RadBone: bone toxicity following pelvic radiotherapy - a prospective randomised controlled feasibility study evaluating a musculoskeletal health package in women with gynaecological cancers undergoing pelvic radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Patients receiving radiotherapy are at risk of developing radiotherapy-related insufficiency fractures, which are associated with increased morbidity and pose a significant burden to patients' quality of life and to the health system. Therefore, effective preventive techniques are urgently required. The RadBone randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a musculoskeletal health package (MHP) intervention in women undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for gynaecological malignancies and to preliminary explore clinical effectiveness of the intervention.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The RadBone RCT will evaluate the addition to standard care of an MHP consisting of a physical assessment of the musculoskeletal health, a 3-month prehabilitation personalised exercise package, as well as an evaluation of the fracture risk and if required the prescription of appropriate bone treatment including calcium, vitamin D and-for high-risk individuals-bisphosphonates. Forty participants will be randomised in each group (MHP or observation) and will be followed for 18 months. The primary outcome of this RCT will be feasibility, including the eligibility, screening and recruitment rate, intervention fidelity and attrition rates; acceptability and health economics. Clinical effectiveness and bone turnover markers will be evaluated as secondary outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/NW/0410, November 2020). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, will be presented in national and international conferences and will be communicated to relevant stakeholders. Moreover, a plain English report will be shared with the study participants, patients' organisations and media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04555317.

AB1051 CLINICAL OUTCOMES AND HEALTHCARE RESOURCE UTILIZATION OF UNCONTROLLED GOUT PRIOR TO PEGLOTICASE THERAPY

Background

By definition, uncontrolled gout (UG) cannot be managed with oral urate lowering therapies (ULTs) and is associated with substantial morbidity. UG, also known as refractory gout, results in escalated treatment and management. Recent American College of Rheumatology guidelines recommend treating gout to serum uric acid targets; if targets are not achieved or patients continue to have symptoms, pegloticase is recommended. There is a paucity of data documenting the clinical and economic burden of UG patients.

Objectives

Assess clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of UG prior to pegloticase initiation.

Methods

A retrospective observational database analysis was conducted among patients initiating pegloticase between April 1, 2011 and August 31, 2020 using the PharMetrics Plus database. Eligible subjects had ≥1 pegloticase claim (first claim = index date) and continuous enrollment for 24 months prior to index. Relevant clinical and economic (HCRU) outcomes were evaluated over a 24-month pre-index period and compared between two different time intervals prior to index: time interval 1 (Day -720 to Day -361) and time interval 2 (Day -360 to Day -1). Assessment of comorbid disease burden included Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and relevant health conditions. Dependent pairwise comparisons were conducted to compare clinical and economic outcomes between time intervals prior to pegloticase initiation. To assess statistical differences, paired t-tests (continuous variables) or McNemar’s tests (categorical variables) were used.

Results

Of the 408 eligible subjects, most were male (88.5%), with an average age (SD) of 55.2 (11.3) years, 66.9% were between the ages of 45-64 years and 78.2% had a preferred provider organization (PPO) health plan. Most often (34.8% of patients), a rheumatologist was associated with initiation of pegloticase therapy, while primary care physicians accounted for 23.8% of initiations. Mean (SD) CCI score was 2.4 (2.4) with 37.3% of subjects having a CCI score of >3. Prevalence of relevant health conditions over the 24-month pre-index period included tophi (62.5%), urolithiasis (8.6%), chronic kidney disease (34.6%) and chronic pain/fibromyalgia (76.5%), all of which significantly increased from time interval 1 (Day -720 to Day -361) to time interval 2 (Day -360 to Day -1) prior to pegloticase initiation (Table 1). Of patients initiating pegloticase, 57.4% had 1 ULT (excluding probenecid), 11.3% had >2 ULT (excluding probenecid), and 10.3% UG patients had ≥1 probenecid claim over the 24-month pre-index period. Most patients (98.3%) had ≥1 physician office visit, 27.2% had ≥1 hospitalization and 45.3% had ≥1 emergency room (ER) visit over the 24-month pre-index period. HCRU significantly increased from time interval 1 to time interval 2, prior to pegloticase (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Relevant Health Conditions and Disease-specific Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU)

Overall N= 408Time Interval 1Time Interval 2Tophi62.5%15.4%61.5%***Urolithiasis8.6%4.2%6.9%*Chronic kidney disease34.6%22.5%31.6%***Cardiovascular disease32.6%21.3%28.4%**Type 2 diabetes mellitus31.4%23.3%28.9%**Hypertension76.2%58.1%70.3%***≥1 gout flare87.7%48.5%83.8%***Mean number of gout flare (SD)3.5 (2.4)1.02.1***Gout-related medications ≥1 claim for colchicine56%39.5%63.7%***≥1 claim for opioids71%52.9%60.3%*≥1 claim for oral corticosteroids80%50.2%75.7%***≥1 claim for injectable corticosteroids64%38.5%53.7%***

†Time Interval 1: Day -720 to Day -361 prior to pegloticase initiation; ††Time Interval 2: Day -360 to Day -1 prior to pegloticase initiation

***, p<0.0001; **, p<0.001; *, p<0.05

Conclusion

Overall, these data demonstrate the progressive nature of UG as confirmed by significant increases in gout-related conditions and healthcare resource utilization prior to pegloticase initiation. Further research is needed on healthcare resource utilization among patients with UG post-pegloticase use.

Disclosure of Interests

Robert Morlock Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Victoria Divino Grant/research support from: Horizon Therapeutics, Mitchell DeKoven Grant/research support from: Horizon Therapeutics, Brian LaMoreaux Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Atsuko Powers Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Naina Barretto Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Robert Holt Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Stephanie Taylor Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics

POS0867 COMORBIDITY AND COMPLICATIONS PRIOR TO SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS DIAGNOSIS: A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT ANALYSIS

Background

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare autoimmune disease characterized by progressive microvascular damage, collagen deposition and subsequent fibrosis of the skin and internal organs which contributes to substantial morbidity and premature death.1-2

Objectives

The objective was to evaluate the disease burden of SSc patients prior to their SSc diagnosis.

Methods

Patients with SSc were identified in a claims dataset (IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, 2015-2019) using ICD 10 diagnosis codes for SSc. Eligible subjects were required to have > 1 inpatient or >2 outpatient/office claims with a scleroderma diagnosis code on separate days and > 24 months of continuous health plan enrollment without a SSc diagnosis before the first SSc claim (‘index date’) and > 12 months of enrollment after the index date. Overall comorbid disease burden was assessed via the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 13-24 and 12 months before and 12 months after index date. The prevalence of SSc-related complications for atherosclerosis, pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), pulmonary fibrosis (PF), Raynaud’s Phenomenon (RP), and gastrointestinal (GI) complications (e.g., GERD, dysphagia, etc.) were identified using ICD codes and reported as percentages for the aforementioned time intervals relative to patients’ index dates.

Results

902 eligible SSc patients were identified for analysis. The mean age at index SSc diagnosis was 54.3 years and 84.7% of patients were female. Mean CCI scores 13-24 months before, 12 months before, and 12 months after index SSc diagnosis were 0.84, 1.13 and 1.30, respectively. From the time points 13-24 months before, 12 months before, and 12 months after index SSc diagnosis, increasing rates were also observed of atherosclerosis, PAH, PF, RP, and GI complications (Table 1).

Table 1.

Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and systemic sclerosis-related complications by time-interval

Clinical characteristic13-24 months before Index12 months before Index12 months after IndexMean CCI (std dev)0.84 (1.58)1.13 (1.71)1.30 (1.75)Systemic sclerosis-related complicationsAtherosclerosis7%9%14%Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH)1%4%12%Pulmonary fibrosis (PF)5%8%16%Raynaud’s Phenomenon (RP)13%29%43%GI complications23%32%46%

Conclusion

Results from this analysis suggests that SSc-related sequalae are present at least two years prior to SSc diagnosis and rates of these complications increased markedly over time. Patients’ overall comorbid disease burden also worsened substantially over this period, likely because of these complications. The internal organ involvement is likely under reported due to requirements to link each diagnosis with an ICD-10 code. These data indicate the significant burden of SSc, prior to and after diagnosis, highlighting the need for awareness, prompt diagnosis, and effective therapies for SSc and its related complications.

References

[1]Cutolo M, et al. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2019;15(7):753-764.

[2]Steen VD, Medsger TA. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(7):940-944.

Disclosure of Interests

Dinesh Khanna Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Daniel Furst Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Justin W. Li Grant/research support from: Horizon Therapeutics, Saloni Shah Grant/research support from: Horizon Therapeutics, Tamara Lesperance Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Farah Ali Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Brian LaMoreaux Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Stephanie Taylor Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics

715 REDUCING OVERTREATMENT OF TYPE 2 DIABETES IN OLDER PEOPLE LIVING IN CARE HOMES

Introduction

Older people in care homes living with frailty are less likely to benefit from tight glycaemic control in the management of type 2 diabetes with increased risk of adverse effects for example hypoglycaemia, falls and hospital admission. We wished to ascertain the scale of the problem and reduce overtreatment. We defined overtreatment based on American Diabetes Association guidelines as being on an agent that can cause hypoglycaemia and having an HBA1C of ≤53 mmol/mol or, an HbA1c 53–64 mmol/mol with either three or more co-morbidities.

Methods

In 2016, we audited the management of type 2 diabetes in older people discharged from LTHT to care homes. We discussed our concerns with diabetes and geriatric medicine colleagues across medical, nursing and pharmacy disciplines. We engaged the support of the citywide diabetes network which comprises secondary care colleagues, general practitioners and pharmacists. We presented the findings of our initial audit to colleagues within primary and secondary care through departmental meetings and citywide network meetings. We wrote a new guideline, specifically for frail older people that was disseminated citywide through these networks. We re-audited in 2020.

Results

In total, 113 cases were reviewed in 2016 and 105 cases in 2020. In 2020, only 6% (6 patients) were overtreated compared to 38% (43 patients) in 2016.

Conclusions

There has been a marked reduction in overtreatment which should result in less adverse events. We believe the reasons for success lie in wide engagement of relevant stakeholder groups around an issue that is important, large in scale and meaningful to both patient and clinician. There are potential cost savings from reducing medications and reducing harm.

771 LET’S TALK ABOUT RESUS. DO WE DO IT? WHO DOES IT? WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES?

Introduction

Discussing preferences around cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is recommended to patients who wish to discuss this, or where there is foreseeable risk of life-threatening clinical deterioration. Our team felt that we discussed this routinely for our inpatients but wished to investigate how we did this, when we did this, why decisions were made and who led these discussions.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic patient notes of 118 patients recently discharged from elderly medicine between February and November 2020 and recorded demographic details, co-morbidities and outcomes of discussions regarding resuscitation.

Results

100/118 patients had a RESPECT form documenting preferences. Of these 100 patients, 97% had a DNACPR recommendation, 2 had a ‘for resuscitation’ recommendation and one was undecided. 69% of patients had their preferences recorded during the current admission. 43% of discussions were led by a tier 1/2 doctor. 21% of discussions were led by a tier 3 doctor. 23% of discussions were led by a consultant. It was unclear who had led the discussion 13% of the time. 29/97 patients had a DNACPR due to their wishes. 16/97 patients had a DNACPR based on clinical grounds that it would not succeed. 33/97 patients had a DNACPR on the grounds that burden outweighed risks and they had capacity In 19/97 patients the reason for DNACPR was not clearly documented. There were 6 discussions where there was distress or disagreement—all of the discussions resulted in DNACPR recommendation 1 patient had a DNACPR reversed during their admission and none were reversed afterwards.

Conclusion

Systematically discussing preferences around resuscitation is feasible and rarely results in distress. The majority of patients have a recommendation for DNACPR and discussions are led by ‘junior’ doctors.

Is Substantial Lymphovascular Space Invasion Prognostic for Clinical Outcomes in Type II Endometrial Cancer?

AIMS

Substantial lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) compared with none or focal LVSI is predictive of lymph node involvement and worse clinical outcomes in endometrioid-type endometrial carcinoma. We aimed to quantify the incidence of substantial LVSI in type II (clear cell and serous) endometrial cancer and correlate the extent of LVSI with clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on type II endometrial cancer patients who underwent surgical management from July 2017 to December 2019 using the three-tier LVSI scoring system. Binary logistic regression and Cox regression were used to analyse predictors of lymph node involvement or survival outcomes, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier method and Log-rank test were used to analyse differences in locoregional disease-free survival (LR-DFS), distant metastasis disease-free survival (DM-DFS) and overall survival between patients with substantial versus none/focal LVSI.

RESULTS

In 79 patients with type II endometrial carcinoma, no LVSI, focal LVSI and substantial LVSI was present in 48.1%, 15.2% and 36.7% of patients, respectively. Lymph nodes were involved in 0.0% with no LVSI, 20.0% with focal LVSI and 60.0% with substantial LVSI (P < 0.001). The median follow-up was 22.2 months. In patients with none/focal versus substantial LVSI, the 2-year LR-DFS and DM-DFS rates were 91.5% versus 71.4% (P = 0.01) and 90.2% versus 63.8% (P = 0.005), respectively. On univariate analysis, myometrial invasion ≥50%, tumour size ≥3.6 cm, substantial versus none/focal LVSI, lymph node involvement and omission of adjuvant radiotherapy were significant predictors for worse LR-DFS and DM-DFS (P < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

Substantial LVSI has a high incidence in type II pathology at our institution and predicts for lymph node involvement and worse clinical outcomes.

Characterizing the features and course of psychiatric symptoms in children and adolescents with autoimmune encephalitis

Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) can present like a psychiatric disorder. We aimed to illustrate the psychiatric manifestations, course and management of AE in a paediatric cohort. Neuropsychiatric symptoms, investigations and treatment were retrospectively retrieved in 16 patients (mean age 11.31, SD 2.98) with an AE diagnosis at the liaison psychiatry services in two UK tertiary paediatric centres. Psychiatric presentation was characterised by an acute polysymptomatic (predominantly agitation, anger outbursts/aggressiveness, hallucinations, and emotional lability) onset. Antipsychotics produced side effects and significant worsening of symptoms in four cases, and benzodiazepines were commonly used. This psychiatric phenotype should make clinicians suspect the diagnosis of AE and carefully consider use of treatments.

Pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer: a research programme including the IMPACCT RCT

Background

Each year in England and Wales, 150,000 people die from cancer, of whom 110,000 will suffer from cancer pain. Research highlights that cancer pain remains common, severe and undertreated, and may lead to hospital admissions.

Objective

To develop and evaluate pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer.

Design

A programme of mixed-methods intervention development work leading to a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention for pain management compared with usual care, including an assessment of cost-effectiveness.

Participants

Patients, including those with metastatic solid cancer (histological, cytological or radiological evidence) and/or those receiving anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent, and health professionals involved in the delivery of community-based palliative care.

Setting

For the randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from oncology outpatient clinics and were randomly allocated to intervention or control and followed up at home.

Interventions

The Supported Self-Management intervention comprised an educational component called Tackling Cancer Pain, and an eHealth component for routine pain assessment and monitoring called PainCheck.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was pain severity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory). The secondary outcomes included pain interference (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory), participants’ pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. We estimated costs and health-related quality-of-life outcomes using decision modelling and a separate within-trial economic analysis. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year for the trial period.

Results

Work package 1 – We found barriers to and variation in the co-ordination of advanced cancer care by oncology and primary care professionals. We identified that the median time between referral to palliative care services and death for 42,758 patients in the UK was 48 days. We identified key components for self-management and developed and tested our Tackling Cancer Pain resource for acceptability. Work package 2 – Patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals recognised the benefits of an electronic system to monitor pain, but had reservations about how such a system might work in practice. We developed and tested a prototype PainCheck system. Work package 3 – We found that strong opioids were prescribed for 48% of patients in the last year of life at a median of 9 weeks before death. We delivered Medicines Use Reviews to patients, in which many medicines-related problems were identified. Work package 4 – A total of 161 oncology outpatients were randomised in our clinical trial, receiving either supported self-management (n = 80) or usual care (n = 81); their median survival from randomisation was 53 weeks. Primary and sensitivity analyses found no significant treatment differences for the primary outcome or for other secondary outcomes of pain severity or health-related quality of life. The literature-based decision modelling indicated that information and feedback interventions similar to the supported self-management intervention could be cost-effective. This model was not used to extrapolate the outcomes of the trial over a longer time horizon because the statistical analysis of the trial data found no difference between the trial arms in terms of the primary outcome measure (pain severity). The within-trial economic evaluation base-case analysis found that supported self-management reduced costs by £587 and yielded marginally higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.0018) than usual care. However, the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two trial arms was negligible and this was not in line with the decision model that had been developed. Our process evaluation found low fidelity of the interventions delivered by clinical professionals.

Limitations

In the randomised controlled trial, the low fidelity of the interventions and the challenge of the study design, which forced the usual-care arm to have earlier access to palliative care services, might explain the lack of observed benefit. Overall, 71% of participants returned outcome data at 6 or 12 weeks and so we used administrative data to estimate costs. Our decision model did not include the negative trial results from our randomised controlled trial and, therefore, may overestimate the likelihood of cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

Our programme of research has revealed new insights into how patients with advanced cancer manage their pain and the challenges faced by health professionals in identifying those who need more help. Our clinical trial failed to show an added benefit of our interventions to enhance existing community palliative care support, although both the decision model and the economic evaluation of the trial indicated that supported self-management could result in lower health-care costs.

Future work

There is a need for further research to (1) understand and facilitate triggers that prompt earlier integration of palliative care and pain management within oncology services; (2) determine the optimal timing of technologies for self-management; and (3) examine prescriber and patient behaviour to achieve the earlier initiation and use of strong opioid treatment.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18281271.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Oncology patients' experiences in experimental medicine cancer trials: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to explore patients' experiences of experimental cancer medicine (ECM) clinical trials.

DESIGN

The study's design was qualitative. Two focus groups with patients were undertaken followed by semistructured interviews, to explore patients' experiences of ECM clinical trials. Interviews and focus groups were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

SETTING

A regional cancer centre (tertiary care) in North-West England.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve patients (aged 52-79) participated in one of the two focus groups and 22 patients (aged 42-83) participated in interviews.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Patients' experiences of an ECM trial.

RESULTS

Four main themes were identified from the analysis: decision making, information needs, the experience of trial participation and impact of trial participation. Subthemes are presented in the manuscript.

CONCLUSION

To make fully informed decisions about trial participation, patients required the simplification of trial information and wanted more information about side effects, their response to trial treatment and the overall trial progress throughout the trial. Patients highlighted the need for improvement for the support provided to their family and friends.

The Effects of Cumulative and Noncumulative Exams Within the Context of Interteaching

Interteaching is a behavioral teaching method that has been empirically shown to increase student learning outcomes. The present study investigated the effect of combining interteaching with cumulative versus noncumulative exams in two sections of an online asynchronous class. Interteaching was used in both sections of the course. The noncumulative exam section experienced weekly exams with test questions that only covered material learned in that week of class. The cumulative exam section was given weekly exams in which half of the questions were from material learned that current week and the other half were cumulative up to that point in the class. This was followed by a cumulative final exam given to both groups. All exam questions were multiple choice. On average, students in the cumulative exam group scored 4.91% higher on the final exam than students in the noncumulative exam group. Students exposed to weekly cumulative exams also earned more As and Bs on the final compared to the noncumulative exam group. Overall, our experiment provides evidence that interteaching may be further improved when combined with cumulative weekly exams.