Evaluating adherence to American Diabetes Association standards of care in diabetes and impacts of social determinants of health on patients at two nurse practitioner-owned clinics.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created barriers in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and worsened social determinants of health (SDOH). A New Hampshire primary care office worked to adhere to T2DM standards of care and began screening for SDOH. This project assessed adherence to quality metrics, hemoglobin A1C, and SDOH screening as telehealth utilization decreased. LOCAL PROBLEM: A1C values have increased at the practice, especially since COVID-19. The practice also began screening for SDOH at every visit, but there was need to assess how needs were being documented and if/how they were addressed. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with T2DM was performed. Demographic data and T2DM metrics were collected and compared with previous years and compared new versus established patients. Charts were reviewed to evaluate documentation of SDOH and appropriate referral. INTERVENTIONS: The practice transitioned from an increased utliization of telehealth back to prioritizing in-office visits. The practice also began routinely screening for SDOH in 2020; however, this process had not been standardized or evaluated. RESULTS: Adherence to nearly all quality metrics improved. Glycemic control improved after a year of nurse practitioner (NP) care, especially in new patients. All patients were screened for SDOH, but documentation varied, and affected patients had higher A1Cs, despite receiving comparable care. CONCLUSION: Nurse practitioners at this practice are adhering to American Diabetes Association guidelines, and A1C values improve under their care. Social determinants of health continue to act as unique barriers that keep patients from improving glycemic control, highlighting the need for individualized treatment of SDOH in T2DM care.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Thyroid Surgery - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: Conventional thyroidectomy has been standard of care for surgical thyroid nodules. For cosmetic purposes different minimally invasive and remote-access surgical approaches have been developed. At present, the most used robotic and endoscopic thyroidectomy approaches are minimally invasive video assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT), bilateral axillo-breast approach endoscopic thyroidectomy (BABA-ET), bilateral axillo-breast approach robotic thyroidectomy (BABA-RT), transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy via vestibular approach (TOETVA), retro-auricular endoscopic thyroidectomy (RA-ET), retro-auricular robotic thyroidectomy (RA-RT), gasless transaxillary endoscopic thyroidectomy (GTET) and robot assisted transaxillary surgery (RATS). The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate whether minimally invasive techniques are not inferior to conventional thyroidectomy. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase and Web of Science to identify original articles investigating operating time, length of hospital stay and complication rates regarding recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and hypocalcemia, of the different minimally invasive techniques. Results: Out of 569 identified manuscripts, 98 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were retrospective in nature. The results of the systematic review varied. Thirty-one articles were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the standard of care, the meta-analysis showed no significant difference in length of hospital stay, except a longer stay after BABA-ET. No significant difference in incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and hypocalcemia was seen. As expected, operating time was significantly longer for most minimally invasive techniques. Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the eight most commonly used minimally invasive thyroid surgeries individually with standard of care. It can be concluded that minimally invasive techniques do not lead to more complications or longer hospital stay and are, therefore, not inferior to conventional thyroidectomy.

Performance of crisis standards of care guidelines in a cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the United States.

Many US states published crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines for allocating scarce critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the performance of these guidelines in maximizing their population benefit has not been well tested. In 2,272 adults with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation drawn from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 (STOP-COVID) multicenter cohort, we test the following three approaches to CSC algorithms: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores grouped into ranges, SOFA score ranges plus comorbidities, and a hypothetical approach using raw SOFA scores not grouped into ranges. We find that area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves for all three algorithms demonstrate only modest discrimination for 28-day mortality. Adding comorbidity scoring modestly improves algorithm performance over SOFA scores alone. The algorithm incorporating comorbidities has modestly worse predictive performance for Black compared to white patients. CSC algorithms should be empirically examined to refine approaches to the allocation of scarce resources during pandemics and to avoid potential exacerbation of racial inequities.

The landscape of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy has resulted in significant survival benefits in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without increasing toxicity. However, the utilisation of immunotherapy for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains unclear, with a scarcity of systematic comparisons of therapeutic effects and safety of immunotherapy in these two major lung cancer subtypes. Herein, we aimed to provide a comprehensive landscape of immunotherapy and systematically review its specific efficacy and safety in advanced lung cancer, accounting for histological types. METHODS: We identified studies assessing immunotherapy for lung cancer with predefined endpoints, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAE), from PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane library. A random-effects or fixed-effect model was adopted according to different settings. RESULTS: Overall, 38 trials with 20,173 patients with lung cancer were included in this study. ICI therapy resulted in a significantly prolonged survival in both patients with NSCLC and SCLC when compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.79] and [HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.90], respectively). The magnitude of disease control and survival benefits appeared superior with ICI plus standard of care (SOC) when compared with SOC alone. OS and PFS advantages were observed only when immunotherapy was employed as the first-line treatment in patients with SCLC. CONCLUSION: ICI therapy is a promising therapeutic option in patients with NSCLC and SCLC. ICI plus SOC can be recommended as the optimal first-line treatment for patients with SCLC, and double-target ICIs combined with SOC are recommended in patients with NSCLC as both the first and subsequent lines of treatment. Additionally, non-first-line immunotherapy is not recommended in patients with SCLC.

Improved survival with enasidenib versus standard of care in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia associated with IDH2 mutations using historical data and propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: The present study evaluated the relative survival benefits associated with enasidenib and current standard of care (SoC) therapies for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and an isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutation who are ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). METHODS: Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis compared survival outcomes observed with enasidenib 100 mg daily in the phase I/II AG221-C-001 trial and SoC outcomes obtained from a real-world chart review of patients in France. RESULTS: Before matching, enasidenib (n = 195) was associated with numerically improved overall survival (OS) relative to SoC (n = 80; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.11). After matching and adjusting for covariates (n = 78 per group), mortality risk was significantly lower with enasidenib than with SoC (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97). The median OS was 9.26 months for enasidenib (95% CI, 7.72-13.24) and 4.76 months for SoC (95% CI, 3.81-8.21). Results remained robust across all sensitivity analyses conducted. CONCLUSIONS: PSM analyses indicate that enasidenib significantly prolongs survival relative to SoC among patients with R/R AML and an IDH2 mutation who are ineligible for HSCT. Future prospective studies are needed to validate these findings using other data sources and to assess the comparative efficacy of enasidenib for other treatment outcomes.

Azithromycin versus standard care in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (ATOMIC2): an open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-to-moderate disease are not available. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospital admission in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, randomised superiority trial was done at 19 hospitals in the UK. We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years presenting to hospitals with clinically diagnosed, highly probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with fewer than 14 days of symptoms, who were considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg once daily orally for 14 days) plus standard care or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. The primary and safety outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381962) and recruitment is closed. FINDINGS: 298 participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, to Jan 29, 2021. Three participants withdrew consent and requested removal of all data, and three further participants withdrew consent after randomisation, thus, the primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants (145 in the azithromycin group and 147 in the standard care group). The mean age of the participants was 45·9 years (SD 14·9). 15 (10%) participants in the azithromycin group and 17 (12%) in the standard care group were admitted to hospital or died during the study (adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43-1·92], p=0·80). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford and Pfizer.

Do standards of care and early outcomes of periprosthetic fractures change during the COVID-19 pandemic? A multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) are a growing matter for orthopaedic surgeons, and patients with PPFs may represent a frail target in the case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether hospital reorganisations during the most severe phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected standards of care and early outcomes of patients treated for PPFs in Northern Italy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were retrieved from a multicentre retrospective orthopaedics and traumatology database, including 14 hospitals. The following parameters were studied: demographics, results of nasopharyngeal swabs, prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), comorbidities, general health status (EQ-5D-5L Score), frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale, CFS), pain (visual analogue scale, VAS), anaesthesiologic risk (American Society of Anaesthesiology Score, ASA Score), classification (unified classification system, UCS), type of operation and anaesthesia, in-hospital and early complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification, CDC), and length of stay (LOS). Data were analysed by means of descriptive statistics. Out of 1390 patients treated for any reason, 38 PPFs were included. RESULTS: Median age was 81 years (range 70-96 years). Twenty-three patients (60.5%) were swabbed on admission, and two of them (5.3%) tested positive; in three patients (7.9%), the diagnosis of COVID-19 was established on a clinical and radiological basis. Two more patients tested positive post-operatively, and one of them died due to COVID-19. Thirty-three patients (86.8%) presented a proximal femoral PPF. Median ASA Score was 3 (range, 1-4), median VAS score on admission was 3 (range, 0-6), median CFS was 4 (range, 1-8), median EQ-5D-5L Score was 3 in each one of the categories (range, 1-5). Twenty-three patients (60.5%) developed post-operative complications, and median CDC grade was 3 (range, 1-5). The median LOS was 12.8 days (range 2-36 days), and 21 patients (55.3%) were discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PPFs did not seem to change during the lockdown. Patients were mainly elderly with comorbidities, and complications were frequently recorded post-operatively. Despite the difficult period for the healthcare system, hospitals were able to provide effective conventional surgical treatments for PPFs, which were not negatively influenced by the reorganisation. Continued efforts are required to optimise the treatment of these frail patients in the period of the pandemic, minimising the risk of contamination, and to limit the incidence of PPFs in the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Accuracy of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score for In-Hospital Mortality by Race and Relevance to Crisis Standards of Care.

Importance: Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) are guidelines for rationing health care resources during public health emergencies. The CSC adopted by US states ration intensive care unit (ICU) admission using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, which is used to compare expected in-hospital mortality among eligible patients. However, it is unknown if Black and White patients with equivalent SOFA scores have equivalent in-hospital mortality. Objective: To investigate whether reliance on SOFA is associated with bias against Black patients in CSC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using data from the eICU Collaborative Research Database of patients admitted to 233 US ICUs in 2014 to 2015. Included individuals were Black and White adult patients in the ICU, who were followed up to hospital discharge. Data were analyzed from May 2020 through April 2021. Exposure: SOFA scores at ICU admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hierarchical logistic regression with hospital fixed effects was used to measure the interaction between race and SOFA as a factor associated with in-hospital mortality, as well as the odds of death among Black and White patients with equivalent priority for resource allocation according to the SOFA-based ranking rules of 3 statewide CSC (denoted A, B, and C) under shortage conditions that were severe (ie, only patients with the highest priority would be eligible for allocation), intermediate (ie, patients in the highest 2 tiers would be eligible for allocation), or low (ie, only patients with the lowest priority would be at risk of exclusion). Results: Among 111 885 ICU encounters representing 95 549 patients, there were 16 688 encounters with Black patients (14.9%) and 51 464 (46.0%) encounters with women and the mean (SD) age was 63.3 (16.9) years. The median (interquartile range) SOFA score was not statistically significantly different between Black and White patients (4 [2-6] for both groups; P = .19), but mortality was lower among Black individuals compared with White individuals with equivalent SOFA scores (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P < .001). This was associated with lower mortality among Black patients compared with White patients prioritized for resource allocation in 3 CSC under shortage conditions that were severe (system A: OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.74; P < .001; system B: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78; P < .001; system C: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.80; P < .001), intermediate (system A: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.80; P < .001; system B: OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001; system C: OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001), and low (system A: OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001; system C: OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92; P < .001; not applicable for system B, which had fewer tiers). When SOFA-based ranking rules were adjusted for Black patients to simulate equitable allocation based on observed mortality, the proportion upgraded to higher priority ranged from 379 Black patient encounters (2.3%) in low shortage conditions to 2601 Black patient encounters (15.6%) in severe shortage conditions. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that SOFA scores were associated with overestimated mortality among Black patients compared with White patients, and this was associated with a structural disadvantage for Black patients in CSC allocation systems. These findings suggest that guidelines should be revised to correct this inequity and alternative methods should be developed for more equitable triage.

Validation of a Crisis Standards of Care Model for Prioritization of Limited Resources During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Crisis in an Urban, Safety-Net, Academic Medical Center.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has overwhelmed healthcare resources even in wealthy nations, necessitating rationing of limited resources without previously established crisis standards of care protocols. In Massachusetts, triage guidelines were designed based on acute illness and chronic life-limiting conditions. In this study, we sought to retrospectively validate this protocol to cohorts of critically ill patients from our hospital. DESIGN: We applied our hospital-adopted guidelines, which defined severe and major chronic conditions as those associated with a greater than 50% likelihood of 1- and 5-year mortality, respectively, to a critically ill patient population. We investigated mortality for the same intervals. SETTING: An urban safety-net hospital ICU. PATIENTS: All adults hospitalized during April of 2015 and April 2019 identified through a clinical database search. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 365 admitted patients, 15.89% had one or more defined chronic life-limiting conditions. These patients had higher 1-year (46.55% vs 13.68%; p < 0.01) and 5-year (50.00% vs 17.22%; p < 0.01) mortality rates than those without underlying conditions. Irrespective of classification of disease severity, patients with metastatic cancer, congestive heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and neurodegenerative disease had greater than 50% 1-year mortality, whereas patients with chronic lung disease and cirrhosis had less than 50% 1-year mortality. Observed 1- and 5-year mortality for cirrhosis, heart failure, and metastatic cancer were more variable when subdivided into severe and major categories. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with major and severe chronic medical conditions overall had 46.55% and 50.00% mortality at 1 and 5 years, respectively. However, mortality varied between conditions. Our findings appear to support a crisis standards protocol which focuses on acute illness severity and only considers underlying conditions carrying a greater than 50% predicted likelihood of 1-year mortality. Modifications to the chronic lung disease, congestive heart failure, and cirrhosis criteria should be refined if they are to be included in future models.

No evidence of tocilizumab treatment efficacy for severe to critical SARS-CoV2 infected patients: Results from a retrospective controlled multicenter study.

ABSTRACT: To assess tocilizumab (TCZ) efficacy associated to standard of care (SOC) compared to SOC alone in severe coronavirus associated disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. In a matched case-control study from 3 French Hospital COVID-19 Departments, 27 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with TCZ and SOC were matched for baseline epidemiological and clinical features and compared to 27 severe COVID-19 patients treated with SOC alone. Baseline characteristics of the study population were comparable between groups. Eleven patients (20%) died. TCZ was not associated with clinical improvement as compared to SOC regarding oxygen-free status (44% vs 63%) and death (18.5% vs 22%), despite a higher decrease of the C-reactive protein at Day 7 (10.7 vs 52 mg/L; P < 10-3). Compared to the 43 patients alive at the end-of follow-up, patients who died were older (78 vs 64 years; P < 10-3), with 82% of them older than 72 years vs only 23% of live patients (P < 10-3). Age (OR = 1.15; 95%CI = 1.04-1.3; P = .008) and age over 72 years (OR) = 14.85; 95%CI = 2.7-80; P = .002) were independently associated with mortality. TCZ in addition to SOC for severe COVID-19 patients did not reduce mortality, subsequent need for invasive mechanical ventilation nor did it shorten the time of oxygen support, despite better control of the inflammatory response. More powerful and randomized controlled trials are warranted to determine if TCZ is effective in the management of COVID-19.

Cost-effectiveness of single-use negative-pressure therapy compared with standard care for prevention of reconstruction failure in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Single-use negative-pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) has been reported to reduce the incidence of reconstruction failure in prepectoral breast reconstruction compared with standard surgical dressings. The aim of this economic evaluation was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of sNPWT compared with standard care for the prevention of reconstruction failure in prepectoral breast reconstruction in the UK. METHOD: A decision tree model was used to estimate the expected cost and effectiveness per patient. Effectiveness was measured both by the number of reconstruction failures avoided and the gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The baseline incidence of reconstruction failure (8.6 per cent) was taken from a recently published study of 2655 mastectomies in the UK. The effectiveness of sNPWT used results from a clinical study comparing sNPWT with standard dressings. Previously published utility weights were applied. The cost of reconstruction failure was estimated from detailed resource data from patients with reconstruction failure, applying National Health Service reference costs. One-way, probabilistic, scenario and threshold analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The undiscounted cost per patient associated with reconstruction failure was estimated to be £23 628 (£22 431 discounted). The use of sNPWT was associated with an expected cost saving of £1706 per patient, an expected increase in QALYs of 0.0187 and an expected 0.0834 reconstruction failures avoided. Cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis demonstrated that, at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY, 99.94 per cent of the simulations showed sNPWT to be more cost-effective than standard care. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction, the use of sNPWT is more cost-effective than standard dressings.

Real world effectiveness of standard of care triple therapy versus two-drug combinations for treatment of people living with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Since 1996, the standard of care (SOC) therapy for HIV treatment has consisted of a backbone of two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) paired with a third agent. Use of two-drug combinations (2DC) has been considered for selected patients to avoid toxicities associated with the use of NRTIs. This study aimed to compare the real-world outcomes of integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-containing triple therapy (TT) to dolutegravir- (DTG) and/or boosted protease inhibitor (bPI)-based 2DC in a large Spanish cohort of HIV patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using data from the VACH cohort, a prospective multicentre Spanish cohort of adult HIV patients. All treatment experienced patients initiating a TT of an INSTI combined with two NRTIs or a 2DC-containing DTG and/or a bPI between 01/01/2012 and 01/06/2017 were included. The unit of analysis was patient-regimens. The overall sample analysis was complemented with two sub-analyses. The first sub-analysis focused on patients treated with a backbone plus DTG compared to those treated with DTG+ one other antiretroviral. The second sub-analysis focused on patients with HIV RNA<50 copies/mL at baseline, irrespective of the regimen used. The following endpoints were assessed: time to discontinuation for any reason, time to switch due to virologic failure, and time to switch due to toxicity (reasons for discontinuation according to clinician report in the database). Time-to-event analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox regression models. RESULTS: Overall 7,481 patients were included in the analysis, contributing to 9,243 patient-regimens. Patient characteristics at baseline differed among groups, with the 2DC group being significantly older and having a higher proportion of women, a longer time on ART and a higher number of previous virologic failures. Median (95% Confidence Interval [C.I.]) time to switch was 2.5 years (2.3, 2.7) in 2DC group versus 2.9 years (2.7, 3.0) in TT. Adjusted hazard ratios (95% C.I.) for discontinuation due to any reason, virologic failure and toxicity in the 2DC vs TT group were 1.29 (1.15; 1.44), 2.06 (1.54; 2.77) and 1.18 (0.94; 1.48), respectively. Results were consistent in the two sub-analyses. CONCLUSION: In this analysis, time to discontinuation and probability of remaining free of virologic failure were significantly higher in patients on INSTI-based TT compared to DTG- and/or bPI-containing 2DC, with no differences in toxicity.

Association between the nurse-led program with mental health status, quality of life, and heart failure rehospitalization in chronic heart failure patients.

ABSTRACT: The nurse-led program is associated with a short-term improvement of mental health status (MHS) and quality of life (QOL) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Nonetheless, the long-term effect of this program is undetermined. The aims of the current study were to evaluate the 1-year effects of the nurse-led program on MHS, QOL, and heart failure (HF) rehospitalization among patients with CHF.CHF patients in the control group received standard care, and patients in the treatment group received standard care plus telehealth intervention including inquiring patients' medical condition, providing feedbacks, counseling and providing positive and emotional talk with the patients. At the third, sixth, and twelfth month's follow-up, patients were called by registered nurses to assess the Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores. HF rehospitalization was also assessed.A total of 300 patients were included and 46% (n = 138) of the patients were in the treatment group. There were no significant between-group differences in the MHI-5 and KCCQ scores at baseline. In the control group, the MHI-5 score was gradually decreased with follow-up and the score was significantly lower than that in the treatment group since the third month's follow-up (63.5 ±â€Š10.6 vs 73.6 ±â€Š10.3). Compared with the treatment group, KCCQ score was lower in the control group from the third month's follow-up (64.3 ±â€Š10.6 vs 73.5 ±â€Š12.3) until the end of the twelfth months' follow-up (45.3 ±â€Š11.2 vs 60.8 ±â€Š11.1). During 12 months' follow-up, the proportion of patients who experienced HF rehospitalization was lower in the treatment group (19.6% vs 24.1%). After adjusting for covariates, the utilization of the nurse-led program, and increase of MHI-5 and KCCQ scores were associated with reduced risk of HF rehospitalization.The nurse-led program is beneficial for the improvement of MHS and QOL for CHF patients, which might contribute to the reduction of HF rehospitalization.

Assessment of Disparities Associated With a Crisis Standards of Care Resource Allocation Algorithm for Patients in 2 US Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Significant concern has been raised that crisis standards of care policies aimed at guiding resource allocation may be biased against people based on race/ethnicity. Objective: To evaluate whether unanticipated disparities by race or ethnicity arise from a single institution's resource allocation policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) who were cared for on a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ward or in a monitored unit requiring invasive or noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula between May 26 and July 14, 2020, at 2 academic hospitals in Miami, Florida. Exposures: Race (ie, White, Black, Asian, multiracial) and ethnicity (ie, non-Hispanic, Hispanic). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was based on a resource allocation priority score (range, 1-8, with 1 indicating highest and 8 indicating lowest priority) that was assigned daily based on both estimated short-term (using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score) and longer-term (using comorbidities) mortality. There were 2 coprimary outcomes: maximum and minimum score for each patient over all eligible patient-days. Standard summary statistics were used to describe the cohort, and multivariable Poisson regression was used to identify associations of race and ethnicity with each outcome. Results: The cohort consisted of 5613 patient-days of data from 1127 patients (median [interquartile range {IQR}] age, 62.7 [51.7-73.7]; 607 [53.9%] men). Of these, 711 (63.1%) were White patients, 323 (28.7%) were Black patients, 8 (0.7%) were Asian patients, and 31 (2.8%) were multiracial patients; 480 (42.6%) were non-Hispanic patients, and 611 (54.2%) were Hispanic patients. The median (IQR) maximum priority score for the cohort was 3 (1-4); the median (IQR) minimum score was 2 (1-3). After adjustment, there was no association of race with maximum priority score using White patients as the reference group (Black patients: incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.12; Asian patients: IRR, 0.95; 95% CI. 0.62-1.45; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19) or of ethnicity using non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.10); similarly, no association was found with minimum score for race, again with White patients as the reference group (Black patients: IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.14; Asian patients: IRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.62-1.49; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07) or ethnicity, again with non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.13). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of adult patients admitted to a COVID-19 unit at 2 US hospitals, there was no association of race or ethnicity with the priority score underpinning the resource allocation policy. Despite this finding, any policy to guide altered standards of care during a crisis should be monitored to ensure equitable distribution of resources.

Anti-PD1/PD-L1 monotherapy vs standard of care in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, a number of clinical trials for antibody drugs targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1)/programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) have been carried out on recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M SCCHN) and reported promising prospects. To further evaluate and understand the effects and risk of anti-PD1/PD-L1 monotherapy vs standard of care (SoC) in R/M SCCHN, we conducted this meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. METHOD: The potential eligible trials were searched from Cochrane library and Pubmed and Embase databases. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects and risk of anti-PD1/PD-L1 monotherapy vs SoC in platinum refractory R/M SCCHN were selected. The outcomes, including objective response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and treatment-related adverse events, were extracted and pooled. RESULTS: 1345 patients with R/M SCCHN from three randomized controlled trials were enrolled in this analysis. Compared with SoC, anti-PD1/PD-L1 monotherapy could provide statistically significant overall survival benefit, hazard ratio (95% confidence interval ) = 0.79 [0.70-0.90]. However, we observed no significant difference between 2 treatments in progression-free survival (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.96 [0.85-1.09]). Furthermore, anti-PD1/PD-L1 monotherapy caused less treatment-related adverse events than standard of care. CONCLUSION: Anti-PD1/PD-L1 monotherapy could indeed reduce the risk of death in R/M SCCHN patients, and provide higher safety vs SoC. Expression level of PD-L1 may be a useful biomarker for selecting patients with better response to anti-PD1/PD-L1 monotherapy.

Encorafenib Plus Cetuximab as a New Standard of Care for Previously Treated BRAF V600E-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Updated Survival Results and Subgroup Analyses from the BEACON Study.

PURPOSE: BEACON CRC evaluated encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib versus investigators' choice of irinotecan or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), after progression on 1-2 prior regimens. In the previously reported primary analysis, encorafenib, binimetinib plus cetuximab (ENCO/BINI/CETUX; triplet) and encorafenib plus cetuximab (ENCO/CETUX; doublet) regimens improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR; by blinded central review) versus standard of care. The purpose of this analysis was to report updated efficacy and safety data. METHODS: In this open-label, phase III trial, 665 patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive triplet, doublet, or control. Primary end points were OS and independently reviewed ORR comparing triplet to control. OS for doublet versus control was a key secondary end point. Updated analyses include 6 months of additional follow-up and ORR for all randomized patients. RESULTS: Patients received triplet (n = 224), doublet (n = 220), or control (n = 221). Median OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 10.8) for triplet and 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.1) for control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.75]). Median OS for doublet was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 11.3) (HR v control, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.77]). Confirmed ORR was 26.8% (95% CI, 21.1% to 33.1%) for triplet, 19.5% (95% CI, 14.5% to 25.4%) for doublet, and 1.8% (95% CI, 0.5% to 4.6%) for control. Adverse events were consistent with the prior primary analysis, with grade ≥ 3 adverse events in 65.8%, 57.4%, and 64.2% for triplet, doublet, and control, respectively. CONCLUSION: In the BEACON CRC study, encorafenib plus cetuximab improved OS, ORR, and progression-free survival in previously treated patients in the metastatic setting compared with standard chemotherapy. Based on the primary and updated analyses, encorafenib plus cetuximab is a new standard care regimen for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E mCRC.

Exome Sequencing for Isolated Congenital Hearing Loss: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To assess the relative cost-effectiveness of exome sequencing for isolated congenital deafness compared with standard care. STUDY DESIGN: Incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses were undertaken from the perspective of the Australian healthcare system using an 18-year time horizon. METHODS: A decision tree was used to model the costs and outcomes associated with exome sequencing and standard care for infants presenting with isolated congenital deafness. RESULTS: Exome sequencing resulted in an incremental cost of AU$1,000 per child and an additional 30 diagnoses per 100 children tested. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was AU$3,333 per additional diagnosis. The mean societal willingness to pay for exome sequencing was estimated at AU$4,600 per child tested relative to standard care, resulting in a positive net benefit of AU$3,600. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the cost-effectiveness of exome sequencing. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of exome sequencing in congenital hearing loss, through increased diagnostic rate and consequent improved process of care by reducing or ceasing diagnostic investigation or facilitating targeted further investigation. We recommend equitable funding for exome sequencing in infants presenting with isolated congenital hearing loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A. Laryngoscope, 131:E2371-E2377, 2021.

Oligorecurrent prostate cancer treated with metastases-directed therapy or standard of care: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for oligorecurrent prostate cancer (PCa) is a matter of debate. We aimed to assess oncologic outcomes of patients treated with metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) vs. androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for oligorecurrent PCa. METHODS: We analyzed data from patients with oligorecurrent PCa treated with ADT (n = 121), salvage lymph node dissection (sLND) (n = 191) or external beam RT (EBRT) (n = 178). Radiological recurrence (RAR) was defined as a positive positron emission tomography imaging after MDT or ADT. Second-line systemic therapies (SST) were defined as any systemic therapy administered for progression. Oncologic outcomes were evaluated separately for patients with node-only or bone metastases. Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess time to RAR, SST, and cancer-specific mortality (CSM). Predictors of RAR, SST, and castration-resistant PCa (CRPCa) were assessed with Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 74 (22.6%), 63 (19.2%), and 191 (58.2%) patients were treated with ADT, EBRT, and sLND for lymph node-only recurrence. Both sLND (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.94) and EBRT (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.85) were associated with better RAR than ADT. Similarly, sLND (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.13-0.50) and EBRT (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.87) were associated with longer SST, as compared with ADT. Similar results were found for CRPCa status. Oncologic outcomes were similar between sLND and EBRT. MDT was not associated with survival benefit in patients with bone metastases as compared with ADT. CONCLUSIONS: sLND and EBRT were associated with better RAR, SST, and CRPCa-free survival as compared with ADT in patients with oligometastatic PCa nodal recurrence. No difference in survival outcomes was observed between sLND and EBRT. MDT was not associated with survival benefit in patients with bone metastases, as compared with ADT.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used in Routine Care Predict for Survival at Disease Progression in Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been increasingly implemented in routine care to aid in clinical decision-making. However, the prognostic value of PRO measures as a tool for decision making is not easily interpreted by clinicians. Our aims were to explore the prognostic value of PRO measures at disease progression and the changes in PRO measures between treatment start (baseline) and disease progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Since 2014, patients with lung cancer have completed an electronic version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and LC-13 before every outpatient visit at the Department of Oncology, Hospital Unit West, Jutland, Denmark. The patients' responses were used in routine care. Patients receiving palliative antineoplastic treatment were eligible for analysis if the questionnaire had been completed at the initiation of first-line treatment and at disease progression. The prognostic value of the scores was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model. A P value < .01 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 94 screened patients were included. At disease progression, survival could be predicted from the absolute score of the global health scale, 3 functional scales (physical, role, emotional), and 7 symptom scales (fatigue, pain, dyspnea, hemoptysis, lung cancer dyspnea, chest pain). In addition, changes in hemoptysis, dysphagia, dyspnea, and chest pain predicted for survival at progression. CONCLUSION: PRO measures used in routine care can provide clinicians with relevant prognostic information about patients with lung cancer at disease progression. These results show the potential value of PRO measures when used in clinical decision-making.