Patients with venous tromboembolism have higher prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea [abstract]

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has been linked to many cardiovascular diseases. Recent studies have linked OSA, endothelial dysfunction, and elevated CRP. The link between OSA and venous thromboembolic events (VTE) has not been well elucidated. Methods: We retrospectively collected data based on ICD-9 codes at the UMHC from August 1999 - April 2009. Patients were identified as VTE with ICD-9 codes 415.11, 415.12, 415.19, 453.4, 453.9, 453.41, 453.42, 671.33, 671.44 and as OSA with codes 327.2, 327.23, 780.5, 780.51, 780.53, 780.57, 786.03. Continuous data were expressed as means or medians and compared using the student t or the Mann-Whitney tests. Categorical variables were expressed as percentages and compared using the Chi-square or Fisher exact tests. Eighty-two random charts were reviewed for validation. Results: 1412 patients were identified with the diagnosis of VTE; 57.2% were females and the mean age was 54.2 ±17.4 years. Of 1412 patients, 301 were also diagnosed with OSA yielding a prevalence of 21.3%. There was no difference between the two groups (with or without OSA) in age or gender. The random sample analysis revealed that the prevalence of sleep apnea was 23%. Conclusion: In patients with VTE, the prevalence of OSA appears to be much higher than the general population. We found that prevalence was as high as 23%

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: Deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 2: Systematic review of evidence regarding resection extent in generally healthy patients

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in generally healthy patients is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons with at least some adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In healthy patients there is no short-term benefit to sublobar resection Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in healthy patients with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation on which to build a framework for individualized clinical decision-making

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: Deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 3: Systematic review of evidence regarding surgery in compromised patients or specific tumors

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after lobectomy, segmentectomy and wedge resection in older patients, patients with limited pulmonary reserve and favorable tumors is the focus of this paper. Evidence was abstracted from randomized trials and non-randomized comparisons (NRCs) with adjustment for confounders. The analysis involved careful assessment, including characteristics of patients, settings, residual confounding etc. to expose degrees of uncertainty and applicability to individual patients. Evidence is summarized that provides an at-a-glance overall impression as well as the ability to delve into layers of details of the patients, settings and treatments involved. Results: In older patients, perioperative mortality is minimally altered by resection extent and only slightly affected by increasing age; sublobar resection may slightly decrease morbidity. Long-term outcomes are worse after lesser resection; the difference is slightly attenuated with increasing age. Reported short-term outcomes are quite acceptable in (selected) patients with severely limited pulmonary reserve, not clearly altered by resection extent but substantially improved by a minimally invasive approach. Quality-of-life (QOL) and impact on pulmonary function hasn\u27t been well studied, but there appears to be little difference by resection extent in older or compromised patients. Patient selection is paramount but not well defined. Ground-glass and screen-detected tumors exhibit favorable long-term outcomes regardless of resection extent; however solid tumors \u3c1 cm are not a reliably favorable group. Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding resection extent in compromised patients and favorable tumors with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers provides a foundation for a framework for individualized decision-making

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: Deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 4: Systematic review of evidence involving SBRT and ablation

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options [lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), thermal ablation], weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: A PubMed systematic review from 2000-2021 of outcomes after SBRT or thermal ablation Results: Short-term outcomes are meaningfully better after SBRT than resection. SBRT doesn\u27t affect quality-of-life (QOL), on average pulmonary function is not altered, but a minority of patients may experience gradual late toxicity. Adjusted non-randomized comparisons demonstrate a clinically relevant detriment in long-term outcomes after SBRT Conclusions: A systematic, comprehensive summary of evidence regarding Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy or thermal ablatio

Racial, Ethnic, and Rural Disparities in US Veteran COVID-19 Vaccine Rates

Background: Race, ethnicity, and rurality-related disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine uptake have been documented in the United States (US). Objective: We determined whether these disparities existed among patients at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the largest healthcare system in the US. Design, Settings, Participants, Measurements: Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse data, we included 5,871,438 patients (9.4% women) with at least one primary care visit in 2019 in a retrospective cohort study. Each patient was assigned a single race/ethnicity, which were mutually exclusive, self-reported categories. Rurality was based on 2019 home address at the zip code level. Our primary outcome was time-to-first COVID-19 vaccination between December 15, 2020-June 15, 2021. Additional covariates included age (in years), sex, geographic region (North Atlantic, Midwest, Southeast, Pacific, Continental), smoking status (current, former, never), Charlson Comorbidity Index (based on ≥1 inpatient or two outpatient ICD codes), service connection (any/none, using standardized VA-cutoffs for disability compensation), and influenza vaccination in 2019-2020 (yes/no). Results: Compared with unvaccinated patients, those vaccinated (n=3,238,532; 55.2%) were older (mean age in years vaccinated=66.3, (standard deviation=14.4) vs. unvaccinated=57.7, (18.0), p<.0001)). They were more likely to identify as Black (18.2% vs. 16.1%, p<.0001), Hispanic (7.0% vs. 6.6% p<.0001), or Asian American/Pacific Islander (AA/PI) (2.0% vs. 1.7%, P<.0001). In addition, they were more likely to reside in urban settings (68.0% vs. 62.8, p<.0001). Relative to non-Hispanic White urban Veterans, the reference group for race/ethnicity-urban/rural hazard ratios reported, all urban race/ethnicity groups were associated with increased likelihood for vaccination except American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) groups. Urban Black groups were 12% more likely (Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.12 [CI 1.12-1.13]) and rural Black groups were 6% more likely to receive a first vaccination (HR=1.06 [1.05-1.06]) relative to white urban groups. Urban Hispanic, AA/PI and Mixed groups were more likely to receive vaccination while rural members of these groups were less likely (Hispanic: Urban HR=1.17 [1.16-1.18], Rural HR=0.98 [0.97-0.99]; AA/PI: Urban HR=1.22 [1.21-1.23], Rural HR=0.86 [0.84-0.88]). Rural White Veterans were 21% less likely to receive an initial vaccine compared with urban White Veterans (HR=0.79 [0.78-0.79]). AI/AN groups were less likely to receive vaccination regardless of rurality: Urban HR=0.93 [0.91-0.95]; AI/AN-Rural HR=0.76 [0.74-0.78]. Conclusions: Urban Black, Hispanic, and AA/PI Veterans were more likely than their urban White counterparts to receive a first vaccination; all rural race/ethnicity groups except Black patients had lower likelihood for vaccination compared with urban White patients. A better understanding of disparities and rural outreach will inform equitable vaccine distribution

A Patient-Centered Activity Regimen Improves Participation in Physical Activity Interventions in Advanced-Stage Lung Cancer

Introduction: Physical activity (PA) is a potential therapy to improve quality of life in patients with advanced-stage lung cancer (LC), but no PA regimen has been shown to be beneficial, clinically practical, and sustainable. We sought to test the hypothesis that a patient-centered activity regimen (PCAR) will improve patient participation and PA more effectively than weekly phone calls. Methods: In patients with advanced-stage LC, we implemented a walking-based activity regimen and motivated patients via either weekly phone calls (n = 29; FitBit Zip accelerometer) or PCAR (n = 15; FitBit Flex, an educational session, and twice-daily gain-framed text messages). Data collection over a 4-week period was compared, and a repeated-measures, mixed-effects model for activity level was constructed. Results: Subjects receiving PCAR more frequently used the device (100% vs 79%) and less frequently had missing data (11% vs 38%). “More active” and “less active” groups were created based on mean step count in the first week. “Less active” patients in the PCAR group increased their PA level, whereas PA level fell in the “more active” group. Most subjects found PCAR helpful (92%) and would participate in another activity study (85%). Discussion: Compared with weekly phone calls, PCAR has higher patient participation, is more likely to improve PA in “less active” subjects, and has high patient satisfaction. A multifaceted PA regimen may be a more efficacious mechanism to study PA in advanced LC. PCAR should be used in a randomized controlled trial to evaluate for improvements in symptom burden, quality of life, and mood

A guide for managing patients with stage I NSCLC: Deciding between lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, SBRT and ablation-part 1: A guide to decision-making

Background: Clinical decision-making for patients with stage I lung cancer is complex. It involves multiple options (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge, Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy, thermal ablation), weighing multiple outcomes (e.g., short-, intermediate-, long-term) and multiple aspects of each (e.g., magnitude of a difference, the degree of confidence in the evidence, and the applicability to the patient and setting at hand). A structure is needed to summarize the relevant evidence for an individual patient and to identify which outcomes have the greatest impact on the decision-making. Methods: Based on a systematic review from 2000-2021, evidence regarding relevant outcomes was assembled, with attention to aspects of applicability, uncertainty and effect modifiers. A framework was developed to present this information a format that enhances decision-making at the point of care for individual patients. Results: While patients often cross over several boundaries, the evidence fits into categories of healthy patients, compromised patients, and favorable tumors. In healthy patients with typical (i.e., solid spiculated) lung cancers, the impact on long-term outcomes is the major driver of treatment selection. This is only slightly ameliorated in older patients. In compromised patients increasing frailty accentuates short-term differences and diminishes long-term differences especially when considering non-surgical Discussion: A framework is provided that organizes the evidence and identifies the major drivers of decision-making for an individual patient. This facilitates blending available evidence and clinical judgment in a flexible, nuanced manner that enhances individualized clinical care