SREs are a frequent complication in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases, and are much more common than previously recognized in women with BC.

BackgroundApheresis is an important treatment for reducing low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). We systematically reviewed the current literature surrounding LDL‐C apheresis for FH.Methods and ResultsElectronic databases were searched for publications of LDL‐C apheresis in patients with FH. Inclusion criteria include articles in English published in 2000–2013 that provide descriptions of practice patterns, efficacy/effectiveness, and costs related to LDL‐C apheresis in patients with FH. Data were stratified by country and FH genotype where possible. Thirty‐eight studies met the inclusion criteria: 8 open‐label clinical trials, 11 observational studies, 17 reviews/guidelines, and 2 health technology assessments. The prevalence of FH was not well characterized by country, and underdiagnosis was a barrier to FH treatment. Treatment guidelines varied by country, with some guidelines recommending LDL‐C apheresis as first‐line treatment in patients with homozygous FH and after drug therapy failure in patients with heterozygous FH. Additionally, guidelines typically recommended weekly or biweekly LDL‐C apheresis treatments conducted at apheresis centers that may last 2 to >3 hours per session. Studies reported a range for mean LDL‐C reduction after apheresis: 57–75% for patients with homozygous FH and 58–63% for patients with heterozygous FH. Calculated annual costs (in US$2015) may reach US$66 374 to US$228 956 per patient for weekly treatment.Conclusions LDL‐C apheresis treatment may be necessary for patients with FH when drug therapy is inadequate in reducing LDL‐C to target levels. While apheresis reduces LDL‐C, high per‐session costs and the frequency of guideline‐recommended treatment result in substantial annual costs, which are barriers to the optimal treatment of FH.

Background: Acute cardiovascular (CV) events have been evaluated in patients with specific comorbidities but have not focused on patients with hyperlipidemia or on the their long-term costs. Objectives: To evaluate incidence of CV events, costs, and resource utilization among patients with hyperlipidemia and baseline risk of CV disease (CVD). Methods: Patients (age 18 to 64 years) diagnosed with hyperlipidemia or using lipid-modifying medications were identified from administrative claims. Patients were categorized into 3 cohorts based on pre-index clinical characteristics-secondary prevention (SP; history of CV event, n = 15 613); high risk (HR; CVD, n = 47 600); and primary prevention (PP; no CV event history or CVD, n = 60 637)-and followed up to 2 years after the CV event.Results: During follow-up, ≥1 new CV event occurred in 43.0% of the SP cohort, 33.9% of HR, and 20.9% of PP; and ≥3 new events occurred in 19.8% of the SP cohort, 12.9% of HR, and 5.5% of PP. Incremental total costs were $19 320 for SP, $20 003 for HR, and $17 650 for PP. Compared with patients with only 1 CV event, the mean 2-year cost was 30% higher in patients with 2 CV events and 48% higher in patients with 3 CV events. Only 50% of HR patients (with or without CV events) received statins. Conclusions: Patients with recurrent CV events had higher total health care costs during 24-month follow-up for each type of CV event. Total health care costs among patients with a CV event were higher for the initial as well as subsequent events. Statins and lipid-modifying medications were significantly underutilized in all cohorts, despite the presence of CVD.

Purpose Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors face long-term, elevated risk of treatment-related sequelae, including psychosocial distress associated with poor health outcomes. The magnitude and sources of distress are not well described in the routine care of HL outside of clinical trials. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients visiting a tertiary-care center for treatment or long-term follow-up of HL. Patient-reported distress was documented using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem List. Three survivor groups were compared using descriptive methods: on treatment, surviving < 5 years, and surviving ≥ 5 years since diagnosis. Results A total of 1524 DT were abstracted for 304 patients (106 on treatment, 77 surviving < 5 years, and 121 surviving ≥ 5 years). Distress was low overall (median DT = 1, inter-quartile range 0–4) and was similar across survivor groups. However, actionable distress (score ≥ 4) was reported at 29.5% of clinical encounters. Patients on treatment more frequently reported actionable distress (32.5% of visits) compared with patients surviving < 5 years (20.4%) and ≥ 5 years (28.7%) ( P = 0.065). Distress was associated primarily with physical and emotional problems, especially fatigue, worry, and sleep. We did not observe any associations between distress and clinical prognostic factors. Conclusions Distress burden is low in HL, but survivorship is marked by periods of actionable distress, largely related to physical symptoms and emotional issues. This burden may be higher when on treatment and is unrelated to disease-related prognostic factors. Survivorship research typically focuses on the post-therapy period, but our results support testing the efficacy of interventions to address distress in HL during active treatment as well.