Interplay between spirituality and religiosity on the physical and mental well-being of cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: This study explored the relationship of spirituality and religiosity as it affects the physical and mental quality of life (pQOL, mQOL) of cancer survivors. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study that included adults ≥ 19 years who received treatment for various types of cancer. Patients' QOL was obtained at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Cohorts were categorized according to spirituality/religiosity levels: low spirituality-low religiosity (LSLR), low spirituality-high religiosity (LSHR), high spirituality-low religiosity (HSLR), and high spirituality-high religiosity (HSHR). RESULTS: Of the 551 eligible, 248 (45%) had HSHR, 196 (36%) had LSHR, 75 (14%) had LSLR, and 32 (6%) had HSLR. The pQOL of LSLR were significantly lower than those with HSHR (p = 0.02). The differences in pQOL between LS and HS were observed among those who have HR (p < 0.0001). Among patients with LR, pQOL did not differ. The mQOL of patients with LSLR was significantly lower than those with HSHR (p < 0.0001). The mQOL of those with HS was significantly higher than those with LS in both cohorts having LR (p < 0.0001) or HR (p < 0.0001). pQOL decreased while mQOL increased over time regardless of spirituality or religiosity levels. CONCLUSION: Spirituality is important in the improvement of both pQOL and mQOL of cancer survivors, while religiosity may have some impact on pQOL. Clinicians' incorporation of spirituality into cancer treatment facilitates well-rounded care, which offers measurable improvements for patients with an illness, of which the treatment is often arduous, and uncertain.

Evaluation of the Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus Basal Insulin and Basal-Bolus Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Based on Attainment of Clinically Relevant Treatment Targets.

BACKGROUND: Effective glycemic control can reduce the risk of complications and their related costs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Many patients fail to reach hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤ 6.5% or < 7.0%, often due to adverse effects of treatment, such as hypoglycemia and weight gain. Glycemic targets should be individualized and consider multiple factors, including the risk of adverse events and the patient's characteristics and comorbid conditions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the odds and annual cost of achieving treatment targets, which incorporate HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%, with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal insulin and basal-bolus therapy. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VII 26-week trials, which randomized patients with T2D uncontrolled (HbA1c 7%-10%) on insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) and metformin to IDegLira or continued IGlar U100 titration (DUAL V) or IGlar U100 + insulin aspart (DUAL VII), all with metformin. Proportions of patients achieving HbA1c targets (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) by the end of trial were assessed via 3 outcomes: alone, without either hypoglycemia or weight gain (double composite outcome), or without a combination of hypoglycemia and weight gain (triple composite outcome). The cost per patient achieving the triple composite outcome at each HbA1c target (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) was calculated by dividing the annual cost of treatment by the proportion of patients achieving the target. This short-term (1-year) cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of a U.S. health care payer. RESULTS: More patients achieved HbA1c < 7.5% (P < 0.0001) and < 8.0% (P = 0.0003), and a similar percentage achieved HbA1c ≤ 9.0% with IDegLira versus IGlar U100 (DUAL V). Similar proportions of patients achieved all 3 HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with basal-bolus therapy (DUAL VII). The odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes were significantly higher for IDegLira versus IGlar U100 or basal-bolus for all 3 HbA1c targets (P < 0.0001 in each case) in both trials. For each $1 spent on IDegLira, the equivalent annual costs per patient to achieve HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, or ≤ 9.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain were $2.43, $2.10, and $2.05, respectively, for IGlar U100 and $6.33, $5.80, and $6.06, respectively, for basal-bolus therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from DUAL V and DUAL VII, this analysis showed that a greater or similar proportion of patients with T2D reached HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with IGlar U100/basal-bolus therapy. Odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes of HbA1c reduction without hypoglycemia and/or without weight gain were greatest for IDegLira. Short-term cost analyses based on the triple composite outcomes suggest that IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option in the United States compared with either uptitration of IGlar U100 or basal-bolus therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S. The analysis was based on the DUAL V (NCT01952145) and DUAL VII (NCT02420262) trials, which were funded and conducted by Novo Nordisk. This post hoc analysis was conceived and interpreted by the authors and drafted with medical writing support that was funded by Novo Nordisk. Novo Nordisk also reviewed the manuscript for medical accuracy. Hunt and Malkin are employees of Ossian Health Economics and Communications, which received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of this study and has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, unrelated to this study. Mocarski, Ranthe, and Schiffman are employees of Novo Nordisk and Novo Nordisk A/S. Cannon has received speaker fees/honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, and Janssen; speaker fees from Novo Nordisk; and has stock ownership in Novo Nordisk. Bargiota has received speaker fees/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Billings has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Dexcom, unrelated to this study. Leiter reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and GSK, unrelated to this study. Doshi has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Parts of this study were presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Insulin/Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: Are Two Agents Better Than One?

IN BRIEF Given the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes, treatment intensification is usually necessary to maintain glycemic control. However, for a variety of reasons, treatment is often not intensified in a timely manner. The combined use of basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist is recognized to provide a complementary approach to the treatment of type 2 diabetes. This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of two co-formulation products, insulin degludec/liraglutide and insulin glargine/lixisenatide, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on either component agent alone. We consider the benefits and limitations of these medications based on data from randomized clinical trials and discuss how they may address barriers to treatment intensification.

Ethnic differences in psychological outcomes among people with diabetes: USA results from the second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes, and Needs (DAWN2) study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in psychological outcomes as well as risk and protective factors for these outcomes among several USA ethnic groups and identify correlates of these psychological outcomes among adults with diabetes in the second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2 * ) study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The core USA DAWN2 sample was supplemented by independent samples of specific ethnic minority groups, yielding a total of 447 White non-Hispanics, 241 African Americans, 194 Hispanics, and 173 Chinese Americans (n = 1055). Multivariate analysis examined ethnic differences in psychological outcomes and risk/protective factors (disease, demographic and socioeconomic factors, health status and healthcare access/utilization, subjective burden of diabetes and social support/burden). Separate analyses were performed on each group to determine whether risk/protective factors differed across ethnic groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Psychological outcomes include well-being, quality of life, impact of diabetes on life domains, diabetes distress, and diabetes empowerment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01507116. RESULTS: Ethnic minorities tended to have better psychological outcomes than White non-Hispanics, although their diabetes distress was higher. Levels of most risk and protective factors differed significantly across ethnic groups; adjustment for these factors reduced ethnic group differences in psychological outcomes. Health status and modifiable diabetes-specific risk/protective factors (healthcare access/utilization, subjective diabetes burden, social support/burden) had strong associations with psychological outcomes, especially diabetes distress and empowerment. Numerous interactions between ethnicity and other correlates of psychological outcomes suggest that ethnic groups are differentially sensitive to various risk/protective factors. Potential limitations are the sample sizes and representativeness. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnic groups differ in their psychological outcomes. The risk/protective factors for psychological outcomes differ across ethnic groups and different ethnic groups are more/less sensitive to their influence. These findings can aid the development of strategies to overcome the most prominent and influential psychosocial barriers to optimal diabetes care within each ethnic group.

Ovarian leydig cell hyperplasia: an unusual case of virilization in a postmenopausal woman.

Objective. To report an unusual case of ovarian Leydig cell hyperplasia resulting in virilization in a postmenopausal woman. Methods. Patient's medical history and pertinent literature were reviewed. Results. A 64-year-old woman presented with virilization with worsening hirsutism, deepening of her voice, male musculature, and male pattern alopecia. Her pertinent past medical history included type 1 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension. Her pertinent past surgical history included hysterectomy due to fibroids. On further work-up, her serum total testosterone was 506 ng/dL (nl range: 2-45) and free testosterone was 40 pg/mL (nl range: 0.1-6.4). After ruling out adrenal causes, the patient underwent an empiric bilateral oophorectomy that showed Leydig cell hyperplasia on pathology. Six weeks postoperatively, serum testosterone was undetectable with significant clinical improvement. Conclusion. Postmenopausal hyperandrogenism can be the result of numerous etiologies ranging from normal physiologic changes to ovarian or rarely adrenal tumors. Our patient was found to have Leydig cell hyperplasia of her ovaries, a rarely reported cause of virilization.

Insights on practice variations in the management of lymphoma and leukemia.

Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements designed to assist practitioners in making decisions about appropriate healthcare for specific clinical circumstances. Their successful implementation should improve quality of care by decreasing inappropriate variation and expediting the application of effective advances to everyday practice. Despite wide promulgation, guidelines have had limited effect on changing physician behaviors. This two-part review article highlights variations in the current recommended management of lymphoma (Part I) and leukemia (Part II), with some focus on targeted therapies. Focus on variations that may be amenable to educational programs designed for physicians were also considered in the review. For the purpose of this report, "variation" is defined as any deviation in the treatment or management of a particular hematologic malignancy where practice guidelines exist. Specific studies that demonstrate factors that may cause variations in clinical outcomes of hematologic malignancies and may contribute to variations in practice are featured.

Spirituality, patients' worry, and follow-up health-care utilization among cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Spirituality may aid cancer survivors as they attempt to interpret the meaning of their experience. OBJECTIVE: We examined the relationship between spirituality, patient-rated worry, and health-care utilization among 551 cancer survivors with different malignancies, who were evaluated prospectively. METHODS: Baseline spirituality scores were categorized into low and high spirituality groups. Patient-rated worries regarding disease recurrence/progression, developing new cancer, and developing complications from treatment were collected at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Follow-up health-care utilization was also examined at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Among the survivors, 271 (49%) reported low spirituality and 280 (51%) reported high spirituality. Of the cohort, 59% had some kind of worry regarding disease recurrence/progression, development of new cancers, and treatment complications. Highly spiritual survivors were less likely to have high levels of worries at both 6 and 12 months. Highly worried survivors were significantly more likely to place phone calls to their follow-up providers and had more frequent follow-up visits at 6 and 12 months. No interactions between spirituality and level of worry were noted to affect follow-up health-care utilization. CONCLUSION: Given spirituality's effect on anxiety, spirituality-based intervention may have a role in addressing cancer survivors' worries but may not improve health-care utilization.

Association of number of follow-up providers with outcomes in survivors of hematologic malignancies.

Studies examining follow-up care among cancer survivors have increased in number, and are mostly focused on who best provides care. It is not known whether having single or multiple physicians as follow-up providers has outcome implications. We prospectively studied the association between number of follow-up providers among survivors of hematologic malignancies and serious medical utilization (defined as emergency room visits or hospitalizations) within a 6-month period. Patients completing treatment (n = 314) were included. Patients seeing multiple follow-up providers were more likely to be younger, to reside farther away from the university hospital, to have prescription drug insurance, to have received prior cancer treatment, to have multiple myeloma, and to have undergone hematopoietic cell transplant as a part of cancer treatment. Multivariate analysis showed that the number of follow-up providers was not associated with serious medical utilization (odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 0.68–2.48, p = 0.44) after adjusting for patient factors. Our study showed that among survivors of hematologic malignancies, outcomes were not different for survivors who were seen by single or multiple follow-up providers.

Survival disparities in patients with lymphoma according to place of residence and treatment provider: a population-based study.

PURPOSE: Health disparities exist according to an individual's place of residence. We evaluated the association between primary area of residence (urban v rural) according to treatment provider (university based v community based) and overall survival in patients with lymphoma and determined whether there are patient groups that could benefit from better coordination of care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Population-based, retrospective cohort study of 2,330 patients with centrally confirmed lymphoma from Nebraska and surrounding states and treated by university-based or community-based oncologists from 1982 to 2006. RESULTS: Among urban residents, 321 (14%) were treated by university-based providers (UUB) and 816 (35%) were treated by community-based providers (UCB). Among rural residents, 332 (14%) were treated by university-based providers (RUB), and 861 (37%) were treated by community-based providers (RCB). The relative risk (RR) of death among UUB, UCB, and RUB were not statistically different. However, RCB had a higher risk of death (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.65; P = .01; and RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.49; P = .01) when compared with UUB and RUB, respectively. This association was true in both low- and intermediate-risk patients. Among high-risk patients, UCB, RUB, and RCB were all at higher risk of death when compared with UUB. CONCLUSION: Survival outcomes of patients with lymphoma may be associated with place of residence and treatment provider. High-risk patients from rural areas may benefit from better coordination of care.