BACKGROUND: Social support and social networks have long been postulated to impact health outcomes but their impact on life expectancy and disability in older adults remains poorly quantified. METHODS: As part of the Cardiovascular Health Study, we followed 5,749 adults aged 65 years and older from 4 US field centers for 25 years. We assessed the Lubben social network score [range 0-50] and a social support score [range 0-24] derived from the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL-12) in two consecutive years starting at study recruitment. We used remaining years of life (YOL) from study enrollment to death to approximate life expectancy. We defined years of active life (YAL) as the number of study years in which participants lived without any difficulties in activities of daily living. We used compression of disability to reflect the proportion of life lived able (YAL/YOL). We used linear regression to adjust for socio-demographics and comorbidity. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation [SD]) scores were 32.3 ± 6.8 points for social network score and 8.3 ± 2.4 points for social support score. For every 1-SD increase in social network score, adjusted participant life expectancy was 0.40 years higher (95% CI 0.22-0.58; p<0.0001) and disability-free life expectancy 0.35 years higher (95% CI 0.18-0.53; p<0.0001). The association with life expectancy was modified by participant age (p<0.001), but it remained significant even among participants aged ≥75 years (3 months per SD; 95% CI 0.1-6 months, p = 0.04). Further adjustment for frailty did not attenuate the estimates. The social support scale was not significantly associated with YOL or YAL after adjustment for social network score, and neither measure was associated with compression of disability. DISCUSSION: In older adults, higher social network scores are significantly associated with longer life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy.

Background

Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common intraocular malignancy in adults. In contrast to cutaneous melanoma (CM), there is no standard therapy, and the efficacy and safety of dual checkpoint blockade with nivolumab and ipilimumab is not well defined.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic UM (mUM) who received treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab across 14 academic medical centers. Toxicity was graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology.

Results

89 eligible patients were identified. 45% had received prior therapy, which included liver directed therapy (29%), immunotherapy (21%), targeted therapy (10%) and radiation (16%). Patients received a median 3 cycles of ipilimumab plus nivolumab. The median follow-up time was 9.2 months. Overall response rate was 11.6%. One patient achieved complete response (1%), 9 patients had partial response (10%), 21 patients had stable disease (24%) and 55 patients had progressive disease (62%). Median OS from treatment initiation was 15 months and median PFS was 2.7 months. Overall, 82 (92%) of patients discontinued treatment, 34 due to toxicity and 27 due to progressive disease. Common immune-related adverse events were colitis/diarrhea (32%), fatigue (23%), rash (21%) and transaminitis (21%).

Conclusions

Dual checkpoint inhibition yielded higher response rates than previous reports of single-agent immunotherapy in patients with mUM, but the efficacy is lower than in metastatic CM. The median OS of 15 months suggests that the rate of clinical benefit may be larger than the modest response rate.