STUDY DESIGN: The study design is a cross-sectional self-report study conducted across 42 countries.
METHODS: A cross-sectional, self-report study was conducted in 42 countries, with a total of 82,243 participants included in the final data set.
RESULTS: The study provides an overview of suicide ideation rates across 42 countries and confirms the structural validity of the P4 screener. The findings indicated that sexual and gender minority individuals exhibited higher rates of suicidal ideation. The P4 screener showed adequate reliability, convergence, and discriminant validity, and a cutoff score of 1 is recommended to identify individuals at risk of suicidal behavior.
CONCLUSIONS: The study supports the reliability and validity of the P4 suicide screener across 42 diverse countries, highlighting the importance of using a cross-cultural suicide risk assessment to standardize the identification of high-risk individuals and tailoring culturally sensitive suicide prevention strategies.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion.
RESULTS: All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.
HYPOTHESIS: This study tested the hypothesis that attendance-related HCRUs and costs differed between patients with Brugada syndrome (BrS) and congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS).
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive BrS and LQTS patients at public hospitals or clinics in Hong Kong, China. HCRUs and costs (in USD) for Accident and Emergency (A&E), inpatient, general outpatient and specialist outpatient attendances were analyzed between 2001 and 2019 at the cohort level. Comparisons were made using incidence rate ratios (IRRs [95% confidence intervals]).
RESULTS: Over the 19-year period, 516 BrS (median age of initial presentation: 51 [interquartile range: 38-61] years, 92% male) and 134 LQTS (median age of initial presentation: 21 [9-44] years, 32% male) patients were included. Compared to LQTS patients, BrS patients had lower total costs (2 008 126 [2 007 622-2 008 629] vs. 2 343 864 [2 342 828-2 344 900]; IRR: 0.857 [0.855-0.858]), higher costs for A&E attendances (83 113 [83 048-83 177] vs. 70 604 [70 487-70 721]; IRR: 1.177 [1.165-1.189]) and general outpatient services (2,176 [2,166-2,187] vs. 921 [908-935]; IRR: 2.363 [2.187-2.552]), but lower costs for inpatient stay (1 391 624 [1 391 359-1 391 889] vs. 1 713 742 [1 713 166-1 714 319]; IRR: 0.812 [0.810-0.814]) and lower costs for specialist outpatient services (531 213 [531 049-531 376] vs. 558 597 [558268-558926]; IRR: 0.951 [0.947-0.9550]).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, BrS patients consume 14% less health care resources compared to LQTS patients in terms of attendance costs. BrS patients require more A&E and general outpatient services, but less inpatient and specialist outpatient services than LQTS patients.