost savings. Patients were generally supportive of the care they received, although we could not speak to as many patients as we planned. The skills and experience of general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We identified how the care provided was kept safe with: strong leaders, good communication between different types of staff, highly trained and experienced nurses responsible for streaming and specific training for general practitioners on how they were expected to work. We have produced a guide to help professionals develop and improve general practitioner­emergency department services and we have written easy-to-read summaries of all the articles we published.

Programme theories to describe how different general practitioner service models work in different contexts in or alongside emergency departments (GP-ED): realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Addressing increasing patient demand and improving ED patient flow is a key ambition for NHS England. Delivering general practitioner (GP) services in or alongside EDs (GP-ED) was advocated in 2017 for this reason, supported by £100 million (US$130 million) of capital funding. Current evidence shows no overall improvement in addressing demand and reducing waiting times, but considerable variation in how different service models operate, subject to local context. METHODS: We conducted mixed-methods analysis using inductive and deductive approaches for qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analyses of attendances, reattendances, hospital admissions, length of stay) based on previous research using a purposive sample of 13 GP-ED service models (3 inside-integrated, 4 inside-parallel service, 3 outside-onsite and 3 with no GPs) in England and Wales. We used realist methodology to understand the relationship between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes to develop programme theories about how and why different GP-ED service models work. RESULTS: GP-ED service models are complex, with variation in scope and scale of the service, influenced by individual, departmental and external factors. Quantitative data were of variable quality: overall, no reduction in attendances and waiting times, a mixed picture for hospital admissions and length of hospital stay. Our programme theories describe how the GP-ED service models operate: inside the ED, integrated with patient flow and general ED demand, with a wider GP role than usual primary care; outside the ED, addressing primary care demand with an experienced streaming nurse facilitating the 'right patients' are streamed to the GP; or within the ED as a parallel service with most variability in the level of integration and GP role. CONCLUSION: GP-ED services are complex . Our programme theories inform recommendations on how services could be modified in particular contexts to address local demand, or whether alternative healthcare services should be considered.

Phase Ib/II Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Binimetinib (MEK162) Plus Panitumumab for Mutant or Wild-Type RAS Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Activating RAS gene mutations occur in approximately 55% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and are associated with poorer clinical outcomes due to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) blockade resistance. Combined EGFR and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibition may extend response to EGFR inhibition and overcome acquired resistance. This phase Ib/II dose escalation trial evaluated the safety and activity of dual inhibition with binimetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor) and panitumumab (EGFR inhibitor [EGFRi]) in patients with RAS mutant or BRAF wild type (WT)/RAS WT mCRC. METHODS: Phase Ib dose escalation started with binimetinib 45 mg twice daily plus panitumumab 6 mg/kg administered every 2 weeks. In the phase II study, patients with measurable mCRC were enrolled into 4 groups based on previous anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy and RAS mutational status. RESULTS: No patients in the phase Ib portion (n = 10) had a response; 70% of patients had stable disease. In the phase II portion (n = 43), overall response rate (ORR, confirmed) was 2.3% with one partial response in the RAS WT group, DCR was 30.2%, and median progression-free survival was 1.8 months (95%CI, 1.6-3.3). All patients experienced ≥1 adverse event, with the most common being diarrhea (71.7%), vomiting (52.8%), nausea (50.9%), fatigue (49.1%), dermatitis acneiform (43.4%), and rash (41.5%). Most patients required treatment interruption or dose reduction due to difficulties tolerating treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of binimetinib and panitumumab had substantial toxicity and limited clinical activity for patients with mutant or WT RAS mCRC, independent of EGFRi treatment history (Trial registration: NCT01927341).

Understanding how shared decision-making approaches and patient aids influence patients with advanced cancer when deciding on palliative treatments and care: A realist review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced incurable cancer face difficult decisions about palliative treatment options towards their end of life. However, they are often not provided with the appropriate information and support that is needed to make informed decisions. This review aimed to identify contexts and mechanisms associated with communication tools, patient decision-aids and shared decision-making (SDM) approaches that influence patient outcomes. METHODS: We used a realist review method to search for published studies of patients (adults > 18) with advanced cancer who were expected to make a decision about palliative treatment and/or supportive care in consultation with healthcare practitioners. We appraised and synthesised literature describing the contexts of (when and how) decision aids and SDM approaches are used, and how these contexts interact with mechanisms (resources and reasoning) which impact patient outcomes. Stakeholders including academics, palliative healthcare professionals (HCPs) and people with lived experience of supporting people with advanced incurable cancer contributed to identifying explanatory accounts. These accounts were documented, analysed and consolidated to contribute to the development of a programme theory. RESULTS: From the 33 included papers, we consolidated findings into 20 explanatory accounts to develop a programme theory that explains key contexts and mechanisms that influence patient and SDM. Contexts include underlying patients' and HCPs' attitudes and approaches. These need to be understood in relation to key mechanisms, including presenting information in multiple formats and providing adequate time and opportunities to prepare for and revisit decisions. Contexts influenced mechanisms which then influence the levels of patient decisional satisfaction, conflict and regret. CONCLUSIONS: Our programme theory highlights mechanisms that are important in supporting shared treatment decisions for advanced noncurative cancer. The findings are informative for developing and evaluating interventions to improve understanding and involvement in SDM for patients with advanced incurable cancer. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We included patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives in four stakeholder meetings. PPI helped to define the scope of the review, identify their unique experiences and perspectives, synthesise their perspectives with our review findings, make decisions about which theories we included in our programme theory and develop recommendations for policy and practice and future research.

COLUMBUS 5-year update: a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Here, we summarize the 5-year results from part 1 of the COLUMBUS clinical study, which looked at the combination treatment of encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a specific type of skin cancer called melanoma. Encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®) are medicines used to treat a type of melanoma that has a change in the BRAF gene, called advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. Participants with advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma took either encorafenib plus binimetinib together (COMBO group), compared with encorafenib alone (ENCO group) or vemurafenib (ZELBORAF®) alone (VEMU group). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this 5-year update, more participants in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse after 5 years than those in the VEMU and ENCO groups. Patients in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse when they: Had less advanced cancer Were able to do more daily activities Had normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels Had fewer organs with tumors before treatment After treatment, fewer participants in the COMBO group received additional anticancer treatment than participants in the VEMU and ENCO groups. The number of participants who reported severe side effects was similar for each treatment. The side effects caused by the drugs in the COMBO group decreased over time. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Overall, this 5-year update confirmed that people with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma that has spread to other parts of the body and who took encorafenib plus binimetinib were alive for longer without their disease getting worse than those who took vemurafenib or encorafenib alone. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01909453 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Evaluating a Telephone and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Intervention to Improve Blood Pressure Control and Self-Care Behaviors in Adults with Low-Socioeconomic Status.

Hypertension (HTN) affects nearly 75 million in the United States, and percentages increase with low socioeconomic status (SES) due to poor access to, and quality of, care, and poor self-care behaviors. Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) employ evidence-based strategies, such as telehealth interventions, to improve blood pressure (BP) control in under-resourced communities, yet a southeastern FQHC could achieve a BP control rate of only 27.6%, well below the Health People 2020 goal of 61.2%. This pilot project used a pre/post, matched-cohort design to evaluate the effect of a telehealth intervention on BP control and self-care behaviors. Secondary outcomes included self-efficacy and perceived stress. Frequency and percentage, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and McNemar tests were used for statistical analysis of results from a convenience sample of 27 participants. Baseline HTN management guidance that incorporated home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) was reinforced through telephone counseling every two weeks. Although BP control was not achieved, average scores for systolic and diastolic blood pressures decreased significantly: 13 mm Hg (p = 0.0136) and 5 mm Hg (p = 0.0095), respectively. Statistically significant differences were also seen in select self-care behaviors. Greater BP reduction aligned with higher self-efficacy scores and call engagement. Overall, telephone counseling and HBPM were feasible and effective in reducing BP and increasing self-care behaviors. The inability to control BP may be attributable to under-recognition of stress, lack of medication adherence/reconciliation, and underutilization of guideline-based prescribing recommendations. Findings elucidate the potential effectiveness of a sustainable telehealth intervention to improve BP in low-SES populations.

A Phase Ib/II Study of WNT974 + Encorafenib + Cetuximab in Patients With BRAF V600E-Mutant KRAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: WNT974 is a small molecule inhibitor of Wnt signaling that specifically inhibits porcupine O-acyltransferase. This phase Ib dose--escalation study evaluated the maximum tolerated dose of WNT974 in combination with encorafenib and cetuximab in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer with RNF43 mutations or RSPO fusions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received once-daily encorafenib and weekly cetuximab, in addition to once-daily WNT974, in sequential dosing cohorts. In the first cohort, patients received 10-mg WNT974 (COMBO10), which was reduced in subsequent cohorts to 7.5-mg (COMBO7.5) or 5-mg (COMBO5) after dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed. Primary endpoints were incidence of DLTs and exposure to WNT974 and encorafenib. Secondary endpoints were anti-tumor activity and safety. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled (COMBO10, n = 4; COMBO7.5, n = 6; COMBO5, n = 10). DLTs were observed in 4 patients, including grade 3 hypercalcemia (COMBO10, n = 1; COMBO7.5, n = 1), grade 2 dysgeusia (COMBO10, n = 1), and lipase increased (COMBO10, n = 1). A high incidence of bone toxicities (n = 9) was reported, including rib fracture, spinal compression fracture, pathological fracture, foot fracture, hip fracture, and lumbar vertebral fracture. Serious adverse events were reported in 15 patients, most frequently bone fracture, hypercalcemia, and pleural effusion. The overall response rate was 10% and disease control rate 85%; most patients achieved stable disease as their best response. CONCLUSION: Concerns surrounding the safety and lack of preliminary evidence of improved anti-tumor activity of WNT974 + encorafenib + cetuximab, compared with previous encorafenib + cetuximab data, ultimately led to study discontinuation. Phase II was not initiated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02278133.

Detection of numerous phycotoxins in young bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) collected from an estuary of national significance.

Florida's Indian River Lagoon (IRL) has experienced large-scale, frequent blooms of toxic harmful algae in recent decades. Sentinel, or indicator, species can provide an integrated picture of contaminants in the environment and may be useful to understanding phycotoxin prevalence in the IRL. This study evaluated the presence of phycotoxins in the IRL ecosystem by using the bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) as a sentinel species. Concentrations of phycotoxins were measured in samples collected from 50 immature bull sharks captured in the IRL between 2018 and 2020. Ultra-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry was used to measure toxins in shark gut contents, plasma, and liver. Analysis of samples (n = 123) demonstrated the presence of multiple phycotoxins (microcystin, nodularin, teleocidin, cylindrospermopsin, domoic acid, okadaic acid, and brevetoxin) in 82 % of sampled bull sharks. However, most detected toxins were in low prevalence (≤25 % of samples, per sample type). This study provides valuable baseline information on presence of multiple phycotoxins in a species occupying a high trophic position in this estuary of national significance.