Publications

BACKGROUND

Language barriers between patients and providers may influence the process and quality of care.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of language preference with length of stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality for patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Electronic administrative hospital discharge data for all non-disabled Medicaid beneficiaries age 35 years and older admitted to all acute care California hospitals with a diagnosis of AMI between 1994 and 1998.

METHODS

We used multivariate regression to explore whether observed differences in the hospital LOS and in-hospital mortality between non-English preference (NEP) and English preference (EP) individuals could be explained by individual and/or hospital level factors. We adjusted for patient level characteristics using 24 covariates from a previously validated prediction model of mortality after hospitalization for AMI.

RESULTS

Of 12,609 Medicaid patients across 401 California hospitals, 2,757 (22%) had NEP. NEP was associated with a 3.9% increased LOS (95% CI 0.7, 7.1; p = 0.02) in unadjusted analysis and a 3.8% increased LOS (95% CI 0.3, 7.3; p = 0.03) after controlling for patient level characteristics. Differences in LOS were no longer significant after adjusting receipt of cardiac procedure/ surgery (2.8%; 95% CI -0.6, 6.2; p = 0.1) or after adjusting for hospital (0.9%; 95% CI -2.5, 4.3; p = 0.6). Non-English language preference was associated with lower in-hospital mortality in unadjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80; 95% CI 0.69, 0.94; p = 0.005), but was not significant after adjusting for patient level characteristics (adjusted OR [AOR] 0.95; 95% CI 0.78, 1.27; p = 0.6). Adjusting for receipt of cardiac procedure/ surgery (AOR 0.97; 95% CI 0.79, 1.18; p = 0.7) and hospital (AOR 0.97; 95% CI 0.78; 1.21; p = 0.8) did not alter this finding.

CONCLUSIONS

Language preference is not associated with AMI mortality, and the small increase in length of stay associated with non-English preference is accounted for by hospital level factors. Our results suggest that system level differences are important to consider in studies of the effect of language barriers in the health care setting.

BACKGROUND

The HIV-1 maturation inhibitor, 3-O-(3',3'-dimethylsuccinyl) betulinic acid (bevirimat, PA-457) is a promising drug candidate with 10 nM in vitro antiviral activity against multiple wild-type (WT) and drug-resistant HIV-1 isolates. Bevirimat has a novel mechanism of action, specifically inhibiting cleavage of spacer peptide 1 (SP1) from the C-terminus of capsid which results in defective core condensation.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Oral administration of bevirimat to HIV-1-infected SCID-hu Thy/Liv mice reduced viral RNA by >2 log(10) and protected immature and mature T cells from virus-mediated depletion. This activity was observed at plasma concentrations that are achievable in humans after oral dosing, and bevirimat was active up to 3 days after inoculation with both WT HIV-1 and an AZT-resistant HIV-1 clinical isolate. Consistent with its mechanism of action, bevirimat caused a dose-dependent inhibition of capsid-SP1 cleavage in HIV-1-infected human thymocytes obtained from these mice. HIV-1 NL4-3 with an alanine-to-valine substitution at the N-terminus of SP1 (SP1/A1V), which is resistant to bevirimat in vitro, was also resistant to bevirimat treatment in the mice, and SP1/AIV had replication and thymocyte kinetics similar to that of WT NL4-3 with no evidence of fitness impairment in in vivo competition assays. Interestingly, protease inhibitor-resistant HIV-1 with impaired capsid-SP1 cleavage was hypersensitive to bevirimat in vitro with a 50% inhibitory concentration 140 times lower than for WT HIV-1.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support further clinical development of this first-in-class maturation inhibitor and confirm the usefulness of the SCID-hu Thy/Liv model for evaluation of in vivo antiretroviral efficacy, drug resistance, and viral fitness.

The ability to predict drug disposition involves concurrent consideration of many chemical and physiological variables and the effect of food on the rate and extent of availability adds further complexity due to postprandial changes in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. A system that allows for the assessment of the multivariate interplay occurring following administration of an oral dose, in the presence or absence of meal, would greatly benefit the early stages of drug development. This is particularly true in an era when the majority of new molecular entities are highly permeable, poorly soluble, extensively metabolized compounds (BDDCS Class 2), which present the most complicated relationship in defining the impact of transporters due to the marked effects of transporter-enzyme interplay. This review evaluates the GI luminal environment by taking into account the absorption/transport/elimination interplay and evaluates the physiochemical property issues by taking into account the importance of solubility, permeability and metabolism. We concentrate on the BDDCS and its utility in predicting drug disposition. Furthermore, we focus on the effect of food on the extent of drug availability (F), which appears to follow closely what might be expected if a significant effect of high fat meals is inhibition of transporters. That is, high fat meals and lipidic excipients would be expected to have little effect on F for Class 1 drugs; they would increase F of Class 2 drugs, while decreasing F for Class 3 drugs.

INTRODUCTION

Cancer patients experience multiple concurrent symptoms. This exploratory analysis assessed symptom burden among patients undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer to identify distinct subgroups of patients who experience differential symptom burden and assessed whether the patient subgroups were associated with deleterious quality of life (QOL) outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women (N = 133) with stage I and II breast cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy after primary surgery were evaluated at baseline and at the end of chemotherapy using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS) and the SF-36 QOL questionnaire. Post treatment MSAS symptoms were included in hierarchical cluster analysis. Two patient subgroups were identified that corresponded to a high-symptom prevalence group and a low-symptom group.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

No marked, statistically significant differences were found between groups on demographic, symptoms, QOL, or treatment variables at baseline. Patients in the high-symptom cluster were more likely to have stage I disease (p < 0.05). The two groups of patients showed significant differences in end-of-treatment symptoms and QOL scores (p < 0.05). The high-symptom burden group was more likely to report greater symptom prevalence and poorer QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research needs to examine why these differences occur despite similarities in treatment and how symptom burden can be reduced for the high-symptom prevalence group.

To identify aspects of end-of-life care in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system that are not assessed by existing survey instruments and to identify issues that may be unique to veterans, telephone interviews using open-ended questions were conducted with family members of veterans who had received care from a VA facility in the last month of life. Responses were compared to validated end-of-life care assessment instruments in common use. The study took place in four VA medical centers and one family member per patient was invited to participate, selected from medical records using predefined eligibility criteria. These family members were asked to describe positive and negative aspects of the care the veteran received in the last month of life. Interview questions elicited perceptions of care both at VA sites and at non-VA sites. Family reports were coded and compared with items in five existing prospective and retrospective instruments that assess the quality of care that patients receive near the end of life. Interviews were completed with 66 family members and revealed 384 codes describing both positive and negative aspects of care during the last month of life. Almost half of these codes were not represented in any of the five reference instruments (n=174; 45%). These codes, some of which are unique to the veteran population, were grouped into eight categories: information about VA benefits (n=36; 55%), inpatient care (n=36; 55%), access to care (n=33; 50%), transitions in care (n=32; 48%), care that the veteran received at the time of death (n=31; 47%), home care (n=26; 40%), health care facilities (n=12; 18%), and mistakes and complications (n=18; 27%). Although most of the reference instruments assessed some aspect of these categories, they did not fully capture the experiences described by our respondents. These data suggest that many aspects of veterans' end-of-life care that are important to their families are not assessed by existing survey instruments. VA efforts to evaluate end-of-life care for veterans should not only measure common aspects of care (e.g., pain management), but also examine performance in areas that are more specific to the veteran population.