The Benefits and Risks of Receiving Investigational Solid Tumor Drugs in Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 6

Background: Many patients participate in cancer trials to access new therapies. The extent to which new treatments produce clinical benefit for trial participants is unclear. Purpose: To estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) advantage of assignment to experimental groups in randomized trials for 6 solid tumors. Data Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for trials of investigational drugs with results posted between 2017 and 2021. Study Selection: Investigational drugs were defined as those not yet having full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the study indication. Trials were included if they were randomized and tested drugs or biologics. Data Extraction: Data extraction was completed by 2 independent reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Data Synthesis: The sample included 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of a new drug and a comparator. These comparisons included 47 050 patients. The pooled hazard ratio for PFS was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85), indicating statistically significant benefit for patients in experimental groups. This corresponded to a median PFS advantage of 1.25 months (CI, 0.80 to 1.68 months). The pooled hazard ratio for OS was 0.92 (CI, 0.88 to 0.95), corresponding to a survival gain of 1.18 months (CI, 0.72 to 1.71 months). The absolute risk for a serious adverse event for comparator group patients was 29.56% (CI, 26.64% to 32.65%), with an increase in risk of 7.40% (CI, 5.66% to 9.14%) for patients in experimental groups. Limitations: Trials in this sample were heterogeneous. Comparator group interventions were assumed to reflect standard of care. Conclusion: Assignment to experimental groups produces statistically significant survival gains. However, the absolute survival gain is small, and toxicity is statistically significantly greater. The findings of this review provide reassuring evidence that patients are not meaningfully disadvantaged by assignment to comparator groups. Primary Funding Source: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Diagnostic Discordance, Uncertainty, and Treatment Ambiguity in Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A National Cohort Study of 115 U.S. Veterans Affairs Hospitals: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 9

Background: Evidence-based practice in community-acquired pneumonia often assumes an accurate initial diagnosis. Objective: To examine the evolution of pneumonia diagnoses among patients hospitalized from the emergency department (ED). Design: Retrospective nationwide cohort. Setting: 115 U.S. Veterans Affairs medical centers. Patients: Aged 18 years or older and hospitalized from the ED between 1 January 2015 and 31 January 2022. Measurements: Discordances between initial pneumonia diagnosis, discharge diagnosis, and radiographic diagnosis identified by natural language processing of clinician text, diagnostic coding, and antimicrobial treatment. Expressions of uncertainty in clinical notes, patient illness severity, treatments, and outcomes were compared. Results: Among 2 383 899 hospitalizations, 13.3% received an initial or discharge diagnosis and treatment of pneumonia: 9.1% received an initial diagnosis and 10.0% received a discharge diagnosis. Discordances between initial and discharge occurred in 57%. Among patients discharged with a pneumonia diagnosis and positive initial chest image, 33% lacked an initial diagnosis. Among patients diagnosed initially, 36% lacked a discharge diagnosis and 21% lacked positive initial chest imaging. Uncertainty was frequently expressed in clinical notes (58% in ED; 48% at discharge); 27% received diuretics, 36% received corticosteroids, and 10% received antibiotics, corticosteroids, and diuretics within 24 hours. Patients with discordant diagnoses had greater uncertainty and received more additional treatments, but only patients lacking an initial pneumonia diagnosis had higher 30-day mortality than concordant patients (14.4% [95% CI, 14.1% to 14.7%] vs. 10.6% [CI, 10.4% to 10.7%]). Patients with diagnostic discordance were more likely to present to high-complexity facilities with high ED patient load and inpatient census. Limitation: Retrospective analysis; did not examine causal relationships. Conclusion: More than half of all patients hospitalized and treated for pneumonia had discordant diagnoses from initial presentation to discharge. Treatments for other diagnoses and expressions of uncertainty were common. These findings highlight the need to recognize diagnostic uncertainty and treatment ambiguity in research and practice of pneumonia-related care. Primary Funding Source: The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Association of Medicare Advantage Enrollment With Financial Burden of Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 7

Background: Compared with traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans typically offer supplemental benefits and lower copayments for in-network services and must include an out-of-pocket spending limit. Objective: To examine whether the financial burden of care decreased for persons switching from TM to MA (TM-to-MA switchers) relative to those remaining in TM (TM stayers). Design: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study comparing changes in financial outcomes between TM-to-MA switchers and TM stayers. Setting: Population-based. Participants: 7054 TM stayers and 1544 TM-to-MA switchers from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2014 to 2021. Measurements: Individual health care costs (out-of-pocket spending and cost sharing), financial burden (high and catastrophic), and subjective financial hardship (difficulty paying medical bills, paying medical bills over time, and inability to pay medical bills). Results: Compared with TM stayers, TM-to-MA switchers had small differences in out-of-pocket spending ($168 [95% CI, −$133 to $469]) and proportions of total health expenses paid out of pocket (cost sharing) (0.2 percentage point [CI, −1.3 to 1.7 percentage points]), families with out-of-pocket spending greater than 20% of their income (high financial burden) (0.3 percentage point [CI, −2.5 to 3.0 percentage points]), families reporting out-of-pocket spending greater than 40% of their income (catastrophic financial burden) (0.7 percentage point [CI, −0.1 to 1.6 percentage points]), families reporting paying medical bills over time (−0.2 percentage point [CI, −1.7 to 1.4 percentage points]), families having problems paying medical bills (−0.4 percentage point [CI, −2.7 to 1.8 percentage points]), and families reporting being unable to pay medical bills (0.4 percentage point [CI, −1.3 to 2.0 percentage points]). Limitation: Inability to account for all medical care and cost needs and variations across MA plans, small baseline differences in out-of-pocket spending, and potential residual confounding. Conclusion: Differences in financial outcomes between beneficiaries who switched from TM to MA and those who stayed with TM were small. Differences in financial burden ranged across outcomes and did not have a consistent pattern. Primary Funding Source: The National Research Foundation of Korea.

Target Trial Emulation for Evaluating Health Policy

Target trial emulation is an approach to designing rigorous nonexperimental studies by “emulating” key features of a clinical trial. Most commonly used outside of policy contexts, this approach is also valuable for policy evaluation as policies typically are not randomly assigned. In this article, we discuss the application of the target trial emulation framework in a policy evaluation context. The policy trial emulation framework includes 7 components: the units and eligibility criteria, definitions of the exposure and comparison conditions, assignment mechanism, baseline (“time zero”) and follow-up, outcomes, causal estimand, and statistical analysis and assumptions. Policy evaluations that emulate a randomized trial across these dimensions can yield estimates of the causal effects of the policy on outcomes. Using the policy trial emulation framework to conduct and report on research design and methods supports transparent assessment of threats to causal inference in nonexperimental studies intended to assess the effect of a health policy on clinical or population health outcomes.

Responding to Reviewers and Editors About Statistical Significance Testing

Prevention, Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment of Hepatitis C in Chronic Kidney Disease: Synopsis of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline

Description: The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2022 clinical practice guideline on prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C in chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an update of the 2018 guideline from KDIGO. Methods: The KDIGO Work Group (WG) updated the guideline, which included reviewing and grading new evidence that was identified and summarized. As in the previous guideline, the WG used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to appraise evidence and rate the strength of recommendations and used expert judgment to develop recommendations. New evidence led to updating of recommendations in the chapters on treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with CKD (Chapter 2), management of HCV infection before and after kidney transplant (Chapter 4), and diagnosis and management of kidney disease associated with HCV infection (Chapter 5). Recommendations in chapters on detection and evaluation of hepatitis C in CKD (Chapter 1) and prevention of HCV transmission in hemodialysis units (Chapter 3) were not updated because of an absence of significant new evidence. Recommendations: The 2022 updated guideline includes 43 graded recommendations and 20 ungraded recommendations, 7 of which are new or modified on the basis of the most recent evidence and consensus among the WG members. The updated guidelines recommend expanding treatment of hepatitis C with sofosbuvir-based regimens to patients with CKD glomerular filtration rate categories G4 and G5, including those receiving dialysis; expanding the donor pool for kidney transplant recipients by accepting HCV-positive kidneys regardless of the recipient’s HCV status; and initiating direct-acting antiviral treatment of HCV-infected patients with clinical evidence of glomerulonephritis without requiring kidney biopsy. The update also addresses the use of immunosuppressive regimens in such patients.

Health Care Contact Days Among Older Adults in Traditional Medicare: A Cross-Sectional Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 2

Background: Days spent obtaining health care outside the home can represent not only access to needed care but also substantial time, effort, and cost, especially for older adults and their care partners. Yet, these “health care contact days” have not been characterized. Objective: To assess composition of, variation and patterns in, and factors associated with contact days among older adults. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Nationally representative 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data linked to claims. Participants: Community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older in traditional Medicare. Measurements: Ambulatory contact days (days with a primary care or specialty care office visit, test, imaging, procedure, or treatment) and total contact days (ambulatory days plus institutional days in a hospital, emergency department, skilled-nursing facility, or hospice facility); multivariable mixed-effects Poisson regression to identify patient factors associated with contact days. Results: In weighted results, 6619 older adults (weighted: 29 694 084) had means of 17.3 ambulatory contact days (SD, 22.1) and 20.7 total contact days (SD, 27.5) in the year; 11.1% had 50 or more total contact days. Older adults spent most contact days on ambulatory care, including primary care visits (mean [SD], 3.5 [5.0]), specialty care visits (5.7 [9.6]), tests (5.3 [7.2]), imaging (2.6 [3.9]), procedures (2.5 [6.4]), and treatments (5.7 [13.3]). Half of the test and imaging days were not on the same days as office visits (48.6% and 50.1%, respectively). Factors associated with more ambulatory contact days included younger age, female sex, White race, non-Hispanic ethnicity, higher income, higher educational attainment, urban residence, more chronic conditions, and care-seeking behaviors (for example, “go to the doctor…as soon as (I)…feel bad”). Limitation: Study population limited to those in traditional Medicare. Conclusion: On average, older adults spent 3 weeks in the year getting care outside the home. These contact days were mostly ambulatory and varied widely not only by number of chronic conditions but also by sociodemographic factors, geography, and care-seeking behaviors. These results show factors beyond clinical need that may drive overuse and underuse of contact days and opportunities to optimize this person-centered measure to reduce patient burdens, for example, via care coordination. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Aging.

Assessing Clinician Utilization of Next-Generation Antibiotics Against Resistant Gram-Negative Infections in U.S. Hospitals: A Retrospective Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 5

Background: The U.S. antibiotic market failure has threatened future innovation and supply. Understanding when and why clinicians underutilize recently approved gram-negative antibiotics might help prioritize the patient in future antibiotic development and potential market entry rewards. Objective: To determine use patterns of recently U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved gram-negative antibiotics (ceftazidime–avibactam, ceftolozane–tazobactam, meropenem–vaborbactam, plazomicin, eravacycline, imipenem–relebactam–cilastatin, and cefiderocol) and identify factors associated with their preferential use (over traditional generic agents) in patients with gram-negative infections due to pathogens displaying difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR; that is, resistance to all first-line antibiotics). Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: 619 U.S. hospitals. Participants: Adult inpatients. Measurements: Quarterly percentage change in antibiotic use was calculated using weighted linear regression. Machine learning selected candidate variables, and mixed models identified factors associated with new (vs. traditional) antibiotic use in DTR infections. Results: Between quarter 1 of 2016 and quarter 2 of 2021, ceftolozane–tazobactam (approved 2014) and ceftazidime–avibactam (2015) predominated new antibiotic usage whereas subsequently approved gram-negative antibiotics saw relatively sluggish uptake. Among gram-negative infection hospitalizations, 0.7% (2551 [2631 episodes] of 362 142) displayed DTR pathogens. Patients were treated exclusively using traditional agents in 1091 of 2631 DTR episodes (41.5%), including “reserve” antibiotics such as polymyxins, aminoglycosides, and tigecycline in 865 of 1091 episodes (79.3%). Patients with bacteremia and chronic diseases had greater adjusted probabilities and those with do-not-resuscitate status, acute liver failure, and Acinetobacter baumannii complex and other nonpseudomonal nonfermenter pathogens had lower adjusted probabilities of receiving newer (vs. traditional) antibiotics for DTR infections, respectively. Availability of susceptibility testing for new antibiotics increased probability of usage. Limitation: Residual confounding. Conclusion: Despite FDA approval of 7 next-generation gram-negative antibiotics between 2014 and 2019, clinicians still frequently treat resistant gram-negative infections with older, generic antibiotics with suboptimal safety–efficacy profiles. Future antibiotics with innovative mechanisms targeting untapped pathogen niches, widely available susceptibility testing, and evidence demonstrating improved outcomes in resistant infections might enhance utilization. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; NIH Intramural Research Program.

Ensuring Equitable Access to Participation in the Electoral Process: A Policy Brief From the American College of Physicians

During the past 2 decades, voter turnout in U.S. presidential elections has ranged from 51.7% to 66.9% of the eligible population. Low voter turnout rates and inequitable electoral institutions, such as gerrymandered districts, can skew policy decisions toward the preferences of a smaller group and further exclude individuals and communities who have been historically marginalized and excluded from decision-making processes. Voting and health are directly connected through the institution of policies by ballot initiative and the election of officials who incorporate health into their platforms. They are also indirectly connected, as civic participation connects persons to their community and empowers them with agency in decision making. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians seeks to inform physicians, medical students, and other health care professionals on the links between electoral processes and health; encourage civic participation; and offer policy recommendations to support safe and equitable access to electoral participation to advance health equity for both patients and health care professionals.

Acute Hospital Care at Home in the United States: The Early National Experience