Comparative effectiveness studies to improve clinical outcomes in end stage renal disease: the DEcIDE patient outcomes in end stage renal disease study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is lacking to inform providers' and patients' decisions about many common treatment strategies for patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). METHODS/DESIGN: The DEcIDE Patient Outcomes in ESRD Study is funded by the United States (US) Agency for Health Care Research and Quality to study the comparative effectiveness of: 1) antihypertensive therapies, 2) early versus later initiation of dialysis, and 3) intravenous iron therapies on clinical outcomes in patients with ESRD. Ongoing studies utilize four existing, nationally representative cohorts of patients with ESRD, including (1) the Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for ESRD study (1041 incident dialysis patients recruited from October 1995 to June 1999 with complete outcome ascertainment through 2009), (2) the Dialysis Clinic Inc (45,124 incident dialysis patients initiating and receiving their care from 2003-2010 with complete outcome ascertainment through 2010), (3) the United States Renal Data System (333,308 incident dialysis patients from 2006-2009 with complete outcome ascertainment through 2010), and (4) the Cleveland Clinic Foundation Chronic Kidney Disease Registry (53,399 patients with chronic kidney disease with outcome ascertainment from 2005 through 2009). We ascertain patient reported outcomes (i.e., health-related quality of life), morbidity, and mortality using clinical and administrative data, and data obtained from national death indices. We use advanced statistical methods (e.g., propensity scoring and marginal structural modeling) to account for potential biases of our study designs. All data are de-identified for analyses. The conduct of studies and dissemination of findings are guided by input from Stakeholders in the ESRD community. DISCUSSION: The DEcIDE Patient Outcomes in ESRD Study will provide needed evidence regarding the effectiveness of common treatments employed for dialysis patients. Carefully planned dissemination strategies to the ESRD community will enhance studies' impact on clinical care and patients' outcomes.

Credit scores, cardiovascular disease risk, and human capital.

Credit scores are the most widely used instruments to assess whether or not a person is a financial risk. Credit scoring has been so successful that it has expanded beyond lending and into our everyday lives, even to inform how insurers evaluate our health. The pervasive application of credit scoring has outpaced knowledge about why credit scores are such useful indicators of individual behavior. Here we test if the same factors that lead to poor credit scores also lead to poor health. Following the Dunedin (New Zealand) Longitudinal Study cohort of 1,037 study members, we examined the association between credit scores and cardiovascular disease risk and the underlying factors that account for this association. We find that credit scores are negatively correlated with cardiovascular disease risk. Variation in household income was not sufficient to account for this association. Rather, individual differences in human capital factors—educational attainment, cognitive ability, and self-control—predicted both credit scores and cardiovascular disease risk and accounted for ∼45% of the correlation between credit scores and cardiovascular disease risk. Tracing human capital factors back to their childhood antecedents revealed that the characteristic attitudes, behaviors, and competencies children develop in their first decade of life account for a significant portion (∼22%) of the link between credit scores and cardiovascular disease risk at midlife. We discuss the implications of these findings for policy debates about data privacy, financial literacy, and early childhood interventions.

Efficacy of Pharmacokinetics-Directed Busulfan, Cyclophosphamide, and Etoposide Conditioning and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Lymphoma: Comparison of a Multicenter Phase II Study and CIBMTR Outcomes.

Busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (BuCyE) is a commonly used conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). This multicenter, phase II study examined the safety and efficacy of BuCyE with individually adjusted busulfan based on preconditioning pharmacokinetics. The study initially enrolled Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients ages 18 to 80 years but was amended due to high early treatment-related mortality (TRM) in patients > 65 years. BuCyE outcomes were compared with contemporaneous recipients of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Two hundred seven subjects with HL (n = 66) or NHL (n = 141) were enrolled from 32 centers in North America, and 203 underwent ASCT. Day 100 TRM for all subjects (n = 203), patients > 65 years (n = 17), and patients ≤ 65 years (n = 186) were 4.5%, 23.5%, and 2.7%, respectively. The estimated rates of 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) were 33% for HL and 58%, 77%, and 43% for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n = 63), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; n = 29), and follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 23), respectively. The estimated rates of 2-year overall survival (OS) were 76% for HL and 65%, 89%, and 89% for DLBCL, MCL, and FL, respectively. In the matched analysis rates of 2-year TRM were 3.3% for BuCyE and 3.9% for BEAM, and there were no differences in outcomes for NHL. Patients with HL had lower rates of 2-year PFS with BuCyE, 33% (95% CI, 21% to 46%), than with BEAM, 59% (95% CI, 52% to 66%), with no differences in TRM or OS. BuCyE provided adequate disease control and safety in B cell NHL patients ≤ 65 years but produced worse PFS in HL patients when compared with BEAM.