Publications

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that patients with cancer frequently use cannabis with medicinal intent and desire clinical guidance from providers. We aimed to determine whether oncology training adequately prepares fellows to discuss medical cannabis.

METHODS: A national survey study was conducted from January to March 2021. A questionnaire assessing oncology fellows' practices regarding cannabis recommendations in cancer care and their knowledge of its effectiveness and risks compared with conventional care for cancer-related symptoms was developed and sent to 155 US-based oncology training programs to distribute to trainees.

RESULTS: Forty programs from 25 states participated; of the 462 trainees across these programs, 189 responded (response rate of 40%). Of the participants, 52% were female; 52% were White, 33% Asian, and 5% Hispanic. Fifty-seven percent reported that they discussed medical cannabis with more than five patients in the preceding year; however, only 13% felt sufficiently informed to issue cannabis-related clinical recommendations. Twenty-four percent reported having received formal training regarding medical cannabis. Oncology fellows who reported having received prior training in medical cannabis were significantly more likely to discuss cannabis with patients (risk ratio: 1.37, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.75; P = .002) and feel sufficiently informed to discuss cannabis recommendations (risk ratio: 5.06; 95% CI, 2.33 to 10.99; P < .001). Many viewed the botanical as a useful adjunctive therapy that was at least as effective as conventional treatments for anorexia/cachexia (72%), nausea/vomiting (45%), and pain (41%).

CONCLUSION: Most oncology trainees not only reported engaging in discussions regarding medical cannabis with patients but also considered themselves insufficiently informed to make cannabis-related clinical recommendations. The discrepancy between the frequency of cannabis inquiries/discussions at the patient level and comfort/knowledge at the trainee provider level represents an unmet curricular need with implications for both graduate medical education and patient care.

BACKGROUND: Visits to the emergency department (ED) are inflection points in patients' illness trajectories and are an underutilized setting to engage seriously ill patients in conversations about their goals of care. We developed an intervention (ED GOAL) that primes seriously ill patients to discuss their goals of care with their outpatient clinicians after leaving the ED. The aims of this study are (i) to test the impact of ED GOAL administered by trained nurses on self-reported, advance care planning (ACP) engagement after leaving the ED and (ii) to evaluate whether ED GOAL increases self-reported completion of serious illness conversation and other patient-centered outcomes.

METHODS: This is a two-armed, parallel-design, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial of 120 seriously ill older adults in two academic and one community EDs in Boston, MA. Participants are English-speaking adults 50 years and older with a serious life-limiting illness with a recent ED visit. Patients with a valid MOLST (medical order for life-sustaining treatment) form or other documented goals of care within the last 3 months are excluded. We enroll the caregivers of patients with cognitive impairment. Patients are assigned to the intervention or control group using block randomization. A blinded research team member will perform outcome assessments. We will assess (i) changes in ACP engagement within 6 months and (ii) qualitative assessments of the effect of ED GOAL.

DISCUSSION: In seriously ill older adults arriving in the ED, this randomized controlled trial will test the effects of ED GOAL on patients' self-reported ACP engagement, EMR documentation of new serious illness conversations, and improving patient-centered outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05209880.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic there were many barriers to telemedicine primary care for adults ≥65 years including insurance coverage restrictions and having lower digital access and literacy. With the pandemic, insurance coverage broadened and many older adults utilized telemedicine creating an opportunity to learn from their experiences to inform future policy.

METHODS: Between April 2020 and June 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional multimethod study of English-speaking, cognitively-intact, adults ≥65, who had a phone-only and/or video telemedicine visit with their primary care physician within one large Massachusetts health system (10 different practices) since March 2020. The study questionnaire asked participants their overall satisfaction with telemedicine (7-point scale) and to compare telemedicine with in-person care. We used linear regression to examine the association between participants' demographics, Charlson comorbidity score, and survey completion date with their satisfaction score. The questionnaire also included open-ended questions on perceptions of telemedicine; which were analyzed using qualitative methods.

RESULTS: Of 278 eligible patients reached, 208 completed the questionnaire; mean age was 74.4 years (±4.4), 61.5% were female, 91.4% were non-Hispanic White, 64.4% had ≥1 comorbidity, and 47.2% had a phone-only visit. Regardless of their age, participants reported being satisfied with telemedicine; median score was 6.0 on the 7-point scale (25th percentile = 5.0 and 75th percentile = 7.0). Non-Whites satisfaction scores were on average 1 point lower than those of non-Hispanic Whites (p = 0.02). Those with comorbidity reported scores that on average were 0.5 points lower than those without comorbidity (p = 0.07). Overall, 39.5% felt their telemedicine visit was worse than in-person care; 4.9% thought it was better. Participants appreciated telemedicine's convenience but described frustrating technical challenges. While participants preferred in-person care, most wanted telemedicine to remain available.

CONCLUSIONS: Adults ≥65 reported being satisfied with primary care telemedicine during the pandemic's first 14 months and wanted telemedicine to remain available.

BACKGROUND: Patients with dementia are frequently hospitalized and may face barriers in post-discharge care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with dementia have an increased risk of adverse outcomes following discharge.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS: Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized in 2016.

MAIN MEASURES: Co-primary outcomes were mortality and readmission within 30 days of discharge. Multivariable logistic regression models were estimated to assess the risk of each outcome for patients with and without dementia accounting for demographics, comorbidities, frailty, hospitalization factors, and disposition.

KEY RESULTS: The cohort included 1,089,109 hospitalizations of which 211,698 (19.3%) were of patients with diagnosed dementia (median (IQR) age 83 (76-89); 61.5% female) and 886,411 were of patients without dementia (median (IQR) age 76 (79-83); 55.0% female). At 30 days following discharge, 5.7% of patients with dementia had died compared to 3.1% of patients without dementia (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.21; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.24). At 30 days following discharge, 17.7% of patients with dementia had been readmitted compared to 13.1% of patients without dementia (aOR 1.02; CI 1.002 to 1.04). Dementia was associated with an increased odds of readmission among patients discharged to the community (aOR 1.07, CI 1.05 to 1.09) but a decreased odds of readmission among patients discharge to nursing facilities (aOR 0.93, CI 0.90 to 0.95). Patients with dementia who were discharged to the community were more likely to be readmitted than those discharged to nursing facilities (18.9% vs 16.0%), and, when readmitted, were more likely to die during the readmission (20.7% vs 4.4%).

CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosed dementia was associated with a substantially increased risk of mortality and a modestly increased risk of readmission within 30 days of discharge. Patients with dementia discharged to the community had particularly elevated risk of adverse outcomes indicating possible gaps in post-discharge services and caregiver support.

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) conversations are an important intervention to provide care consistent with patient goals near the end of life. The emergency department (ED) could serve as an important time and location for these conversations. Objectives: To determine the feasibility of an ED-based, brief negotiated interview (BNI) to stimulate ACP conversations among seriously ill older adults. Methods: We conducted a pre/postintervention study in the ED of an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center. From November 2017 to May 2019, we prospectively enrolled adults ≥65 years of age with serious illness. Trained clinicians conducted the intervention. We measured patients' ACP engagement at baseline and follow-up (3 ± 1 weeks) and reviewed electronic medical record documentation of ACP (e.g., medical order for life-sustaining treatment [MOLST]). Results: We enrolled 51 patients (mean age = 71; SD 12), 41% were female, and 51% of patients had metastatic cancer. Median duration of the intervention was 11.8 minutes; few (6%) of the interventions were interrupted. We completed follow-up for 61% of participants. Patients' self-reported ACP engagement increased from 3.0 to 3.7 out of 5 after the intervention (p < 0.01). Electronic documentation of health care proxy forms increased (75%-94%, n = 48) as did MOLST (0%-19%, n = 48) during the six months after the ED visit. Conclusion: A novel, ED-based, BNI intervention to stimulate ACP conversations for seriously ill older adults is feasible and may improve ACP engagement and documentation.

IMPORTANCE: Guidelines recommend targeting preventive interventions toward older adults whose life expectancy is greater than the intervention's time to benefit (TTB). The TTB for statin therapy is unknown.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a survival meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of statins to determine the TTB for prevention of a first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) in adults aged 50 to 75 years.

DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified from previously published systematic reviews (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and US Preventive Services Task Force) and a search of MEDLINE and Google Scholar for subsequently published studies until February 1, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials of statins for primary prevention focusing on older adults (mean age >55 years).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently abstracted survival data for the control and intervention groups. Weibull survival curves were fit, and a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled absolute risk reductions (ARRs) between control and intervention groups each year. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were applied to determine time to ARR thresholds.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to ARR thresholds (0.002, 0.005, and 0.010) for a first MACE, as defined by each trial. There were broad similarities in the definition of MACE across trials, with all trials including myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality.

RESULTS: Eight trials randomizing 65 383 adults (66.3% men) were identified. The mean age ranged from 55 to 69 years old and the mean length of follow-up ranged from 2 to 6 years. Only 1 of 8 studies showed that statins decreased all-cause mortality. The meta-analysis results suggested that 2.5 (95% CI, 1.7-3.4) years were needed to avoid 1 MACE for 100 patients treated with a statin. To prevent 1 MACE for 200 patients treated (ARR = 0.005), the TTB was 1.3 (95% CI, 1.0-1.7) years, whereas the TTB to avoid 1 MACE for 500 patients treated (ARR = 0.002) was 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5-1.0) years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that treating 100 adults (aged 50-75 years) without known cardiovascular disease with a statin for 2.5 years prevented 1 MACE in 1 adult. Statins may help to prevent a first MACE in adults aged 50 to 75 years old if they have a life expectancy of at least 2.5 years. There is no evidence of a mortality benefit.

BACKGROUND: Limited health literacy is a driver of cancer disparities and associated with less participation in medical decisions. Mammography screening decisions are an exemplar of where health literacy may impact decision-making and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe informational needs and shared decision-making (SDM) experiences among women ages 40-54 who have limited health literacy and primary care providers (PCPs).

DESIGN: Qualitative, in-depth interviews explored experiences with mammography counseling and SDM.

PARTICIPANTS: Women ages 40-54 with limited health literacy and no history of breast cancer or mammogram in the prior 9 months were approached before a primary care visit at a Boston academic, safety-net hospital. PCPs practicing at this site were eligible for PCP interviews.

APPROACH: Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A set of deductive codes for each stakeholder group was developed based on literature and the interview guide. Inductive codes were generated during codebook development. Codes were compared within and across patient and PCP interviews to create themes relevant to mammography decision-making.

KEY RESULTS: The average age of 25 interviewed patients was 46.5; 18 identified as black, 3 as Hispanic, 2 as non-Hispanic white, and 2 had no recorded race or ethnicity. Of 20 PCPs, 15 were female; 12 had practiced for >5 years. Patients described a lack of technical (appropriate tests and what they do) and process (what happens during a mammogram visit) knowledge, viewing these as necessary for decision-making. PCPs were reluctant to engage patients with limited health literacy in SDM due to time constraints and feared that increased information might confuse patients or deter them from having mammograms. Both groups felt pre-visit education would facilitate mammography-related SDM during clinical visits.

CONCLUSION: Both patients and PCPs perceived a need for tools to relay technical and process knowledge about mammography prior to clinical encounters to address the scope of information that patients with limited health literacy desired.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced kidney disease is associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Consequently, invasive treatments such as dialysis may not yield survival benefits. Advance care planning has been encouraged. However, whether such discussions are acceptable when done earlier, before end-stage kidney treatment decision-making occurs, is unclear. This pilot study aimed to explore whether use of the Serious Illness Conversation Guide to aid early advance care planning is acceptable, and to evaluate the information gained from these conversations.

METHODS: Patients with advanced kidney disease (stage 3B and above) and high mortality risk at 2 years were enrolled in this mixed-methods study from an academic nephrology clinic. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using the adapted Serious Illness Conversation Guide. Thematic analysis was used to assess patients' perceptions of the conversation. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing conversation acceptability.

RESULTS: Twenty-six patients participated, 50% were female. Participants felt that the conversation guide helped them reflect on their prognosis, goals of care and treatment preferences. Most did not feel that the conversation provoked anxiety (23/26, 88%) nor that it decreased hopefulness (24/26, 92%). Some challenges were elicited; patients expressed cognitive dissonance with the kidney disease severity due to lack of symptoms; had difficulty conceptualising their goals of care; and vocalised fear of personal failure without attempting dialysis.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients in this pilot study found the adapted Serious Illness Conversation Guide acceptable. This guide may be used with patients early in the course of advanced kidney disease to gather information for future advanced care planning.

IMPORTANCE: There is currently no guidance on how to approach surveillance mammography for older breast cancer survivors, particularly when life expectancy is limited.

OBJECTIVE: To develop expert consensus guidelines that facilitate tailored decision-making for routine surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older.

EVIDENCE: After a literature review of the risk of ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events among breast cancer survivors and the harms and benefits associated with mammography, a multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines on surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older. Using an iterative consensus-based approach, input from clinician focus groups, and critical review by the International Society for Geriatric Oncology, the guidelines were refined and finalized.

FINDINGS: The literature review established a low risk for ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events in most older breast cancer survivors and summarized the benefits and harms associated with mammography. Draft mammography guidelines were iteratively evaluated by the expert panel and clinician focus groups, emphasizing a patient's risk for in-breast cancer events, age, life expectancy, and personal preferences. The final consensus guidelines recommend discontinuation of routine mammography for all breast cancer survivors when life expectancy is less than 5 years, including those with a history of high-risk cancers; consideration to discontinue mammography when life expectancy is 5 to 10 years; and continuation of mammography when life expectancy is more than 10 years. Individualized, shared decision-making is encouraged to optimally tailor recommendations after weighing the benefits and harms associated with surveillance mammography and patient preferences. The panel also recommends ongoing clinical breast examinations and diagnostic mammography to evaluate clinical findings and symptoms, with reassurance for patients that these practices will continue.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: It is anticipated that these expert guidelines will enhance clinical practice by providing a framework for individualized discussions, facilitating shared decision-making regarding surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older.