Hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM) is a serious metabolic complication whose population‐based prevalence has not been quantified. Rates of HCM differ by tumor type, with highest rates reported in multiple myeloma and lowest among colorectal and prostate cancer patients. This analysis estimates HCM prevalence in the US. This retrospective study used the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records (OSCER) warehouse of electronic health records (EHR) including laboratory values from 569000 patients treated at 565 oncology outpatient sites. OSCER data were projected to the national level by linking EHR to claims data. Cancer patients included were ≥18 years, and had serum calcium (Ca) and albumin (for corrected serum Ca [CSC]) records. Period prevalence was estimated by HCM CTCAE grade, tumor type, and year (2009–2013). Estimates were adjusted to capture patients diagnosed with HCM outside oncology practices based on a subset of patients linkable to office and hospital data. The analysis included 68023 (2009) to 121482 (2013) cancer patients. In 2013, patients with HCM had a median of six Ca tests, 69.7% had chemotherapy, and 34% received bone modifying agents. HCM rates were highest for multiple myeloma patients (7.5% [2012]–10.2% [2010]), lowest for prostate cancer (1.4% [2012]–2.1% [2011]).The estimated adjusted annual prevalence of HCM from 2009 to 2013 was 95441, 96281, 89797, 70158, and 71744, respectively. HCM affected 2.0–2.8% of all cancer patients. EHR data from oncology clinics were critical for this study because these data contain results from laboratory studies (i.e., serum calcium values) that are routinely ordered in that setting. We estimated that the prevalence of HCM in the US in 2013 is 71744, affecting approximately 2% of cancer patients overall. This percentage differs by tumor type and appears to have decreased over the five‐year study period.

While current treatment options seem effective in a proportion of patients with UC and CD, others require multiple lines of therapy, suggesting anunmet need for alternative treatments in UC and CD to achieve disease control.

PurposeCurrent understanding of the relationship between COPD phenotype and health care resource utilization (HCRU) is limited. This real-world study evaluated disease burden and HCRU for COPD subgroups prone to exacerbation as defined by blood eosinophil (EOS) count and multiple inhaler triple therapy (MITT) use.MethodsThis was a large-scale, retrospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study using data from the US IBM Watson Explorys real-world database (GSK Study HO-17-18395). The population of interest comprised patients with COPD ≥40 years of age with ≥2 moderate or ≥1 severe exacerbations (prior year) while on inhaled maintenance therapy, with ≥1 blood EOS count. Data were analyzed during the year prior to index date (last COPD encounter between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016). Four subgroups were analyzed based on a combination of EOS counts (<150 and ≥150 cells/μL) and MITT use (receiving or not receiving). Among these groups, clinical characteristics, exacerbations, and HCRU were described. A sensitivity analysis that further stratified EOS into four categories (<150, ≥150–<300, ≥300–<500, and ≥500 cells/μL) was also performed.ResultsThe COPD population of interest comprised 34,268 patients. Subgroups with EOS ≥150 cells/μL vs <150 cells/μL had more comorbidities and experienced significantly higher mean numbers of moderate exacerbations (not receiving MITT, ≥150 cells/μL vs <150 cells/μL: 1.93 vs 1.82, P<0.0001; receiving MITT 2.26 vs 2.16, P=0.0062) and COPD-related emergency visits (not receiving MITT, ≥150 cells/μL vs <150 cells/μL: 3.0 vs 2.5, P<0.001; receiving MITT 3.4 vs 3.1, P=0.0011). Increasing EOS category was associated with higher HCRU.ConclusionBlood EOS ≥150/μL cells were associated with increased HCRU and higher exacerbation rates compared with EOS <150 cells/μL, irrespective of MITT use. COPD phenotyping using blood EOS could help identify candidates for additional therapies that target eosinophilic inflammatory pathways.

Background Adherence to inhaled maintenance therapy is critical to managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), while increasing rescue medication usage may indicate worsening symptoms. This study evaluated adherence and rescue medication use in patients with COPD without a history of exacerbation who initiated combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol (B/F) or umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI). Methods Retrospective observational study of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage with Part D enrollees who initiated UMEC/VI or B/F between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017 (earliest fill defined as index date). Eligibility criteria included age ≥40 years, 12 months continuous enrollment pre- and post-index, ≥1 pre-index COPD diagnosis, no pre-index asthma diagnosis, COPD-related exacerbations, or medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β 2 -agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance treatment groups on potential confounders. Medication adherence (primary endpoint) was evaluated by the proportion of days covered (PDC). Rescue medication use (secondary endpoint) was standardized to canister equivalents (1 metered dose inhaler [200 puffs] or ~100 nebulized doses of short-acting β 2 -agonist- and/or short-acting muscarinic agonist-containing medication). Results After IPTW, covariates were balanced between cohorts (UMEC/VI: N=4082; B/F: N=9529). UMEC/VI initiators had a significantly greater mean PDC (UMEC/VI: 0.47 [0.33]; B/F: 0.38 [0.30]; P <0.001) and significantly higher rates of adherence (PDC≥0.80) than B/F initiators (UMEC/VI: n=1004 [25%], B/F: n=1391 [15%]; relative risk: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.57, 1.81; P <0.001). In the year following initiation, UMEC/VI initiators filled significantly fewer rescue medication canister equivalents than B/F initiators (predicted mean [95% CI]: 1.78 [1.69, 1.88] vs 2.15 [2.08, 2.23]; mean difference [95% CI]: −0.37 [−0.50, −0.24]; P <0.001), corresponding to 17% less (estimated) rescue medication use (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.83 [0.78, 0.88]). Conclusion Among non-exacerbating patients with COPD initiating dual therapy, UMEC/VI demonstrated improved adherence and reduced rescue medication use compared with B/F.