Are patients with high-risk polycythemia vera (PV) receiving cytoreductive medications? A retrospective analysis of real-world data.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18031-e18031
Author(s):  
Dilan Paranagama ◽  
Jingbo Yu ◽  
Philomena Colucci ◽  
Kristin Evans ◽  
Machaon Bonafede ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Treatment Recommendations ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Myelogenous Leukemia ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Acute Myelogenous ◽  
History Of

e18031 Background: Risk-adapted therapy in PV is aimed at preventing thrombotic events (TE). Under current treatment recommendations (including European LeukemiaNet), high-risk patients (age ≥ 60 y and/or history of TE) should be managed with cytoreductive medications in addition to phlebotomy and low-dose aspirin. The objective of this study was to describe cytoreductive medication usage in patients with high-risk PV. Methods: Retrospective claims from the Truven Health MarketScan Database were analyzed. Inclusion criteria were ≥ 2 non-diagnostic claims for PV >30 days apart, age ≥ 18 y, continuous enrollment during pre-index (1/1/2012–12/31/2012), and continuous enrollment through or death during the study period (1/1/2013–12/31/2014). Patients with claims for myelodysplastic syndrome, myelofibrosis, acute myelogenous leukemia, or secondary polycythemia were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used. Results: The study included 2856 patients. Mean (SD) age was 62.5 (13.5) y, 65.9% of patients were male, and 63.8% were high-risk. Comorbid conditions of interest were reported more frequently in high-risk patients than low-risk patients: hypertension (65.0% vs 43.1%), diabetes (21.7% vs 10.1%), and congestive heart failure (6.6% vs 0.6%). In low- and high-risk patients, the most commonly used cytoreductive medications were hydroxyurea (93.6%), anagrelide (7.6%), and interferon (2.4%). Low-risk patients received cytoreductive medications less often than high-risk patients (Table). However, only 42% of the high-risk patients received treatment with a cytoreductive medication by the end of the study. Conclusions: Despite higher cardiovascular risk and treatment recommendations, less than half of the high-risk PV patients received cytoreductive medications. Furthermore, less than a third of younger patients with a prior TE received cytoreductive medications. [Table: see text]

Comorbidity and Outcomes for Patients Over Age 65 Years Treated with Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation for Acute Myelogenous Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 2032-2032 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry J. Conter ◽  
Nhu-Nhu Nguyen ◽  
Gabriela Rondon ◽  
Julianne Chen ◽  
Elizabeth J Shpall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Stem Cell Transplant ◽  
Myelogenous Leukemia ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Acute Myelogenous ◽  
Related Mortality

Abstract Abstract 2032 Background: Acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) preferentially afflict patients 65 years of age and older. Patients in this age group are likely to have underlying comorbid conditions. These comorbidities affect treatment planning decisions and clinical outcomes. Here we report comorbidity-stratified outcomes of patients older than 64 treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 1996 until 2011, inclusive, treated with allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT). Methods: 182 patients older than 64 received an ASCT for AML (n=143) or MDS (n=39). Patient charts were reviewed and comorbidity data abstracted using a standardized form. Burden of comorbidity was assessed using the Hematopoetic Stem Cell Transplant-Specific Comorbidity Index (HSCT-CI). Low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients were categorised at 0, 1–2, and >=3 points as per the HSCT-CI. 157 patients were evaluable for pre-transplant comorbidity. Outcomes of interest were cumulative incidence of transplant-related mortality (TRM), cumulative incidence of relapse-related mortality (RRM), incidence of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and overall survival (OS). These were estimated from the date of transplantation. Results: The median age of transplanted patients was 67 (range 65–79), and 37 patients age 70 and older were treated. The majority of patients were intermediate-risk and high-risk patients (table), 9 patients had HSCT-CI scores of >=5. Median follow-up for alive patients was 12.6 months (n=63; range 0–118). Cumulative incidence of TRM was 6% at 100 days, 14% at 1 year, 23% at 2 years, and 36% at 5 years (figure). Cumulative incidence of RRM was 36% at 1 year, 42% at 2 years, and 47% at 5 years. HSCT-CI did not independently predict for either TRM or RRM (log-rank test p=0.95). The incidence of grade III and IV acute GVHD was 10% of all patients. The cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was 25% at 1 year, 27% at 2 years, and 30% at 5 years, with no association between GVHD and HSCT-CI comorbidity. Conclusion: ASCT is a curative option for selected patients over age 64. HSCT-CI did not predict TRM or survival on this cohort of high-risk patients. Disease relapse was of greater concern than TRM, and so novel approaches to relapse prevention are needed. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals The Risk of Stroke Using CHA2 DS2 -VASc Score in Hemodialysis Patients at a Tertiary Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Hemodialysis Patients ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Stroke Risk Factors ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
History Of

Introduction: Patients undergoing hemodialysis are at increased risk of stroke. However, less known about the impact of some of the stroke risk factors, and the value of stroke risk scores in determining the risk in those patients. Our main goal. To assess the risk factors for stroke in hemodialysis patients and the use of the new CHA2DS2-VASc score for stroke assessment. Methods: Single center, retrospective cohort study of 336 patients undergoing hemodialysis from June 24, 2018, to September 6, 2018, was recruited. Baseline demographics, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. We calculated the CHA2 DS2 -VASc score for stroke assessment in all patients and categorized them into high, moderate and low risk patients according to CHA2 DS2 - VASc score and subcategorized them to two groups atrial fibrillation (AFib) and Non- Atrial fibrillation (Non AFib) patients. Results: 336 patients were included in our study; the majority of patients were at high risk with a CHA2 DS2 -VASc Score mean of 2.9± 1.5, although history of stroke was observed only in 15 patients (4.46%). According to CHA2 DS2 - VASc score, 280 patients were at high risk, 172 (51.19%) were high-risk patients on treatment (anticoagulant or antiplatelet) and 108(32.14%) patients were high risk patients not on treatment 48 were at moderate risk (14.28%) and 8 were at low risk (2.38 %). Patients were divided into subgroups as non-AFib and AFib. In non-AFib patients 320 (95.23%), high-risk patients 103 (32.18%) were not treated; high-risk patients with treatment are 162 (50.62%), moderate patients were 47 (14.68%), 8(2.5%) was in low risk. AFib patients were 16 with a mean CHA2 DS2 -VASc score of 4.4±1.1. Patients with AFib were all at high risk except 1 was at moderate risk (6.25%). There were 11 (68.75%) patients on treatment and 5 (31.25%) patients not on treatment. The risk factors for stroke that were statistically significant in increasing score risk for all patients were: age > 65 (95% CI, -2.04– -1.29; p = 0.000), being female (95% CI, -1.36– -0.68; p = 0.000) hypertension (95% CI, -2.59– -1.37; p = 0.000), diabetes (95% CI, -2.10– -1.50; p = 0.000), CVD (95% CI, -2.07– -1.24; p=0.000), history of stroke or TIA (95% CI, -3.70– -2.03; p = 0.000), CHF or LVEF (95% CI, -2.28– - 0.91; p = 0.000). Conclusions: The risk of stroke in hemodialysis patients is significant according to the use of CHA2 DS2 -VASc score in Non-AFib hemodialysis patients shows supportive evidence of increased risk of stroke in those patients, which suggest the importance of close monitoring of patients with stroke risk factors by the nephrologist and the stroke team which will lead to the initiation of early prophylaxis in those patients.

Phase I clinical and laboratory evaluation of topotecan and cytarabine in patients with acute leukemia.

1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Seiter ◽  
E J Feldman ◽  
H D Halicka ◽  
F Traganos ◽  
Z Darzynkiewicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Acute Leukemia ◽  
S Phase ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Myelogenous Leukemia ◽  
Laboratory Evaluation ◽  
Apoptotic Cells ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

PURPOSE To determine the maximal-tolerated dose (MTD) of topotecan with cytarabine in acute leukemia patients, and to evaluate leukemia cell apoptosis in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Fifty-three patients with acute leukemia not responsive to standard therapy were treated at eight dose levels of topotecan (2.5 mg/m2/d to 7.75 mg/m2/d). Topotecan was given as a 30-minute infusion daily with cytarabine 1 g/m2/d, both for 5 days. Using a flow-cytometric technique, the percent apoptotic cells in blood and bone marrow samples was determined, and the cell cycle distribution of the leukemic cells studied. RESULTS Oropharyngeal mucositis was dose-limiting. The MTD of topotecan was 4.75 mg/m2/d for 5 days in high-risk patients and 7.0 mg/m2/d for 5 days in low-risk patients. The mean percent apoptotic cells in the peripheral blood reached a peak of 18.8%, a median of 48 hours following the first dose of topotecan. Patients with higher S-phase fractions, either before treatment or following cytarabine, were more likely to achieve bone marrow aplasia than those with lower S-phase fractions (P = .01 and P < .05, respectively). Clinical responses were seen in four of 39 patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML; of whom 32 had received prior high-dose cytarabine), three of six with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and one of eight with chronic myelogenous leukemia in blast phase (CML-BP). CONCLUSION The recommended phase II dose of topotecan with intermediate-dose cytarabine is 4.75 mg/m2/d for high-risk patients and 7.0 mg/m2/d for low-risk patients. The percentage of cells in S phase was important in determining response to treatment.

scholarly journals Accuracy of upper endoscopies with random biopsies to identify patients with gastric premalignant lesions who can safely be exempt from surveillance

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 680-690
Author(s):  
Michiel C. Mommersteeg ◽  
Stella A. V. Nieuwenburg ◽  
Wouter J. den Hollander ◽  
Lisanne Holster ◽  
Caroline M. den Hoed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Premalignant Lesions ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
European Guidelines ◽  
Progression Of Disease ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Progression Risk

Abstract Introduction Guidelines recommend endoscopy with biopsies to stratify patients with gastric premalignant lesions (GPL) to high and low progression risk. High-risk patients are recommended to undergo surveillance. We aimed to assess the accuracy of guideline recommendations to identify low-risk patients, who can safely be discharged from surveillance. Methods This study includes patients with GPL. Patients underwent at least two endoscopies with an interval of 1–6 years. Patients were defined ‘low risk’ if they fulfilled requirements for discharge, and ‘high risk’ if they fulfilled requirements for surveillance, according to European guidelines (MAPS-2012, updated MAPS-2019, BSG). Patients defined ‘low risk’ with progression of disease during follow-up (FU) were considered ‘misclassified’ as low risk. Results 334 patients (median age 60 years IQR11; 48.7% male) were included and followed for a median of 48 months. At baseline, 181/334 (54%) patients were defined low risk. Of these, 32.6% were ‘misclassified’, showing progression of disease during FU. If MAPS-2019 were followed, 169/334 (51%) patients were defined low risk, of which 32.5% were ‘misclassified’. If BSG were followed, 174/334 (51%) patients were defined low risk, of which 32.2% were ‘misclassified’. Seven patients developed gastric cancer (GC) or dysplasia, four patients were ‘misclassified’ based on MAPS-2012 and three on MAPS-2019 and BSG. By performing one additional endoscopy 72.9% (95% CI 62.4–83.3) of high-risk patients and all patients who developed GC or dysplasia were identified. Conclusion One-third of patients that would have been discharged from GC surveillance, appeared to be ‘misclassified’ as low risk. One additional endoscopy will reduce this risk by 70%.

scholarly journals A Novel Epigenetic Machine Learning Model to Define Risk of Progression for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 1075
Author(s):  
Luca Bedon ◽  
Michele Dal Bo ◽  
Monica Mossenta ◽  
Davide Busato ◽  
Giuseppe Toffoli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Functional Enrichment ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Of Progression ◽  
Risk Patients

Although extensive advancements have been made in treatment against hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the prognosis of HCC patients remains unsatisfied. It is now clearly established that extensive epigenetic changes act as a driver in human tumors. This study exploits HCC epigenetic deregulation to define a novel prognostic model for monitoring the progression of HCC. We analyzed the genome-wide DNA methylation profile of 374 primary tumor specimens using the Illumina 450 K array data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. We initially used a novel combination of Machine Learning algorithms (Recursive Features Selection, Boruta) to capture early tumor progression features. The subsets of probes obtained were used to train and validate Random Forest models to predict a Progression Free Survival greater or less than 6 months. The model based on 34 epigenetic probes showed the best performance, scoring 0.80 accuracy and 0.51 Matthews Correlation Coefficient on testset. Then, we generated and validated a progression signature based on 4 methylation probes capable of stratifying HCC patients at high and low risk of progression. Survival analysis showed that high risk patients are characterized by a poorer progression free survival compared to low risk patients. Moreover, decision curve analysis confirmed the strength of this predictive tool over conventional clinical parameters. Functional enrichment analysis highlighted that high risk patients differentiated themselves by the upregulation of proliferative pathways. Ultimately, we propose the oncogenic MCM2 gene as a methylation-driven gene of which the representative epigenetic markers could serve both as predictive and prognostic markers. Briefly, our work provides several potential HCC progression epigenetic biomarkers as well as a new signature that may enhance patients surveillance and advances in personalized treatment.

scholarly journals Does socioeconomic status make a difference? A register-based study on the extent to which cardiovascular screening in patients with inflammatory arthritis leads to recommended follow-up in general practice

RMD Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e000940
Author(s):  
Anette Hvenegaard Kjeldgaard ◽  
Kim Hørslev-Petersen ◽  
Sonja Wehberg ◽  
Jens Soendergaard ◽  
Jette Primdahl
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Screening ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Eular Recommendations ◽  
Risk Patients

ObjectiveTo investigate to what extent patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) follow recommendations given in a secondary care nurse-led cardiovascular (CV) risk screening consultation to consult their general practitioner (GP) to reduce their CV risk and whether their socioeconomic status (SES) affects adherence.MethodsAdults with IA who had participated in a secondary care screening consultation from July 2012 to July 2015, based on the EULAR recommendations, were identified. Patients were considered to have high CV risk if they had risk Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) ≥5%, according to the European SCORE model or systolic blood pressure ≥145 mmHg, total cholesterol ≥8 mmol/L, LDL cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L, HbA1c ≥42 mmol/mol or fasting glucose ≥6 mmol/L. The primary outcome was a consultation with their GP and at least one action focusing on CV risk factors within 6 weeks after the screening consultation.ResultsThe study comprised 1265 patients, aged 18–85 years. Of these, 336/447 (75%) of the high-risk patients and 580/819 (71%) of the low-risk patients had a GP consultation. 127/336 (38%) of high-risk patients and 160/580 (28%) of low-risk patients received relevant actions related to their CV risk, for example, blood pressure home measurement or prescription for statins, antihypertensives or antidiabetics. Education ≥10 years increased the odds for non-adherence (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.0.37 to 0.92, p=0.02).Conclusions75% of the high-risk patients consulted their GP after the secondary care CV risk screening, and 38% of these received an action relevant for their CV risk. Higher education decreased adherence.

scholarly journals Changes in patient activation following cardiac rehabilitation using the Active+me digital healthcare platform during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabbi Frith ◽  
Kathryn Carver ◽  
Sarah Curry ◽  
Alan Darby ◽  
Anna Sydes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cardiac Rehabilitation ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Patient Activation ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Smart Device ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Background Restrictions on face-to-face contact, due to COVID-19, led to a rapid adoption of technology to remotely deliver cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Some technologies, including Active+me, were used without knowing their benefits. We assessed changes in patient activation measure (PAM) in patients participating in routine CR, using Active+me. We also investigated changes in PAM among low, moderate, and high risk patients, changes in cardiovascular risk factors, and explored patient and healthcare professional experiences of using Active+me. Methods Patients received standard CR education and an exercise prescription. Active+me was used to monitor patient health, progress towards goals, and provide additional lifestyle support. Patients accessed Active+me through a smart-device application which synchronised to telemetry enabled scales, blood pressure monitors, pulse oximeter, and activity trackers. Changes in PAM score following CR were calculated. Sub-group analysis was conducted on patients at high, moderate, and low risk of exercise induced cardiovascular events. Qualitative interviews explored the acceptability of Active+me. Results Forty-six patients were recruited (Age: 60.4 ± 10.9 years; BMI: 27.9 ± 5.0 kg.m2; 78.3% male). PAM scores increased from 65.5 (range: 51.0 to 100.0) to 70.2 (range: 40.7 to 100.0; P = 0.039). PAM scores of high risk patients increased from 61.9 (range: 53.0 to 91.0) to 75.0 (range: 58.1 to 100.0; P = 0.044). The PAM scores of moderate and low risk patients did not change. Resting systolic blood pressure decreased from 125 mmHg (95% CI: 120 to 130 mmHg) to 119 mmHg (95% CI: 115 to 122 mmHg; P = 0.023) and waist circumference measurements decreased from 92.8 cm (95% CI: 82.6 to 102.9 cm) to 85.3 cm (95% CI 79.1 to 96.2 cm; P = 0.026). Self-reported physical activity levels increased from 1557.5 MET-minutes (range: 245.0 to 5355.0 MET-minutes) to 3363.2 MET-minutes (range: 105.0 to 12,360.0 MET-minutes; P < 0.001). Active+me was acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals. Conclusion Participation in standard CR, with Active+me, is associated with increased patient skill, knowledge, and confidence to manage their condition. Active+me may be an appropriate platform to support CR delivery when patients cannot be seen face-to-face. Trial registration As this was not a clinical trial, the study was not registered in a trial registry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document