scholarly journals Baseline characteristics and initial treatment decisions for patients with schizophrenia at risk of treatment nonadherence

2010 ◽  
pp. 301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelin Kelin
2010 ◽  
Vol 117 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 266-267
Author(s):  
Katarina Kelin ◽  
Richard Newton ◽  
Malina I. Simu ◽  
Liang-Jen Chuo ◽  
Raúl I. Escamilla ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Gloria Shwe Zin Tun ◽  
Sister Laura Marshall ◽  
Sister Kerry Robinson ◽  
Sister Alison Wright ◽  
Dr Alenka Brookes ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 16-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Reimer ◽  
Cornelia Montag ◽  
Alexander Schuster ◽  
Walter Moeller-Hartmann ◽  
Jan Sobesky ◽  
...  

Background: In acute stroke, the magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-based mismatch concept is used to select patients with tissue at risk of infarction for reperfusion therapies. There is however a controversy if non-deconvolved or deconvolved perfusion weighted (PW) parameter maps perform better in tissue at risk prediction and which parameters and thresholds should be used to guide treatment decisions. Methods: In a group of 22 acute stroke patients with consecutive MR and quantitative positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, non-deconvolved parameters were validated with the gold standard for penumbral-flow (PF) detection 15O-water PET. Performance of PW parameters was assessed by a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to identify the accuracy of each PWI map to detect the ­upper PF threshold as defined by PET cerebral blood flow <20 mL/100 g/min. Results: Among normalized non-deconvolved parameters, PW-first moment without delay correction (FM without DC) > 3.6 s (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.89, interquartile range [IQR] 0.85–0.94), PW-maximum of the concentration curve (Cmax) < 0.66 (AUC = 0.92, IQR 0.84–0.96) and PW-time to peak (TTP) > 4.0 s (AUC = 0.92, IQR 0.87–0.94) perform significantly better than other non-deconvolved parameters to detect the PF threshold as defined by PET. Conclusions: Non-deconvolved parameters FM without DC, Cmax and TTP are an observer-independent alternative to established deconvolved parameters (e.g., Tmax) to guide treatment decisions in acute stroke.


2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen A. Scherr ◽  
Angela Fagerlin ◽  
Timothy Hofer ◽  
Laura D. Scherer ◽  
Margaret Holmes-Rovner ◽  
...  

Objective. To assess the influence of patient preferences and urologist recommendations in treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate cancer. Methods. We enrolled 257 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <20; Gleason score 6 or 7) seen by urologists (primarily residents and fellows) in 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers. We measured patients’ baseline preferences prior to their urology appointments, including initial treatment preference, cancer-related anxiety, and interest in sex. In longitudinal follow-up, we determined which treatment patients received. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the factors that predicted treatment received (active treatment v. active surveillance) and urologist recommendations. We also conducted a directed content analysis of recorded clinical encounters to determine if urologists discussed patients’ interest in sex. Results. Patients’ initial treatment preferences did not predict receipt of active treatment versus surveillance, Δχ2(4) = 3.67, P = 0.45. Instead, receipt of active treatment was predicted primarily by urologists’ recommendations, Δχ2(2) = 32.81, P < 0.001. Urologists’ recommendations, in turn, were influenced heavily by medical factors (age and Gleason score) but were unrelated to patient preferences, Δχ2(6) = 0, P = 1. Urologists rarely discussed patients’ interest in sex (<15% of appointments). Conclusions. Patients’ treatment decisions were based largely on urologists’ recommendations, which, in turn, were based on medical factors (age and Gleason score) and not on patients’ personal views of the relative pros and cons of treatment alternatives.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1533-1533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Strati ◽  
Ralph J. Johnson ◽  
Sheryl G Forbes ◽  
Loretta J. Nastoupil ◽  
Felipe Samaniego ◽  
...  

Introduction. The combination of rituximab and lenalidomide (R2) is active in patients with untreated indolent lymphoma. Recent randomized trials (RELEVANCE) have demonstrated similar efficacy when compared to standard chemo-immunotherapy backbones. Long term follow up of patients receiving R2 as well as predictors of long term remission and survival have yet to be published. Methods. We prospectively evaluated patients with low grade advanced stage FL who received R2 as initial treatment at our institution between 07/2008 and 10/2014. Lenalidomide was given at 20 mg (day 1-21, in a 28 day cycle) for 6 cycles with rituximab monthly. Lenalidomide starting dose was 10 mg if baseline creatinine clearance was &lt; 60 mL/min. Patients with an objective response continued with 10-20 mg of lenalidomide with rituximab for up to 12 more cycles. Response was evaluated according to 2014 Lugano criteria. Results. One-hundred and one patients were included in the analysis, baseline characteristics are shown in the Table. Median number of provided cycles was 7 (range, 1-20). Median dose of lenalidomide was 20 mg (range, 5-20 mg), and 29 (29%) patients required a dose reduction. Fifty-six (55%) patients experienced grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicities, the most common (&gt; 5%) being neutropenia (39%), skin rash (20%), myalgia (16%) and fatigue (16%). Seven (7%) patients discontinued treatment before completion, after a median time of 4 months (range, 1-10 months): 4 because of toxicity (arterial thrombosis in 2, respiratory failure in 1, and skin rash in 1), and 3 because of progression. Ninety-eight patients were evaluable for response, while 3 patients discontinued treatment because of toxicity before first response assessment. Overall response rate was 98%, CR rate 90% (both achieved after a median of 6 months [range, 3-22 months]), and CR rate at 30 months (CR30) was 80%. Only female sex associated with a higher CR rate (96% vs 83%, p=0.05), while no baseline characteristic associated with CR30 rate. After a median follow-up of 88 months (95% confidence interval, 84-92 months), 31 (31%) patients progressed and/or died, 7-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 63%, and 13% of patients had a PFS &lt; 24 months (PFS24). Failure to achieve CR was the only factor associated with significantly decreased PFS (10 months vs not reached, p&lt;0.001) and higher likelihood of PFS24 (46% vs 5%, p&lt;0.001). No association was observed with baseline characteristics, including FLIPI and FLIPI-2 score. At most recent follow-up, transformation was reported in 3 (3%) patients, after 30, 32 and 42 months, respectively. Two (2%) patients have died, 1 of unrelated comorbid health conditions, 1 of progressive disease, and 7-year overall survival was 98%. Second cancers (excluding transformation) were diagnosed in 8 (8%) patients, after a median of 55 months (range, 3-105 months). These included: breast adenocarcinoma (2), melanoma (2), pancreatic adenocarcinoma (1), esophageal adenocarcinoma (1), and therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia. Discussion. Long-term follow-up show very favorable outcomes for patients with advanced stage FL receiving R2 as initial treatment, independent of traditional prognostic factors relevant to patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy, including FLIPI and FLIPI-2 score. Combination strategies, aimed at increasing depth of response to R2, may further improve outcomes observed with this regimen. Table. Disclosures Nastoupil: Bayer: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria. Westin:Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; Curis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Juno: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Wang:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MoreHealth: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aviara: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; VelosBio: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Research Funding. Neelapu:Pfizer: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fowler:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ABBVIE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: lenalidomide and rituximab are not yet FDA-approved as frontline treatment for patients with FL


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document