User login
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests soar during COVID-19 in Italy
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests increased 58% during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the hard-hit region of Lombardy, Italy, compared with the same period last year, a new analysis shows.
During the first 40 days of the outbreak beginning Feb. 21, four provinces in northern Italy reported 362 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with 229 during the same period in 2019.
The increases in these provinces varied in magnitude from 18% in Mantua, where there were 1,688 confirmed COVID-19 cases, to 187% in Lodi, which had 2,116 COVID-19 cases. The Cremona province, which had the highest number of COVID-19 cases at 3,869, saw a 143% increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.
The mortality rate in the field was 14.9 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019 among patients in whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency medical services (EMS), Enrico Baldi, MD, University of Pavia, Italy, and colleagues reported in a letter April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“The sex and age of the patients were similar in the 2020 and 2019 periods, but in 2020, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to a medical cause was 6.5 percentage points higher, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home was 7.3 percentage points higher, and the incidence of unwitnessed cardiac arrest was 11.3 percentage points higher,” the authors wrote.
Patients were also less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation from bystanders in 2020 vs 2019 (–15.6 percentage points) and were more likely to die before reaching the hospital when resuscitation was attempted by EMS (+14.9 percentage points).
Among all patients, the death rate in the field increased 11.4 percentage points during the outbreak, from 77.3% in 2019 to 88.7% in 2020.
The cumulative incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 2020 was “strongly associated” with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91) and the spike in cases “followed the time course of the COVID-19 outbreak,” the researchers noted.
A total of 103 patients, who arrested out of hospital and were diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, “account for 77.4% of the increase in cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest observed in these provinces in 2020,” the investigators noted.
As the pandemic has taken hold, hospitals and physicians across the United States are also voicing concerns about the drop in the number of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.
Nearly one-third of Americans (29%) report having delayed or avoided medical care because of concerns of catching COVID-19, according to a new poll released April 28 from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Morning Consult, a global data research firm.
Despite many emergency departments reporting a decline in patient volume, 74% of respondents said they were worried about hospital wait times and overcrowding. Another 59% expressed concerns about being turned away from the hospital or doctor’s office.
At the same time, the survey found strong support for emergency physicians and 73% of respondents said they were concerned about overstressing the health care system.
The drop-off in Americans seeking care for MI and strokes nationally prompted eight professional societies – including ACEP, the American Heart Association, and the Association of Black Cardiologists – to issue a joint statement urging those experiencing symptoms to call 911 and seek care for these life-threatening events.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests increased 58% during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the hard-hit region of Lombardy, Italy, compared with the same period last year, a new analysis shows.
During the first 40 days of the outbreak beginning Feb. 21, four provinces in northern Italy reported 362 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with 229 during the same period in 2019.
The increases in these provinces varied in magnitude from 18% in Mantua, where there were 1,688 confirmed COVID-19 cases, to 187% in Lodi, which had 2,116 COVID-19 cases. The Cremona province, which had the highest number of COVID-19 cases at 3,869, saw a 143% increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.
The mortality rate in the field was 14.9 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019 among patients in whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency medical services (EMS), Enrico Baldi, MD, University of Pavia, Italy, and colleagues reported in a letter April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“The sex and age of the patients were similar in the 2020 and 2019 periods, but in 2020, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to a medical cause was 6.5 percentage points higher, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home was 7.3 percentage points higher, and the incidence of unwitnessed cardiac arrest was 11.3 percentage points higher,” the authors wrote.
Patients were also less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation from bystanders in 2020 vs 2019 (–15.6 percentage points) and were more likely to die before reaching the hospital when resuscitation was attempted by EMS (+14.9 percentage points).
Among all patients, the death rate in the field increased 11.4 percentage points during the outbreak, from 77.3% in 2019 to 88.7% in 2020.
The cumulative incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 2020 was “strongly associated” with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91) and the spike in cases “followed the time course of the COVID-19 outbreak,” the researchers noted.
A total of 103 patients, who arrested out of hospital and were diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, “account for 77.4% of the increase in cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest observed in these provinces in 2020,” the investigators noted.
As the pandemic has taken hold, hospitals and physicians across the United States are also voicing concerns about the drop in the number of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.
Nearly one-third of Americans (29%) report having delayed or avoided medical care because of concerns of catching COVID-19, according to a new poll released April 28 from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Morning Consult, a global data research firm.
Despite many emergency departments reporting a decline in patient volume, 74% of respondents said they were worried about hospital wait times and overcrowding. Another 59% expressed concerns about being turned away from the hospital or doctor’s office.
At the same time, the survey found strong support for emergency physicians and 73% of respondents said they were concerned about overstressing the health care system.
The drop-off in Americans seeking care for MI and strokes nationally prompted eight professional societies – including ACEP, the American Heart Association, and the Association of Black Cardiologists – to issue a joint statement urging those experiencing symptoms to call 911 and seek care for these life-threatening events.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests increased 58% during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the hard-hit region of Lombardy, Italy, compared with the same period last year, a new analysis shows.
During the first 40 days of the outbreak beginning Feb. 21, four provinces in northern Italy reported 362 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with 229 during the same period in 2019.
The increases in these provinces varied in magnitude from 18% in Mantua, where there were 1,688 confirmed COVID-19 cases, to 187% in Lodi, which had 2,116 COVID-19 cases. The Cremona province, which had the highest number of COVID-19 cases at 3,869, saw a 143% increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.
The mortality rate in the field was 14.9 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019 among patients in whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency medical services (EMS), Enrico Baldi, MD, University of Pavia, Italy, and colleagues reported in a letter April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“The sex and age of the patients were similar in the 2020 and 2019 periods, but in 2020, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to a medical cause was 6.5 percentage points higher, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home was 7.3 percentage points higher, and the incidence of unwitnessed cardiac arrest was 11.3 percentage points higher,” the authors wrote.
Patients were also less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation from bystanders in 2020 vs 2019 (–15.6 percentage points) and were more likely to die before reaching the hospital when resuscitation was attempted by EMS (+14.9 percentage points).
Among all patients, the death rate in the field increased 11.4 percentage points during the outbreak, from 77.3% in 2019 to 88.7% in 2020.
The cumulative incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 2020 was “strongly associated” with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91) and the spike in cases “followed the time course of the COVID-19 outbreak,” the researchers noted.
A total of 103 patients, who arrested out of hospital and were diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, “account for 77.4% of the increase in cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest observed in these provinces in 2020,” the investigators noted.
As the pandemic has taken hold, hospitals and physicians across the United States are also voicing concerns about the drop in the number of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.
Nearly one-third of Americans (29%) report having delayed or avoided medical care because of concerns of catching COVID-19, according to a new poll released April 28 from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Morning Consult, a global data research firm.
Despite many emergency departments reporting a decline in patient volume, 74% of respondents said they were worried about hospital wait times and overcrowding. Another 59% expressed concerns about being turned away from the hospital or doctor’s office.
At the same time, the survey found strong support for emergency physicians and 73% of respondents said they were concerned about overstressing the health care system.
The drop-off in Americans seeking care for MI and strokes nationally prompted eight professional societies – including ACEP, the American Heart Association, and the Association of Black Cardiologists – to issue a joint statement urging those experiencing symptoms to call 911 and seek care for these life-threatening events.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19: Addressing the mental health needs of clinicians
SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, continues to spread around the world with a devastating social and economic impact. Undoubtedly, health care workers are essential to overcoming this crisis. If these issues are left unaddressed, low morale, burnout, or absenteeism could lead to the collapse of health care systems.
Historically, the health care industry has been one of the most hazardous environments in which to work. Employees in this industry are constantly exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards.
Particularly, risks from biological exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, and currently COVID-19 are taking a considerable toll on health care workers’ health and well-being. Health care workers are leaving their families to work extra shifts, dealing with limited resources, and navigating the chaos. On top of all that, they are sacrificing their lives through these uncertain times.
Despite their resilience, health care workers – like the general population – can have strong psychological reactions of anxiety and fear during a pandemic. Still, they are required to continue their work amid uncertainty and danger.
Current research studies on COVID-19
Several studies have identified the impact of working in this type of environment during previous pandemics and disasters. In a study of hospital employees in China during the SARS epidemic (2002-2003), Ping Wu, PhD, and colleagues found that 10% of the participants experienced high levels of posttraumatic stress.1 In a similar study in Taiwan, researchers found that 17.3% of employees had developed significant mental health symptoms during the SARS outbreak.2
The impact of COVID-19 on health care workers seems to be much worse. A recent study from China indicates that 50.4% of hospital employees showed signs of depression, 44.6% had anxiety, and 34% had insomnia.3
Another recent cross-sectional study conducted by Lijun Kang, PhD, and associates evaluated the impact on mental health among health care workers in Wuhan, China, during the COVID-19 outbreak. This was the first study on the mental health of health care workers. This study recruited health care workers in Wuhan to participate in the survey from Jan. 29 to Feb. 4, 2020. The data were collected online with an anonymous, self-rated questionnaire that was distributed to all workstations. All subjects provided informed consent electronically prior to participating in the survey.
The survey questionnaire was made up of six components: primary demographic data, mental health assessment, risks of direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19, mental health care services accessed, psychological needs, and self-perceived health status, compared with that before the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 994 health care workers responded to this survey, and the results are fascinating: 36.9% had subthreshold mental health distress (mean Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score, 2.4), 34.4% reported mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9, 5.4), 22.4% had moderate (mean PHQ-9, 9.0), and 6.2% reported severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9, 15.1). In this study, young women experienced more significant psychological distress. Regarding access to mental health services, 36.3% reported access to psychological materials, such as books on mental health; 50.4% used psychological resources available through media, such as online self-help coping methods; and 17.5% participated in counseling or psychotherapy.4
These findings emphasize the importance of being equipped to ensure the health and safety of health care workers through mental health interventions, both at work and in the community during this time of anxiety and uncertainty.
Future studies will become more critical in addressing this issue.
Risks to clinicians, families prevail
According to a recent report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 9,000 health care workers across the United States had contracted COVID-19 as of mid-April, and 27 had died since the start of the pandemic.5
Health care workers are at risk around the globe, not only by the nature of their jobs but also by the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition, the scarcity of N95 masks, respirators, and COVID-19 testing programs is causing the virus to spread among health care workers all over the world.
A study published recently by Celso Arango, MD, PhD, reported that 18% of staff at a hospital in Madrid had been infected with COVID-19. Dr. Arango speculated that transmission might be attributable to interactions with colleagues rather than with patients.6 We know, for example, that large proportions of people in China reportedly carried the virus while being asymptomatic.7 Those findings might not be generalizable, but they do suggest that an asymptomatic person could be a cause of contagion among professionals. Therefore, early screening and testing are critical – and should be priorities in health care settings.
Another problem clinicians can encounter is that, when they are called on to deal with very agitated patients, they might not get enough time to put on PPE. In addition, PPE can easily break and tear during the physical restraint process.
Working long hours is also putting a significant strain on health care workers and exposes them to the risk of infection. Also, health care workers not only worry about their safety but also fear bringing the virus to their families. They can also feel guilty about their conflicting feelings about exposing themselves and their families to risk. It is quite possible that, during this COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers will face a “care paradox,” in which they must choose between patients’ safety and their own. This care paradox can significantly contribute to a feeling of burnout, stress, and anxiety. Ultimately, this pandemic could lead to attrition from the field at a time when we most need all hands on deck.8
Further, according to a World Health Organization report on mental health and psychosocial consideration during the COVID-19 outbreak, some health care workers, unfortunately, experience avoidance by their family members or communities because of stigma, fear, and anxiety. This avoidance threatens to make an already challenging situation far worse for health care workers by increasing isolation.
Even after acute outbreak are over, the effects on health care workers can persist for years. In a follow-up study 13-26 months after the SARS outbreak, Robert G. Maunder, MD, and associates found that Toronto-area health care workers reported significantly higher levels of burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic stress. They were more likely to have reduced patient contact and work hours, and to have avoided behavioral consequences of stress.9 Exposure to stressful work conditions during a pandemic also might put hospital employees at a much higher risk of alcohol and substance use disorders.10
Potential solutions for improving care
COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the mental health of health care workers around the globe. Fortunately, there are evidence-based strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of this pandemic on health care workers. Fostering self-efficacy and optimism has been shown to improve coping and efficiency during disasters.9 Higher perceived workplace safety is associated with a lower risk of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress among health care workers, while a lack of social support has been linked to adverse behavioral outcomes.10
A recent study found that, among Chinese physicians who cared for COVID-19 victims, more significant social support was associated with better sleep quality, greater self-effectiveness, and less psychological distress.11 Positive leadership and a professional culture of trust, and openness with unambiguous communication have been shown to improve the engagement of the medical workforce.12,13 Psychiatrists must advocate for the adoption of these practices in the workplace. Assessing and addressing mental health needs, in addition to the physical health of the health care workforce, is of utmost importance.
We can accomplish this in many ways, but we have to access our health care workers. Similar to our patient population, health care workers also experience stigma and anxiety tied to the disclosure of mental health challenges. This was reported in a study conducted in China, in which a specific psychological intervention using a hotline program was used for the medical team.14 This program provided psychological interventions/group activities aimed at releasing stress and anxiety. However, initially, the implementation of psychological interventions encountered obstacles.
For example, some members of the medical staff declined to participate in group or individual psychological interventions. Moreover, nurses showed irritability, unwillingness to join, and some staff refused, stating that “they did not have any problems.” Finally, psychological counselors regularly visited the facility to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff participated and reported feeling better.15
Currently, several U.S. universities/institutes have implemented programs aimed at protecting the health and well-being of their staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Hackensack Meridian Health has put comprehensive system programs in place for at 16 affiliated medical centers and other patient care facilities to provide support during the COVID-19 crisis. A 24/7 team member support hotline connecting team members with a behavioral health specialist has become available when needed. This hotline is backed up by social workers, who provide mental health resources. In addition, another service called “Coping with COVID Talks” is available. This service is a virtual psychoeducational group facilitated by psychologists focusing on building coping skills and resilience.
Also, the consultation-liaison psychiatrists in the medical centers provide daily support to clinicians working in ICUs. These efforts have led to paradoxical benefits for employers, further leading to less commuting, more safety, and enhanced productivity for the clinician, according to Ramon Solhkhah, MD, MBA, chairman of the psychiatry department.16
Some universities, such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have created mental health/telehealth support for health care workers, where they are conducting webinars on coping with uncertainty tied to COVID-19.17 The University of California, San Francisco, also has been a leader in this effort. That institution has employed its psychiatric workforce as volunteers – encouraging health care workers to use digital health apps and referral resources. Also, these volunteers provide peer counseling, phone support, and spiritual counseling to their health care workers.18
These approaches are crucial in this uncertain, challenging time. Our mental health system is deeply flawed, understaffed, and not well prepared to manage the mental health issues among health care workers. Psychiatric institutes/facilities should follow comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to combat the COVID-19 crisis. Several preventive measures can be considered in coping with this pandemic, such as stress reduction, mindfulness, and disseminating educational materials. Also, increased use of technology, such as in-the-moment measures, development of hotlines, crisis support, and treatment telepsychiatry for therapy and medication, should play a pivotal role in addressing the mental health needs of health care workers.
In addition, it is expected that, as a nation, we will see a surge of mental health needs for illnesses such as depression and PTSD, just as we do after “natural disasters” caused by a variety of reasons, including economic downturns. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, health care workers showed symptoms of PTSD. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a similar impact.
The severity of mental health challenges among clinicians cannot be predicted at this time, but we can speculate that the traumatic impact of COVID-19 will prove long lasting, particularly among clinicians who served vulnerable populations and witnessed suffering, misery, and deaths. The long-term consequences might range from stress and anxiety to fear, depression, and PTSD. Implementation of mental health programs/psychological interventions/support will reduce the impact of mental health issues among these clinicians.
We must think about the best ways to optimize mental health among health care workers while also come up with innovative ways to target this at-risk group. The mental health of people who are saving lives – our frontline heroes – should be taken into consideration seriously around the globe. We also must prioritize the mental health of these workers during this unprecedented, challenging, and anxiety-provoking time.
Dr. Malik and Mr. Van Wert are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Kumari, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Doumas, and Dr. Solhkhah are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. All six authors disclosed having no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Vinay Kumar for his assistance with the literature review and for proofreading and editing this article.
References
1. Wu P et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302-11.
2. Lu YC et al. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(6):370-5.
3. Lai J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e203976.
4. Kang L et al. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):477-81.
6. Arango C. Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.04.003.
7. Day M. BMJ. 2020 Apr 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1375.
8. Kirsch T. “Coronavirus, COVID-19: What happens if health care workers stop showing up?” The Atlantic. 2020 Mar 24.
9. Maunder RG et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924-32.
10. Wu P et al. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43(6):706-12.
11. Brooks SK et al. BMC Psychol. 2016 Apr 26;4:18.
12. Smith BW et al. Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37:371-80.
13. Chen Q et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;7(14):PE15-6.
14. Xiao H et al. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549.
15. Bergus GR et al. Acad Med. 2001;76:1148-52.
16. Bergeron T. “Working from home will be stressful. Here’s how employees (and employers) can handle it.” roi-nj.com. 2020 Mar 23.
17. UNChealthcare.org. “Mental Health/Emotional Support Resources for Coworkers and Providers Coping with COVID-19.”
18. Psych.ucsf.edu/coronoavirus. “Resources to Support Your Mental Health During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”
SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, continues to spread around the world with a devastating social and economic impact. Undoubtedly, health care workers are essential to overcoming this crisis. If these issues are left unaddressed, low morale, burnout, or absenteeism could lead to the collapse of health care systems.
Historically, the health care industry has been one of the most hazardous environments in which to work. Employees in this industry are constantly exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards.
Particularly, risks from biological exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, and currently COVID-19 are taking a considerable toll on health care workers’ health and well-being. Health care workers are leaving their families to work extra shifts, dealing with limited resources, and navigating the chaos. On top of all that, they are sacrificing their lives through these uncertain times.
Despite their resilience, health care workers – like the general population – can have strong psychological reactions of anxiety and fear during a pandemic. Still, they are required to continue their work amid uncertainty and danger.
Current research studies on COVID-19
Several studies have identified the impact of working in this type of environment during previous pandemics and disasters. In a study of hospital employees in China during the SARS epidemic (2002-2003), Ping Wu, PhD, and colleagues found that 10% of the participants experienced high levels of posttraumatic stress.1 In a similar study in Taiwan, researchers found that 17.3% of employees had developed significant mental health symptoms during the SARS outbreak.2
The impact of COVID-19 on health care workers seems to be much worse. A recent study from China indicates that 50.4% of hospital employees showed signs of depression, 44.6% had anxiety, and 34% had insomnia.3
Another recent cross-sectional study conducted by Lijun Kang, PhD, and associates evaluated the impact on mental health among health care workers in Wuhan, China, during the COVID-19 outbreak. This was the first study on the mental health of health care workers. This study recruited health care workers in Wuhan to participate in the survey from Jan. 29 to Feb. 4, 2020. The data were collected online with an anonymous, self-rated questionnaire that was distributed to all workstations. All subjects provided informed consent electronically prior to participating in the survey.
The survey questionnaire was made up of six components: primary demographic data, mental health assessment, risks of direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19, mental health care services accessed, psychological needs, and self-perceived health status, compared with that before the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 994 health care workers responded to this survey, and the results are fascinating: 36.9% had subthreshold mental health distress (mean Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score, 2.4), 34.4% reported mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9, 5.4), 22.4% had moderate (mean PHQ-9, 9.0), and 6.2% reported severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9, 15.1). In this study, young women experienced more significant psychological distress. Regarding access to mental health services, 36.3% reported access to psychological materials, such as books on mental health; 50.4% used psychological resources available through media, such as online self-help coping methods; and 17.5% participated in counseling or psychotherapy.4
These findings emphasize the importance of being equipped to ensure the health and safety of health care workers through mental health interventions, both at work and in the community during this time of anxiety and uncertainty.
Future studies will become more critical in addressing this issue.
Risks to clinicians, families prevail
According to a recent report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 9,000 health care workers across the United States had contracted COVID-19 as of mid-April, and 27 had died since the start of the pandemic.5
Health care workers are at risk around the globe, not only by the nature of their jobs but also by the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition, the scarcity of N95 masks, respirators, and COVID-19 testing programs is causing the virus to spread among health care workers all over the world.
A study published recently by Celso Arango, MD, PhD, reported that 18% of staff at a hospital in Madrid had been infected with COVID-19. Dr. Arango speculated that transmission might be attributable to interactions with colleagues rather than with patients.6 We know, for example, that large proportions of people in China reportedly carried the virus while being asymptomatic.7 Those findings might not be generalizable, but they do suggest that an asymptomatic person could be a cause of contagion among professionals. Therefore, early screening and testing are critical – and should be priorities in health care settings.
Another problem clinicians can encounter is that, when they are called on to deal with very agitated patients, they might not get enough time to put on PPE. In addition, PPE can easily break and tear during the physical restraint process.
Working long hours is also putting a significant strain on health care workers and exposes them to the risk of infection. Also, health care workers not only worry about their safety but also fear bringing the virus to their families. They can also feel guilty about their conflicting feelings about exposing themselves and their families to risk. It is quite possible that, during this COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers will face a “care paradox,” in which they must choose between patients’ safety and their own. This care paradox can significantly contribute to a feeling of burnout, stress, and anxiety. Ultimately, this pandemic could lead to attrition from the field at a time when we most need all hands on deck.8
Further, according to a World Health Organization report on mental health and psychosocial consideration during the COVID-19 outbreak, some health care workers, unfortunately, experience avoidance by their family members or communities because of stigma, fear, and anxiety. This avoidance threatens to make an already challenging situation far worse for health care workers by increasing isolation.
Even after acute outbreak are over, the effects on health care workers can persist for years. In a follow-up study 13-26 months after the SARS outbreak, Robert G. Maunder, MD, and associates found that Toronto-area health care workers reported significantly higher levels of burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic stress. They were more likely to have reduced patient contact and work hours, and to have avoided behavioral consequences of stress.9 Exposure to stressful work conditions during a pandemic also might put hospital employees at a much higher risk of alcohol and substance use disorders.10
Potential solutions for improving care
COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the mental health of health care workers around the globe. Fortunately, there are evidence-based strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of this pandemic on health care workers. Fostering self-efficacy and optimism has been shown to improve coping and efficiency during disasters.9 Higher perceived workplace safety is associated with a lower risk of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress among health care workers, while a lack of social support has been linked to adverse behavioral outcomes.10
A recent study found that, among Chinese physicians who cared for COVID-19 victims, more significant social support was associated with better sleep quality, greater self-effectiveness, and less psychological distress.11 Positive leadership and a professional culture of trust, and openness with unambiguous communication have been shown to improve the engagement of the medical workforce.12,13 Psychiatrists must advocate for the adoption of these practices in the workplace. Assessing and addressing mental health needs, in addition to the physical health of the health care workforce, is of utmost importance.
We can accomplish this in many ways, but we have to access our health care workers. Similar to our patient population, health care workers also experience stigma and anxiety tied to the disclosure of mental health challenges. This was reported in a study conducted in China, in which a specific psychological intervention using a hotline program was used for the medical team.14 This program provided psychological interventions/group activities aimed at releasing stress and anxiety. However, initially, the implementation of psychological interventions encountered obstacles.
For example, some members of the medical staff declined to participate in group or individual psychological interventions. Moreover, nurses showed irritability, unwillingness to join, and some staff refused, stating that “they did not have any problems.” Finally, psychological counselors regularly visited the facility to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff participated and reported feeling better.15
Currently, several U.S. universities/institutes have implemented programs aimed at protecting the health and well-being of their staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Hackensack Meridian Health has put comprehensive system programs in place for at 16 affiliated medical centers and other patient care facilities to provide support during the COVID-19 crisis. A 24/7 team member support hotline connecting team members with a behavioral health specialist has become available when needed. This hotline is backed up by social workers, who provide mental health resources. In addition, another service called “Coping with COVID Talks” is available. This service is a virtual psychoeducational group facilitated by psychologists focusing on building coping skills and resilience.
Also, the consultation-liaison psychiatrists in the medical centers provide daily support to clinicians working in ICUs. These efforts have led to paradoxical benefits for employers, further leading to less commuting, more safety, and enhanced productivity for the clinician, according to Ramon Solhkhah, MD, MBA, chairman of the psychiatry department.16
Some universities, such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have created mental health/telehealth support for health care workers, where they are conducting webinars on coping with uncertainty tied to COVID-19.17 The University of California, San Francisco, also has been a leader in this effort. That institution has employed its psychiatric workforce as volunteers – encouraging health care workers to use digital health apps and referral resources. Also, these volunteers provide peer counseling, phone support, and spiritual counseling to their health care workers.18
These approaches are crucial in this uncertain, challenging time. Our mental health system is deeply flawed, understaffed, and not well prepared to manage the mental health issues among health care workers. Psychiatric institutes/facilities should follow comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to combat the COVID-19 crisis. Several preventive measures can be considered in coping with this pandemic, such as stress reduction, mindfulness, and disseminating educational materials. Also, increased use of technology, such as in-the-moment measures, development of hotlines, crisis support, and treatment telepsychiatry for therapy and medication, should play a pivotal role in addressing the mental health needs of health care workers.
In addition, it is expected that, as a nation, we will see a surge of mental health needs for illnesses such as depression and PTSD, just as we do after “natural disasters” caused by a variety of reasons, including economic downturns. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, health care workers showed symptoms of PTSD. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a similar impact.
The severity of mental health challenges among clinicians cannot be predicted at this time, but we can speculate that the traumatic impact of COVID-19 will prove long lasting, particularly among clinicians who served vulnerable populations and witnessed suffering, misery, and deaths. The long-term consequences might range from stress and anxiety to fear, depression, and PTSD. Implementation of mental health programs/psychological interventions/support will reduce the impact of mental health issues among these clinicians.
We must think about the best ways to optimize mental health among health care workers while also come up with innovative ways to target this at-risk group. The mental health of people who are saving lives – our frontline heroes – should be taken into consideration seriously around the globe. We also must prioritize the mental health of these workers during this unprecedented, challenging, and anxiety-provoking time.
Dr. Malik and Mr. Van Wert are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Kumari, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Doumas, and Dr. Solhkhah are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. All six authors disclosed having no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Vinay Kumar for his assistance with the literature review and for proofreading and editing this article.
References
1. Wu P et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302-11.
2. Lu YC et al. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(6):370-5.
3. Lai J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e203976.
4. Kang L et al. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):477-81.
6. Arango C. Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.04.003.
7. Day M. BMJ. 2020 Apr 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1375.
8. Kirsch T. “Coronavirus, COVID-19: What happens if health care workers stop showing up?” The Atlantic. 2020 Mar 24.
9. Maunder RG et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924-32.
10. Wu P et al. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43(6):706-12.
11. Brooks SK et al. BMC Psychol. 2016 Apr 26;4:18.
12. Smith BW et al. Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37:371-80.
13. Chen Q et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;7(14):PE15-6.
14. Xiao H et al. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549.
15. Bergus GR et al. Acad Med. 2001;76:1148-52.
16. Bergeron T. “Working from home will be stressful. Here’s how employees (and employers) can handle it.” roi-nj.com. 2020 Mar 23.
17. UNChealthcare.org. “Mental Health/Emotional Support Resources for Coworkers and Providers Coping with COVID-19.”
18. Psych.ucsf.edu/coronoavirus. “Resources to Support Your Mental Health During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”
SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, continues to spread around the world with a devastating social and economic impact. Undoubtedly, health care workers are essential to overcoming this crisis. If these issues are left unaddressed, low morale, burnout, or absenteeism could lead to the collapse of health care systems.
Historically, the health care industry has been one of the most hazardous environments in which to work. Employees in this industry are constantly exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards.
Particularly, risks from biological exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, and currently COVID-19 are taking a considerable toll on health care workers’ health and well-being. Health care workers are leaving their families to work extra shifts, dealing with limited resources, and navigating the chaos. On top of all that, they are sacrificing their lives through these uncertain times.
Despite their resilience, health care workers – like the general population – can have strong psychological reactions of anxiety and fear during a pandemic. Still, they are required to continue their work amid uncertainty and danger.
Current research studies on COVID-19
Several studies have identified the impact of working in this type of environment during previous pandemics and disasters. In a study of hospital employees in China during the SARS epidemic (2002-2003), Ping Wu, PhD, and colleagues found that 10% of the participants experienced high levels of posttraumatic stress.1 In a similar study in Taiwan, researchers found that 17.3% of employees had developed significant mental health symptoms during the SARS outbreak.2
The impact of COVID-19 on health care workers seems to be much worse. A recent study from China indicates that 50.4% of hospital employees showed signs of depression, 44.6% had anxiety, and 34% had insomnia.3
Another recent cross-sectional study conducted by Lijun Kang, PhD, and associates evaluated the impact on mental health among health care workers in Wuhan, China, during the COVID-19 outbreak. This was the first study on the mental health of health care workers. This study recruited health care workers in Wuhan to participate in the survey from Jan. 29 to Feb. 4, 2020. The data were collected online with an anonymous, self-rated questionnaire that was distributed to all workstations. All subjects provided informed consent electronically prior to participating in the survey.
The survey questionnaire was made up of six components: primary demographic data, mental health assessment, risks of direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19, mental health care services accessed, psychological needs, and self-perceived health status, compared with that before the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 994 health care workers responded to this survey, and the results are fascinating: 36.9% had subthreshold mental health distress (mean Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score, 2.4), 34.4% reported mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9, 5.4), 22.4% had moderate (mean PHQ-9, 9.0), and 6.2% reported severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9, 15.1). In this study, young women experienced more significant psychological distress. Regarding access to mental health services, 36.3% reported access to psychological materials, such as books on mental health; 50.4% used psychological resources available through media, such as online self-help coping methods; and 17.5% participated in counseling or psychotherapy.4
These findings emphasize the importance of being equipped to ensure the health and safety of health care workers through mental health interventions, both at work and in the community during this time of anxiety and uncertainty.
Future studies will become more critical in addressing this issue.
Risks to clinicians, families prevail
According to a recent report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 9,000 health care workers across the United States had contracted COVID-19 as of mid-April, and 27 had died since the start of the pandemic.5
Health care workers are at risk around the globe, not only by the nature of their jobs but also by the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition, the scarcity of N95 masks, respirators, and COVID-19 testing programs is causing the virus to spread among health care workers all over the world.
A study published recently by Celso Arango, MD, PhD, reported that 18% of staff at a hospital in Madrid had been infected with COVID-19. Dr. Arango speculated that transmission might be attributable to interactions with colleagues rather than with patients.6 We know, for example, that large proportions of people in China reportedly carried the virus while being asymptomatic.7 Those findings might not be generalizable, but they do suggest that an asymptomatic person could be a cause of contagion among professionals. Therefore, early screening and testing are critical – and should be priorities in health care settings.
Another problem clinicians can encounter is that, when they are called on to deal with very agitated patients, they might not get enough time to put on PPE. In addition, PPE can easily break and tear during the physical restraint process.
Working long hours is also putting a significant strain on health care workers and exposes them to the risk of infection. Also, health care workers not only worry about their safety but also fear bringing the virus to their families. They can also feel guilty about their conflicting feelings about exposing themselves and their families to risk. It is quite possible that, during this COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers will face a “care paradox,” in which they must choose between patients’ safety and their own. This care paradox can significantly contribute to a feeling of burnout, stress, and anxiety. Ultimately, this pandemic could lead to attrition from the field at a time when we most need all hands on deck.8
Further, according to a World Health Organization report on mental health and psychosocial consideration during the COVID-19 outbreak, some health care workers, unfortunately, experience avoidance by their family members or communities because of stigma, fear, and anxiety. This avoidance threatens to make an already challenging situation far worse for health care workers by increasing isolation.
Even after acute outbreak are over, the effects on health care workers can persist for years. In a follow-up study 13-26 months after the SARS outbreak, Robert G. Maunder, MD, and associates found that Toronto-area health care workers reported significantly higher levels of burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic stress. They were more likely to have reduced patient contact and work hours, and to have avoided behavioral consequences of stress.9 Exposure to stressful work conditions during a pandemic also might put hospital employees at a much higher risk of alcohol and substance use disorders.10
Potential solutions for improving care
COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the mental health of health care workers around the globe. Fortunately, there are evidence-based strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of this pandemic on health care workers. Fostering self-efficacy and optimism has been shown to improve coping and efficiency during disasters.9 Higher perceived workplace safety is associated with a lower risk of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress among health care workers, while a lack of social support has been linked to adverse behavioral outcomes.10
A recent study found that, among Chinese physicians who cared for COVID-19 victims, more significant social support was associated with better sleep quality, greater self-effectiveness, and less psychological distress.11 Positive leadership and a professional culture of trust, and openness with unambiguous communication have been shown to improve the engagement of the medical workforce.12,13 Psychiatrists must advocate for the adoption of these practices in the workplace. Assessing and addressing mental health needs, in addition to the physical health of the health care workforce, is of utmost importance.
We can accomplish this in many ways, but we have to access our health care workers. Similar to our patient population, health care workers also experience stigma and anxiety tied to the disclosure of mental health challenges. This was reported in a study conducted in China, in which a specific psychological intervention using a hotline program was used for the medical team.14 This program provided psychological interventions/group activities aimed at releasing stress and anxiety. However, initially, the implementation of psychological interventions encountered obstacles.
For example, some members of the medical staff declined to participate in group or individual psychological interventions. Moreover, nurses showed irritability, unwillingness to join, and some staff refused, stating that “they did not have any problems.” Finally, psychological counselors regularly visited the facility to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff participated and reported feeling better.15
Currently, several U.S. universities/institutes have implemented programs aimed at protecting the health and well-being of their staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Hackensack Meridian Health has put comprehensive system programs in place for at 16 affiliated medical centers and other patient care facilities to provide support during the COVID-19 crisis. A 24/7 team member support hotline connecting team members with a behavioral health specialist has become available when needed. This hotline is backed up by social workers, who provide mental health resources. In addition, another service called “Coping with COVID Talks” is available. This service is a virtual psychoeducational group facilitated by psychologists focusing on building coping skills and resilience.
Also, the consultation-liaison psychiatrists in the medical centers provide daily support to clinicians working in ICUs. These efforts have led to paradoxical benefits for employers, further leading to less commuting, more safety, and enhanced productivity for the clinician, according to Ramon Solhkhah, MD, MBA, chairman of the psychiatry department.16
Some universities, such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have created mental health/telehealth support for health care workers, where they are conducting webinars on coping with uncertainty tied to COVID-19.17 The University of California, San Francisco, also has been a leader in this effort. That institution has employed its psychiatric workforce as volunteers – encouraging health care workers to use digital health apps and referral resources. Also, these volunteers provide peer counseling, phone support, and spiritual counseling to their health care workers.18
These approaches are crucial in this uncertain, challenging time. Our mental health system is deeply flawed, understaffed, and not well prepared to manage the mental health issues among health care workers. Psychiatric institutes/facilities should follow comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to combat the COVID-19 crisis. Several preventive measures can be considered in coping with this pandemic, such as stress reduction, mindfulness, and disseminating educational materials. Also, increased use of technology, such as in-the-moment measures, development of hotlines, crisis support, and treatment telepsychiatry for therapy and medication, should play a pivotal role in addressing the mental health needs of health care workers.
In addition, it is expected that, as a nation, we will see a surge of mental health needs for illnesses such as depression and PTSD, just as we do after “natural disasters” caused by a variety of reasons, including economic downturns. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, health care workers showed symptoms of PTSD. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a similar impact.
The severity of mental health challenges among clinicians cannot be predicted at this time, but we can speculate that the traumatic impact of COVID-19 will prove long lasting, particularly among clinicians who served vulnerable populations and witnessed suffering, misery, and deaths. The long-term consequences might range from stress and anxiety to fear, depression, and PTSD. Implementation of mental health programs/psychological interventions/support will reduce the impact of mental health issues among these clinicians.
We must think about the best ways to optimize mental health among health care workers while also come up with innovative ways to target this at-risk group. The mental health of people who are saving lives – our frontline heroes – should be taken into consideration seriously around the globe. We also must prioritize the mental health of these workers during this unprecedented, challenging, and anxiety-provoking time.
Dr. Malik and Mr. Van Wert are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Kumari, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Doumas, and Dr. Solhkhah are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. All six authors disclosed having no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Vinay Kumar for his assistance with the literature review and for proofreading and editing this article.
References
1. Wu P et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302-11.
2. Lu YC et al. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(6):370-5.
3. Lai J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e203976.
4. Kang L et al. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):477-81.
6. Arango C. Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.04.003.
7. Day M. BMJ. 2020 Apr 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1375.
8. Kirsch T. “Coronavirus, COVID-19: What happens if health care workers stop showing up?” The Atlantic. 2020 Mar 24.
9. Maunder RG et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924-32.
10. Wu P et al. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43(6):706-12.
11. Brooks SK et al. BMC Psychol. 2016 Apr 26;4:18.
12. Smith BW et al. Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37:371-80.
13. Chen Q et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;7(14):PE15-6.
14. Xiao H et al. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549.
15. Bergus GR et al. Acad Med. 2001;76:1148-52.
16. Bergeron T. “Working from home will be stressful. Here’s how employees (and employers) can handle it.” roi-nj.com. 2020 Mar 23.
17. UNChealthcare.org. “Mental Health/Emotional Support Resources for Coworkers and Providers Coping with COVID-19.”
18. Psych.ucsf.edu/coronoavirus. “Resources to Support Your Mental Health During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”
Novel immune activator boosts immunotherapy benefit in TNBC
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a particularly aggressive form of this disease, with a poor prognosis, so there is great interest in any new treatment approach. Immunotherapy has raised hopes in TNBC, but more recently, studies have produced conflicting results.
New results show that adding a novel immune activator, Imprime PGG (Biothera), to immunotherapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) appears to improve the clinical benefit. The overall survival seen with the combination was twice that seen in a separate trial with pembrolizumab alone.
The new results were presented during the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) virtual annual meeting I.
They come from the IMPRIME 1 trial, conducted in 44 women with metastatic TNBC who had anti-glucan antibodies.
“These were patients who had had prior chemotherapy and had extensive disease, including the majority with visceral disease and even liver metastasis,” said investigator Steven O’Day, MD, from the John Wayne Cancer Institute in Santa Monica, California.
All patients were treated with the combination. “We see encouraging clinical benefit evidence across all of our clinical measurements: response, durable response, and median and overall survival compared to historical single-agent [anti] PD-1 in a similar metastatic triple-negative breast cancer population,” he said.
At a median follow-up of 22.5 months, median overall survival with the combination among the 44 patients treated was 16.4 months.
In contrast, in the Keynote-086 trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with TNBC, median overall survival was 9 months, O’Day said.
He emphasized, however, that the IMPRIME 1 trial was not designed or powered to directly compare the combination therapy with pembrolizumab monotherapy.
Clinical benefit with the combination was particularly pronounced for patients who were so-called TNBC “converters” — that is, they originally had estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors that had progressed on endocrine therapy and, prior to starting treatment with Imprime PGG and pembrolizumab, they had biopsy results confirming TNBC, O’Day said.
The overall response rate (ORR) for all 44 patients included in the efficacy analysis was 15.9%. But among the 12 patients whose disease converted from ER-positive to TNBC after endocrine therapy, six had a response, for an ORR of 50% and a median overall survival of 17.1 months.
“It is not clear whether hormone resistance may have led to the increased responses versus secondary triple-negative status, but it is of great interest to us,” O’Day said.
Why This Special Benefit?
Invited discussant Ben Ho Park, MD, PhD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, commented that the finding of special benefit among TNBC converters raises the question of biomarkers to determine which patients might most benefit from the combination.
“We already know that anti-beta-glucan antibodies were required to be actually eligible for this study, but is it that, in combination with immune activation, or prior ER-positive disease?” he said. “What about the role of PD-L1 staining? Can we actually combine all this data to come up with some sort of predictive score for whether or not a patient is more or less likely to respond, and more or less likely to have toxicities?”
Yeast-Derived Compound
Imprime PGG is a novel beta-glucan isolated from the cell walls of saccharomyces yeast that binds to endogenous anti-beta-glucan antibodies to form an immune complex.
The immune complex, which is the active drug, binds to a receptor known as dectin-1 to activate innate immunity and reprogram the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, enhance antigen presentation, and trigger T-cell activation to improve the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, O’Day explained.
The complex has been administered to date to approximately 600 healthy volunteers and patients. In these studies, it was administered intravenously at doses of 2 mg/kg to 6 mg/kg weekly as monotherapy or in combination with anti-angiogenic antibodies or tumor-targeting antibodies, with or without chemotherapy.
Studies in volunteers showed that the complex activated innate immunity. Patients have tolerated it well, with no significant safety signals in either monotherapy or combination, with grade 1 or 2 infusion-related reactions being the most common adverse events to date, O’Day reported.
Study Details
Imprime 1 was a single-arm phase 2 trial enrolling 44 women with TNBC who had received at least one prior line of treatment, but not with an immune checkpoint inhibitor. They were all required to have anti-beta-glucan antibody levels of at least 20 mcg/mL.
All patients received the combination, which comprised Imprime PGG 4 mg/kg weekly plus pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks.
Twenty one patients were under age 50 years, and 23 were 50 years old and older. Seventeen patients were premenopausal, and 27 were postmenopausal. In all, 15 patients had more than three prior lines of therapy for metastatic disease, 30 had visceral disease, and 12 had liver metastases; only four had metastases confined to lymph nodes.
As noted above, median overall survival for all patients was 16.4 months. The ORR was 15.9%, and the disease control rate (a combination of complete and partial responses plus stable disease) was 25%. The median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (vs 2 months in Keynote-086).
In all, 39 of the 44 patients had treatment-related adverse events, with the most common being nausea, back pain, chills, fatigue, diarrhea, arthralgia, and headache. Four patients had grade 3 or 4 events, which included an infusion-related reaction, hyperglycemia, pericarditis, and pancreatitis.
Infusion-related reactions were seen in 27 patients, but only one of these reactions was grade 3 or 4.
The most common immune-mediated events were grade 1 or 2 thyroid dysfunction, which is commonly seen with PD-1 inhibitors, and there were single low-grade events of pancreatitis, pneumonitis, and pericarditis “most likely related to PD-1 inhibitor therapy,” O’Day said.
Translational data showed that innate and adaptive immunity in peripheral blood correlates with clinical benefit, with longer overall survival among patients with either monocyte activation (P = .0045) or T-cell activation (P = .012) compared with patients without activation of those components.
Taken together, the findings suggest that larger controlled studies of the combination are warranted, O’Day said.
The study was sponsored by Biothera and Merck. O’Day disclosed advisory board activities and research funding from both companies and others, and consulting for Biothera. Park disclosed royalties and consulting activities from several companies, not including the Imprime 1 sponsors.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a particularly aggressive form of this disease, with a poor prognosis, so there is great interest in any new treatment approach. Immunotherapy has raised hopes in TNBC, but more recently, studies have produced conflicting results.
New results show that adding a novel immune activator, Imprime PGG (Biothera), to immunotherapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) appears to improve the clinical benefit. The overall survival seen with the combination was twice that seen in a separate trial with pembrolizumab alone.
The new results were presented during the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) virtual annual meeting I.
They come from the IMPRIME 1 trial, conducted in 44 women with metastatic TNBC who had anti-glucan antibodies.
“These were patients who had had prior chemotherapy and had extensive disease, including the majority with visceral disease and even liver metastasis,” said investigator Steven O’Day, MD, from the John Wayne Cancer Institute in Santa Monica, California.
All patients were treated with the combination. “We see encouraging clinical benefit evidence across all of our clinical measurements: response, durable response, and median and overall survival compared to historical single-agent [anti] PD-1 in a similar metastatic triple-negative breast cancer population,” he said.
At a median follow-up of 22.5 months, median overall survival with the combination among the 44 patients treated was 16.4 months.
In contrast, in the Keynote-086 trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with TNBC, median overall survival was 9 months, O’Day said.
He emphasized, however, that the IMPRIME 1 trial was not designed or powered to directly compare the combination therapy with pembrolizumab monotherapy.
Clinical benefit with the combination was particularly pronounced for patients who were so-called TNBC “converters” — that is, they originally had estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors that had progressed on endocrine therapy and, prior to starting treatment with Imprime PGG and pembrolizumab, they had biopsy results confirming TNBC, O’Day said.
The overall response rate (ORR) for all 44 patients included in the efficacy analysis was 15.9%. But among the 12 patients whose disease converted from ER-positive to TNBC after endocrine therapy, six had a response, for an ORR of 50% and a median overall survival of 17.1 months.
“It is not clear whether hormone resistance may have led to the increased responses versus secondary triple-negative status, but it is of great interest to us,” O’Day said.
Why This Special Benefit?
Invited discussant Ben Ho Park, MD, PhD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, commented that the finding of special benefit among TNBC converters raises the question of biomarkers to determine which patients might most benefit from the combination.
“We already know that anti-beta-glucan antibodies were required to be actually eligible for this study, but is it that, in combination with immune activation, or prior ER-positive disease?” he said. “What about the role of PD-L1 staining? Can we actually combine all this data to come up with some sort of predictive score for whether or not a patient is more or less likely to respond, and more or less likely to have toxicities?”
Yeast-Derived Compound
Imprime PGG is a novel beta-glucan isolated from the cell walls of saccharomyces yeast that binds to endogenous anti-beta-glucan antibodies to form an immune complex.
The immune complex, which is the active drug, binds to a receptor known as dectin-1 to activate innate immunity and reprogram the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, enhance antigen presentation, and trigger T-cell activation to improve the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, O’Day explained.
The complex has been administered to date to approximately 600 healthy volunteers and patients. In these studies, it was administered intravenously at doses of 2 mg/kg to 6 mg/kg weekly as monotherapy or in combination with anti-angiogenic antibodies or tumor-targeting antibodies, with or without chemotherapy.
Studies in volunteers showed that the complex activated innate immunity. Patients have tolerated it well, with no significant safety signals in either monotherapy or combination, with grade 1 or 2 infusion-related reactions being the most common adverse events to date, O’Day reported.
Study Details
Imprime 1 was a single-arm phase 2 trial enrolling 44 women with TNBC who had received at least one prior line of treatment, but not with an immune checkpoint inhibitor. They were all required to have anti-beta-glucan antibody levels of at least 20 mcg/mL.
All patients received the combination, which comprised Imprime PGG 4 mg/kg weekly plus pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks.
Twenty one patients were under age 50 years, and 23 were 50 years old and older. Seventeen patients were premenopausal, and 27 were postmenopausal. In all, 15 patients had more than three prior lines of therapy for metastatic disease, 30 had visceral disease, and 12 had liver metastases; only four had metastases confined to lymph nodes.
As noted above, median overall survival for all patients was 16.4 months. The ORR was 15.9%, and the disease control rate (a combination of complete and partial responses plus stable disease) was 25%. The median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (vs 2 months in Keynote-086).
In all, 39 of the 44 patients had treatment-related adverse events, with the most common being nausea, back pain, chills, fatigue, diarrhea, arthralgia, and headache. Four patients had grade 3 or 4 events, which included an infusion-related reaction, hyperglycemia, pericarditis, and pancreatitis.
Infusion-related reactions were seen in 27 patients, but only one of these reactions was grade 3 or 4.
The most common immune-mediated events were grade 1 or 2 thyroid dysfunction, which is commonly seen with PD-1 inhibitors, and there were single low-grade events of pancreatitis, pneumonitis, and pericarditis “most likely related to PD-1 inhibitor therapy,” O’Day said.
Translational data showed that innate and adaptive immunity in peripheral blood correlates with clinical benefit, with longer overall survival among patients with either monocyte activation (P = .0045) or T-cell activation (P = .012) compared with patients without activation of those components.
Taken together, the findings suggest that larger controlled studies of the combination are warranted, O’Day said.
The study was sponsored by Biothera and Merck. O’Day disclosed advisory board activities and research funding from both companies and others, and consulting for Biothera. Park disclosed royalties and consulting activities from several companies, not including the Imprime 1 sponsors.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a particularly aggressive form of this disease, with a poor prognosis, so there is great interest in any new treatment approach. Immunotherapy has raised hopes in TNBC, but more recently, studies have produced conflicting results.
New results show that adding a novel immune activator, Imprime PGG (Biothera), to immunotherapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) appears to improve the clinical benefit. The overall survival seen with the combination was twice that seen in a separate trial with pembrolizumab alone.
The new results were presented during the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) virtual annual meeting I.
They come from the IMPRIME 1 trial, conducted in 44 women with metastatic TNBC who had anti-glucan antibodies.
“These were patients who had had prior chemotherapy and had extensive disease, including the majority with visceral disease and even liver metastasis,” said investigator Steven O’Day, MD, from the John Wayne Cancer Institute in Santa Monica, California.
All patients were treated with the combination. “We see encouraging clinical benefit evidence across all of our clinical measurements: response, durable response, and median and overall survival compared to historical single-agent [anti] PD-1 in a similar metastatic triple-negative breast cancer population,” he said.
At a median follow-up of 22.5 months, median overall survival with the combination among the 44 patients treated was 16.4 months.
In contrast, in the Keynote-086 trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with TNBC, median overall survival was 9 months, O’Day said.
He emphasized, however, that the IMPRIME 1 trial was not designed or powered to directly compare the combination therapy with pembrolizumab monotherapy.
Clinical benefit with the combination was particularly pronounced for patients who were so-called TNBC “converters” — that is, they originally had estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors that had progressed on endocrine therapy and, prior to starting treatment with Imprime PGG and pembrolizumab, they had biopsy results confirming TNBC, O’Day said.
The overall response rate (ORR) for all 44 patients included in the efficacy analysis was 15.9%. But among the 12 patients whose disease converted from ER-positive to TNBC after endocrine therapy, six had a response, for an ORR of 50% and a median overall survival of 17.1 months.
“It is not clear whether hormone resistance may have led to the increased responses versus secondary triple-negative status, but it is of great interest to us,” O’Day said.
Why This Special Benefit?
Invited discussant Ben Ho Park, MD, PhD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, commented that the finding of special benefit among TNBC converters raises the question of biomarkers to determine which patients might most benefit from the combination.
“We already know that anti-beta-glucan antibodies were required to be actually eligible for this study, but is it that, in combination with immune activation, or prior ER-positive disease?” he said. “What about the role of PD-L1 staining? Can we actually combine all this data to come up with some sort of predictive score for whether or not a patient is more or less likely to respond, and more or less likely to have toxicities?”
Yeast-Derived Compound
Imprime PGG is a novel beta-glucan isolated from the cell walls of saccharomyces yeast that binds to endogenous anti-beta-glucan antibodies to form an immune complex.
The immune complex, which is the active drug, binds to a receptor known as dectin-1 to activate innate immunity and reprogram the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, enhance antigen presentation, and trigger T-cell activation to improve the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, O’Day explained.
The complex has been administered to date to approximately 600 healthy volunteers and patients. In these studies, it was administered intravenously at doses of 2 mg/kg to 6 mg/kg weekly as monotherapy or in combination with anti-angiogenic antibodies or tumor-targeting antibodies, with or without chemotherapy.
Studies in volunteers showed that the complex activated innate immunity. Patients have tolerated it well, with no significant safety signals in either monotherapy or combination, with grade 1 or 2 infusion-related reactions being the most common adverse events to date, O’Day reported.
Study Details
Imprime 1 was a single-arm phase 2 trial enrolling 44 women with TNBC who had received at least one prior line of treatment, but not with an immune checkpoint inhibitor. They were all required to have anti-beta-glucan antibody levels of at least 20 mcg/mL.
All patients received the combination, which comprised Imprime PGG 4 mg/kg weekly plus pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks.
Twenty one patients were under age 50 years, and 23 were 50 years old and older. Seventeen patients were premenopausal, and 27 were postmenopausal. In all, 15 patients had more than three prior lines of therapy for metastatic disease, 30 had visceral disease, and 12 had liver metastases; only four had metastases confined to lymph nodes.
As noted above, median overall survival for all patients was 16.4 months. The ORR was 15.9%, and the disease control rate (a combination of complete and partial responses plus stable disease) was 25%. The median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (vs 2 months in Keynote-086).
In all, 39 of the 44 patients had treatment-related adverse events, with the most common being nausea, back pain, chills, fatigue, diarrhea, arthralgia, and headache. Four patients had grade 3 or 4 events, which included an infusion-related reaction, hyperglycemia, pericarditis, and pancreatitis.
Infusion-related reactions were seen in 27 patients, but only one of these reactions was grade 3 or 4.
The most common immune-mediated events were grade 1 or 2 thyroid dysfunction, which is commonly seen with PD-1 inhibitors, and there were single low-grade events of pancreatitis, pneumonitis, and pericarditis “most likely related to PD-1 inhibitor therapy,” O’Day said.
Translational data showed that innate and adaptive immunity in peripheral blood correlates with clinical benefit, with longer overall survival among patients with either monocyte activation (P = .0045) or T-cell activation (P = .012) compared with patients without activation of those components.
Taken together, the findings suggest that larger controlled studies of the combination are warranted, O’Day said.
The study was sponsored by Biothera and Merck. O’Day disclosed advisory board activities and research funding from both companies and others, and consulting for Biothera. Park disclosed royalties and consulting activities from several companies, not including the Imprime 1 sponsors.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AACR 20
Continuity rules
Simple operational adjustments your team can make
Although there are many benefits to the hospital medicine model of inpatient care, there is perhaps no greater Achilles heel than the discontinuity inherent to the care model. The trust and familiarity garnered from longitudinal patient-provider relationships is sacrificed for the benefits of focused practice, efficiency, and enhanced availability.
Any system involves competing priorities, and some degree of discontinuity is inevitable. Would it make sense for a hospitalist to stay on service until every panel patient is discharged? For obvious economic, lifestyle, and other reasons, of course not. Our charge then is not to make the perfect the enemy of the good, but to ensure thoughtful and consistent continuity for the good of the patient, the provider, and the hospital. The following tips should help your team achieve the best possible balance.
Avoid orphan rounding shifts
An “orphan” rounding shift refers to a single shift untethered to a stretch. For admitting or administrative duties, this generally poses no problem, but for a rounding shift it is undesirable. No matter how talented or industrious the provider, it is very difficult for them to effectively provide seamless care for a single day; such care is often disconcerting for patients, families, case managers, and consultants. In situations such as significant census spikes, this may be a necessary evil, but avoid this if you can.
Orphan shift duties
If you can’t avoid an orphan rounding shift, be creative regarding which patients get assigned. Can that provider cover observation or simple short stay patients who may be discharged, or consult follow ups that may be signed off? Can they see stable long-stay patients where the plan isn’t changing and the patient isn’t going anywhere? (Think guardianships, chronic ventilated patients awaiting a facility, stable patients with a history of intravenous drug abuse who may not be safely discharged with a line, etc.) Can they do lab, culture, or path report follow-up calls? Getting creative in responsibilities for an orphan shift can benefit all involved.
Rounding shifts following admitting shifts
Dedicated admitting and rounding shifts are the norm these days. But rather than a pure stretch of one or the other, consider a few days admitting followed by the rest of the stretch rounding. Particularly in a small- to mid-sized hospital, multiple admits done over a few days (and especially if also cross-covering floor calls) will mean many familiar cases when rounding thereafter.
Standard sign-out that travels with patients
The hospital is a dynamic environment. Patients, providers and staff move around a lot. Given this reality, the importance of a complete standardized and accessible sign-out is paramount.
Imagine a rounder starting their last day with 15 patients. By the end of the shift, some have been discharged, transferred to telemetry or the ICU, or left against medical advice, leaving seven patients to sign out. By the next day, there are eight new faces, including fresh admits or consults from the prior day, swing, and night providers as well as existing patients transferred from telemetry/ICU to the general medical ward. A practical solution incorporates an asynchronous sign-out that travels with the patient regardless of geographic location or which provider(s) are following them. Billing software or census reports can typically achieve this. Of course, allow for additional verbal communication as necessary and appropriate.
Geographic rounds, with exceptions
Geographic rounds make a lot of sense most of the time. Less transit time and phone tag and more frequent interactions with the care team make for a more efficient day. But sometimes it’s best to bend this rule.
A patient that you’ve seen for 5 days and was transferred off your telemetry floor to go home tomorrow might best be served by you trekking up a flight of stairs to do the discharge. Similarly, complicated medical, psychosocial, or other circumstances may argue for keeping the patient on your list despite a change in location.
The above rules are foundational elements for good continuity. Two bonus considerations include:
Wind up, wind down
It’s difficult to walk into a full panel of patients especially when many have been in house for a while. Consider overlapping providers coming onto and going off a shared service.
In a buddy arrangement the oncoming provider starting would take new patients from the outgoing provider finishing. The provider finishing discharges patients with long length of stays and continues to round on more-complicated patients with whom they are familiar. Opportunities for face-to-face verbal handover, and even bedside introduction to the provider starting, can improve care coordination and safety and enhance the patient experience.
Reconsider split rounding and admitting
Most physicians would attest that the second time seeing a patient is much easier than the first, the third easier than the second, and so on. This holds true even more so when the first encounter is the history and physical, and the provider subsequently rounds on the patient for the duration of the hospitalization.
You know what the plan is because you made it; you are confident that the patient’s leg with cellulitis looks better or the patient with congested lungs sounds clearer because the baseline against which you’re comparing is your own. It can be a challenge to interrupt a busy day of clinical rounds, discharges, and interdisciplinary meetings to admit a patient. But the upstream investment pays rich downstream dividends and is well worth consideration.
Hospital medicine outcomes as measured by cost, quality, and patient and provider experience are often hampered by suboptimal continuity of care. With recognition of the problem and some simple operational adjustments as outlined above, your team can minimize negative impacts.
Dr. Krisa is a former regional medical director for a national hospitalist group and currently serves as a physician advisor for St. Peter’s Health Partners, a large integrated health system in Albany, N.Y. You can contact him at johnkrisa@hotmail.com.
Simple operational adjustments your team can make
Simple operational adjustments your team can make
Although there are many benefits to the hospital medicine model of inpatient care, there is perhaps no greater Achilles heel than the discontinuity inherent to the care model. The trust and familiarity garnered from longitudinal patient-provider relationships is sacrificed for the benefits of focused practice, efficiency, and enhanced availability.
Any system involves competing priorities, and some degree of discontinuity is inevitable. Would it make sense for a hospitalist to stay on service until every panel patient is discharged? For obvious economic, lifestyle, and other reasons, of course not. Our charge then is not to make the perfect the enemy of the good, but to ensure thoughtful and consistent continuity for the good of the patient, the provider, and the hospital. The following tips should help your team achieve the best possible balance.
Avoid orphan rounding shifts
An “orphan” rounding shift refers to a single shift untethered to a stretch. For admitting or administrative duties, this generally poses no problem, but for a rounding shift it is undesirable. No matter how talented or industrious the provider, it is very difficult for them to effectively provide seamless care for a single day; such care is often disconcerting for patients, families, case managers, and consultants. In situations such as significant census spikes, this may be a necessary evil, but avoid this if you can.
Orphan shift duties
If you can’t avoid an orphan rounding shift, be creative regarding which patients get assigned. Can that provider cover observation or simple short stay patients who may be discharged, or consult follow ups that may be signed off? Can they see stable long-stay patients where the plan isn’t changing and the patient isn’t going anywhere? (Think guardianships, chronic ventilated patients awaiting a facility, stable patients with a history of intravenous drug abuse who may not be safely discharged with a line, etc.) Can they do lab, culture, or path report follow-up calls? Getting creative in responsibilities for an orphan shift can benefit all involved.
Rounding shifts following admitting shifts
Dedicated admitting and rounding shifts are the norm these days. But rather than a pure stretch of one or the other, consider a few days admitting followed by the rest of the stretch rounding. Particularly in a small- to mid-sized hospital, multiple admits done over a few days (and especially if also cross-covering floor calls) will mean many familiar cases when rounding thereafter.
Standard sign-out that travels with patients
The hospital is a dynamic environment. Patients, providers and staff move around a lot. Given this reality, the importance of a complete standardized and accessible sign-out is paramount.
Imagine a rounder starting their last day with 15 patients. By the end of the shift, some have been discharged, transferred to telemetry or the ICU, or left against medical advice, leaving seven patients to sign out. By the next day, there are eight new faces, including fresh admits or consults from the prior day, swing, and night providers as well as existing patients transferred from telemetry/ICU to the general medical ward. A practical solution incorporates an asynchronous sign-out that travels with the patient regardless of geographic location or which provider(s) are following them. Billing software or census reports can typically achieve this. Of course, allow for additional verbal communication as necessary and appropriate.
Geographic rounds, with exceptions
Geographic rounds make a lot of sense most of the time. Less transit time and phone tag and more frequent interactions with the care team make for a more efficient day. But sometimes it’s best to bend this rule.
A patient that you’ve seen for 5 days and was transferred off your telemetry floor to go home tomorrow might best be served by you trekking up a flight of stairs to do the discharge. Similarly, complicated medical, psychosocial, or other circumstances may argue for keeping the patient on your list despite a change in location.
The above rules are foundational elements for good continuity. Two bonus considerations include:
Wind up, wind down
It’s difficult to walk into a full panel of patients especially when many have been in house for a while. Consider overlapping providers coming onto and going off a shared service.
In a buddy arrangement the oncoming provider starting would take new patients from the outgoing provider finishing. The provider finishing discharges patients with long length of stays and continues to round on more-complicated patients with whom they are familiar. Opportunities for face-to-face verbal handover, and even bedside introduction to the provider starting, can improve care coordination and safety and enhance the patient experience.
Reconsider split rounding and admitting
Most physicians would attest that the second time seeing a patient is much easier than the first, the third easier than the second, and so on. This holds true even more so when the first encounter is the history and physical, and the provider subsequently rounds on the patient for the duration of the hospitalization.
You know what the plan is because you made it; you are confident that the patient’s leg with cellulitis looks better or the patient with congested lungs sounds clearer because the baseline against which you’re comparing is your own. It can be a challenge to interrupt a busy day of clinical rounds, discharges, and interdisciplinary meetings to admit a patient. But the upstream investment pays rich downstream dividends and is well worth consideration.
Hospital medicine outcomes as measured by cost, quality, and patient and provider experience are often hampered by suboptimal continuity of care. With recognition of the problem and some simple operational adjustments as outlined above, your team can minimize negative impacts.
Dr. Krisa is a former regional medical director for a national hospitalist group and currently serves as a physician advisor for St. Peter’s Health Partners, a large integrated health system in Albany, N.Y. You can contact him at johnkrisa@hotmail.com.
Although there are many benefits to the hospital medicine model of inpatient care, there is perhaps no greater Achilles heel than the discontinuity inherent to the care model. The trust and familiarity garnered from longitudinal patient-provider relationships is sacrificed for the benefits of focused practice, efficiency, and enhanced availability.
Any system involves competing priorities, and some degree of discontinuity is inevitable. Would it make sense for a hospitalist to stay on service until every panel patient is discharged? For obvious economic, lifestyle, and other reasons, of course not. Our charge then is not to make the perfect the enemy of the good, but to ensure thoughtful and consistent continuity for the good of the patient, the provider, and the hospital. The following tips should help your team achieve the best possible balance.
Avoid orphan rounding shifts
An “orphan” rounding shift refers to a single shift untethered to a stretch. For admitting or administrative duties, this generally poses no problem, but for a rounding shift it is undesirable. No matter how talented or industrious the provider, it is very difficult for them to effectively provide seamless care for a single day; such care is often disconcerting for patients, families, case managers, and consultants. In situations such as significant census spikes, this may be a necessary evil, but avoid this if you can.
Orphan shift duties
If you can’t avoid an orphan rounding shift, be creative regarding which patients get assigned. Can that provider cover observation or simple short stay patients who may be discharged, or consult follow ups that may be signed off? Can they see stable long-stay patients where the plan isn’t changing and the patient isn’t going anywhere? (Think guardianships, chronic ventilated patients awaiting a facility, stable patients with a history of intravenous drug abuse who may not be safely discharged with a line, etc.) Can they do lab, culture, or path report follow-up calls? Getting creative in responsibilities for an orphan shift can benefit all involved.
Rounding shifts following admitting shifts
Dedicated admitting and rounding shifts are the norm these days. But rather than a pure stretch of one or the other, consider a few days admitting followed by the rest of the stretch rounding. Particularly in a small- to mid-sized hospital, multiple admits done over a few days (and especially if also cross-covering floor calls) will mean many familiar cases when rounding thereafter.
Standard sign-out that travels with patients
The hospital is a dynamic environment. Patients, providers and staff move around a lot. Given this reality, the importance of a complete standardized and accessible sign-out is paramount.
Imagine a rounder starting their last day with 15 patients. By the end of the shift, some have been discharged, transferred to telemetry or the ICU, or left against medical advice, leaving seven patients to sign out. By the next day, there are eight new faces, including fresh admits or consults from the prior day, swing, and night providers as well as existing patients transferred from telemetry/ICU to the general medical ward. A practical solution incorporates an asynchronous sign-out that travels with the patient regardless of geographic location or which provider(s) are following them. Billing software or census reports can typically achieve this. Of course, allow for additional verbal communication as necessary and appropriate.
Geographic rounds, with exceptions
Geographic rounds make a lot of sense most of the time. Less transit time and phone tag and more frequent interactions with the care team make for a more efficient day. But sometimes it’s best to bend this rule.
A patient that you’ve seen for 5 days and was transferred off your telemetry floor to go home tomorrow might best be served by you trekking up a flight of stairs to do the discharge. Similarly, complicated medical, psychosocial, or other circumstances may argue for keeping the patient on your list despite a change in location.
The above rules are foundational elements for good continuity. Two bonus considerations include:
Wind up, wind down
It’s difficult to walk into a full panel of patients especially when many have been in house for a while. Consider overlapping providers coming onto and going off a shared service.
In a buddy arrangement the oncoming provider starting would take new patients from the outgoing provider finishing. The provider finishing discharges patients with long length of stays and continues to round on more-complicated patients with whom they are familiar. Opportunities for face-to-face verbal handover, and even bedside introduction to the provider starting, can improve care coordination and safety and enhance the patient experience.
Reconsider split rounding and admitting
Most physicians would attest that the second time seeing a patient is much easier than the first, the third easier than the second, and so on. This holds true even more so when the first encounter is the history and physical, and the provider subsequently rounds on the patient for the duration of the hospitalization.
You know what the plan is because you made it; you are confident that the patient’s leg with cellulitis looks better or the patient with congested lungs sounds clearer because the baseline against which you’re comparing is your own. It can be a challenge to interrupt a busy day of clinical rounds, discharges, and interdisciplinary meetings to admit a patient. But the upstream investment pays rich downstream dividends and is well worth consideration.
Hospital medicine outcomes as measured by cost, quality, and patient and provider experience are often hampered by suboptimal continuity of care. With recognition of the problem and some simple operational adjustments as outlined above, your team can minimize negative impacts.
Dr. Krisa is a former regional medical director for a national hospitalist group and currently serves as a physician advisor for St. Peter’s Health Partners, a large integrated health system in Albany, N.Y. You can contact him at johnkrisa@hotmail.com.
Excess cancer deaths predicted as care is disrupted by COVID-19
The majority of patients who have cancer or are suspected of having cancer are not accessing healthcare services in the United Kingdom or the United States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first report of its kind estimates.
As a result, there will be an excess of deaths among patients who have cancer and multiple comorbidities in both countries during the current coronavirus emergency, the report warns.
The authors calculate that there will be 6,270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients in the United States. (In the United States, the estimated excess number of deaths applies only to patients older than 40 years, they note.)
“The recorded underlying cause of these excess deaths may be cancer, COVID-19, or comorbidity (such as myocardial infarction),” Alvina Lai, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues observe.
“Our data have highlighted how cancer patients with multimorbidity are a particularly at-risk group during the current pandemic,” they emphasize.
The study was published on ResearchGate as a preprint and has not undergone peer review.
Commenting on the study on the UK Science Media Center, several experts emphasized the lack of peer review, noting that interpretation of these data needs to be further refined on the basis of that input. One expert suggested that there are “substantial uncertainties that this paper does not adequately communicate.” But others argued that this topic was important enough to warrant early release of the data.
Chris Bunce, PhD, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, said this study represents “a highly valuable contribution.”
“It is universally accepted that early diagnosis and treatment and adherence to treatment regimens saves lives,” he pointed out.
“Therefore, these COVID-19-related impacts will cost lives,” Bunce said.
“And if this information is to influence cancer care and guide policy during the COVID-19 crisis, then it is important that the findings are disseminated and discussed immediately, warranting their release ahead of peer view,” he added.
In a Medscape UK commentary, oncologist Karol Sikora, MD, PhD, argues that “restarting cancer services can’t come soon enough.”
“Resonably Argued Numerical Estimate”
“It’s well known that there have been considerable changes in the provision of health care for many conditions, including cancers, as a result of all the measures to deal with the COVID-19 crisis,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, professor emeritus of applied statistics, the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.
“It seems inevitable that there will be increased deaths in cancer patients if they are infected with the virus or because of changes in the health services available to them, and quite possibly also from socio-economic effects of the responses to the crisis,” he continued.
“This study is the first that I have seen that produces a reasonably argued numerical estimate of the number of excess deaths of people with cancer arising from these factors in the UK and the USA,” he added.
Declines in Urgent Referrals and Chemo Attendance
For the study, the team used DATA-CAN, the UK National Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, to assess weekly returns for urgent cancer referrals for early diagnosis and also chemotherapy attendances for hospitals in Leeds, London, and Northern Ireland going back to 2018.
The data revealed that there have been major declines in chemotherapy attendances. There has been, on average, a 60% decrease from prepandemic levels in eight hospitals in the three regions that were assessed.
Urgent cancer referrals have dropped by an average of 76% compared to prepandemic levels in the three regions.
On the conservative assumption that the COVID-19 pandemic will only affect patients with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases), the researchers estimate that the proportion of the population affected by the emergency (PAE) is 40% and that the relative impact of the emergency (RIE) is 1.5.
PAE is a summary measure of exposure to the adverse health consequences of the emergency; RIE is a summary measure of the combined impact on mortality of infection, health service change, physical distancing, and economic downturn, the authors explain.
Comorbidities Common
“Comorbidities were common in people with cancer,” the study authors note. For example, more than one quarter of the study population had at least one comorbidity; more than 14% had two.
For incident cancers, the number of excess deaths steadily increased in conjunction with an increase in the number of comorbidities, such that more than 80% of deaths occurred in patients with one or more comorbidities.
“When considering both prevalent and incident cancers together with a COVID-19 PAE of 40%, we estimated 17,991 excess deaths at a RIE of 1.5; 78.1% of these deaths occur in patients with ≥1 comorbidities,” the authors report.
“The excess risk of death in people living with cancer during the COVID-19 emergency may be due not only to COVID-19 infection, but also to the unintended health consequences of changes in health service provision, the physical or psychological effects of social distancing, and economic upheaval,” they state.
“This is the first study demonstrating profound recent changes in cancer care delivery in multiple centers,” the authors observe.
Lai has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have various relationships with industry, as listed in their article. The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The majority of patients who have cancer or are suspected of having cancer are not accessing healthcare services in the United Kingdom or the United States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first report of its kind estimates.
As a result, there will be an excess of deaths among patients who have cancer and multiple comorbidities in both countries during the current coronavirus emergency, the report warns.
The authors calculate that there will be 6,270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients in the United States. (In the United States, the estimated excess number of deaths applies only to patients older than 40 years, they note.)
“The recorded underlying cause of these excess deaths may be cancer, COVID-19, or comorbidity (such as myocardial infarction),” Alvina Lai, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues observe.
“Our data have highlighted how cancer patients with multimorbidity are a particularly at-risk group during the current pandemic,” they emphasize.
The study was published on ResearchGate as a preprint and has not undergone peer review.
Commenting on the study on the UK Science Media Center, several experts emphasized the lack of peer review, noting that interpretation of these data needs to be further refined on the basis of that input. One expert suggested that there are “substantial uncertainties that this paper does not adequately communicate.” But others argued that this topic was important enough to warrant early release of the data.
Chris Bunce, PhD, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, said this study represents “a highly valuable contribution.”
“It is universally accepted that early diagnosis and treatment and adherence to treatment regimens saves lives,” he pointed out.
“Therefore, these COVID-19-related impacts will cost lives,” Bunce said.
“And if this information is to influence cancer care and guide policy during the COVID-19 crisis, then it is important that the findings are disseminated and discussed immediately, warranting their release ahead of peer view,” he added.
In a Medscape UK commentary, oncologist Karol Sikora, MD, PhD, argues that “restarting cancer services can’t come soon enough.”
“Resonably Argued Numerical Estimate”
“It’s well known that there have been considerable changes in the provision of health care for many conditions, including cancers, as a result of all the measures to deal with the COVID-19 crisis,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, professor emeritus of applied statistics, the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.
“It seems inevitable that there will be increased deaths in cancer patients if they are infected with the virus or because of changes in the health services available to them, and quite possibly also from socio-economic effects of the responses to the crisis,” he continued.
“This study is the first that I have seen that produces a reasonably argued numerical estimate of the number of excess deaths of people with cancer arising from these factors in the UK and the USA,” he added.
Declines in Urgent Referrals and Chemo Attendance
For the study, the team used DATA-CAN, the UK National Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, to assess weekly returns for urgent cancer referrals for early diagnosis and also chemotherapy attendances for hospitals in Leeds, London, and Northern Ireland going back to 2018.
The data revealed that there have been major declines in chemotherapy attendances. There has been, on average, a 60% decrease from prepandemic levels in eight hospitals in the three regions that were assessed.
Urgent cancer referrals have dropped by an average of 76% compared to prepandemic levels in the three regions.
On the conservative assumption that the COVID-19 pandemic will only affect patients with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases), the researchers estimate that the proportion of the population affected by the emergency (PAE) is 40% and that the relative impact of the emergency (RIE) is 1.5.
PAE is a summary measure of exposure to the adverse health consequences of the emergency; RIE is a summary measure of the combined impact on mortality of infection, health service change, physical distancing, and economic downturn, the authors explain.
Comorbidities Common
“Comorbidities were common in people with cancer,” the study authors note. For example, more than one quarter of the study population had at least one comorbidity; more than 14% had two.
For incident cancers, the number of excess deaths steadily increased in conjunction with an increase in the number of comorbidities, such that more than 80% of deaths occurred in patients with one or more comorbidities.
“When considering both prevalent and incident cancers together with a COVID-19 PAE of 40%, we estimated 17,991 excess deaths at a RIE of 1.5; 78.1% of these deaths occur in patients with ≥1 comorbidities,” the authors report.
“The excess risk of death in people living with cancer during the COVID-19 emergency may be due not only to COVID-19 infection, but also to the unintended health consequences of changes in health service provision, the physical or psychological effects of social distancing, and economic upheaval,” they state.
“This is the first study demonstrating profound recent changes in cancer care delivery in multiple centers,” the authors observe.
Lai has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have various relationships with industry, as listed in their article. The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The majority of patients who have cancer or are suspected of having cancer are not accessing healthcare services in the United Kingdom or the United States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first report of its kind estimates.
As a result, there will be an excess of deaths among patients who have cancer and multiple comorbidities in both countries during the current coronavirus emergency, the report warns.
The authors calculate that there will be 6,270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients in the United States. (In the United States, the estimated excess number of deaths applies only to patients older than 40 years, they note.)
“The recorded underlying cause of these excess deaths may be cancer, COVID-19, or comorbidity (such as myocardial infarction),” Alvina Lai, PhD, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues observe.
“Our data have highlighted how cancer patients with multimorbidity are a particularly at-risk group during the current pandemic,” they emphasize.
The study was published on ResearchGate as a preprint and has not undergone peer review.
Commenting on the study on the UK Science Media Center, several experts emphasized the lack of peer review, noting that interpretation of these data needs to be further refined on the basis of that input. One expert suggested that there are “substantial uncertainties that this paper does not adequately communicate.” But others argued that this topic was important enough to warrant early release of the data.
Chris Bunce, PhD, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, said this study represents “a highly valuable contribution.”
“It is universally accepted that early diagnosis and treatment and adherence to treatment regimens saves lives,” he pointed out.
“Therefore, these COVID-19-related impacts will cost lives,” Bunce said.
“And if this information is to influence cancer care and guide policy during the COVID-19 crisis, then it is important that the findings are disseminated and discussed immediately, warranting their release ahead of peer view,” he added.
In a Medscape UK commentary, oncologist Karol Sikora, MD, PhD, argues that “restarting cancer services can’t come soon enough.”
“Resonably Argued Numerical Estimate”
“It’s well known that there have been considerable changes in the provision of health care for many conditions, including cancers, as a result of all the measures to deal with the COVID-19 crisis,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, professor emeritus of applied statistics, the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.
“It seems inevitable that there will be increased deaths in cancer patients if they are infected with the virus or because of changes in the health services available to them, and quite possibly also from socio-economic effects of the responses to the crisis,” he continued.
“This study is the first that I have seen that produces a reasonably argued numerical estimate of the number of excess deaths of people with cancer arising from these factors in the UK and the USA,” he added.
Declines in Urgent Referrals and Chemo Attendance
For the study, the team used DATA-CAN, the UK National Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, to assess weekly returns for urgent cancer referrals for early diagnosis and also chemotherapy attendances for hospitals in Leeds, London, and Northern Ireland going back to 2018.
The data revealed that there have been major declines in chemotherapy attendances. There has been, on average, a 60% decrease from prepandemic levels in eight hospitals in the three regions that were assessed.
Urgent cancer referrals have dropped by an average of 76% compared to prepandemic levels in the three regions.
On the conservative assumption that the COVID-19 pandemic will only affect patients with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases), the researchers estimate that the proportion of the population affected by the emergency (PAE) is 40% and that the relative impact of the emergency (RIE) is 1.5.
PAE is a summary measure of exposure to the adverse health consequences of the emergency; RIE is a summary measure of the combined impact on mortality of infection, health service change, physical distancing, and economic downturn, the authors explain.
Comorbidities Common
“Comorbidities were common in people with cancer,” the study authors note. For example, more than one quarter of the study population had at least one comorbidity; more than 14% had two.
For incident cancers, the number of excess deaths steadily increased in conjunction with an increase in the number of comorbidities, such that more than 80% of deaths occurred in patients with one or more comorbidities.
“When considering both prevalent and incident cancers together with a COVID-19 PAE of 40%, we estimated 17,991 excess deaths at a RIE of 1.5; 78.1% of these deaths occur in patients with ≥1 comorbidities,” the authors report.
“The excess risk of death in people living with cancer during the COVID-19 emergency may be due not only to COVID-19 infection, but also to the unintended health consequences of changes in health service provision, the physical or psychological effects of social distancing, and economic upheaval,” they state.
“This is the first study demonstrating profound recent changes in cancer care delivery in multiple centers,” the authors observe.
Lai has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have various relationships with industry, as listed in their article. The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cautionary findings on acquired immunodeficiency from anti-CD20 MS therapy
, Brandi L. Vollmer, MPH, reported online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
The hypogammaglobulinemia was preceded by an IgM of 40 mg/dL or less in 35% of cases and was accompanied by concurrent development of low IgM in another 39%, added Ms. Vollmer, a professional research assistant at the Rocky Mountain Multiple Sclerosis Center at Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Denver.
She presented a retrospective study of 527 randomly selected MS patients and another 17 with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder who averaged 44 years of age and a 9.2-year disease duration upon commencing rituximab (Rituxan) with close laboratory monitoring. Their mean cumulative rituximab dose during a mean 30.2 months of therapy was 3,312 mg. Ninety-six MS patients eventually switched to ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), accumulating a total dose of 1,175 mg of that anti-CD20 humanized monoclonal antibody.
Absolute lymphocyte count dropped to 500 cells/mm3 or lower in 10.4% of patients at a mean of 11.3 months into anti-CD20 therapy. Low immunoglobulins came later: The mean time to onset of low IgM in affected patients was 19.7 months, and hypogammaglobulinemia, as defined by an IgG of 500 mg/dL or less, occurred at a mean of 36.1 months. Higher cumulative doses of anti-CD20 agents were associated with increased likelihood of hypogammaglobulinemia.
Asked to comment on the research findings, neurologist Nida Laurin, MD, said the Colorado study provides helpful insights into the timing of onset of acquired immunodeficiency in patients on B-cell-targeted therapy.
“This paper informs us that we should monitor our patients much closer for signs of hypogammaglobulinemia and lymphopenia starting with year 2 on therapy, and switch treatment when the threshold is reached. I do expect production of gamma globulins and lymphocytes to recover with discontinuation of anti-CD20 therapy, maybe over a period of 6-10 months. It might also recover with lower-dose therapy because the effect on B cells is dose-dependent,” observed Dr. Laurin, an MS specialist at the Banner Health–University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix and the University of Arizona in Tucson.
Her colleague Barry Hendin, MD, noted that there is no consensus regarding the best response to all these changes.
“Some clinicians add IVIG, some change therapies, and some observe only,” said Dr. Hendin, a neurologist at Banner Health–University Medical Center, Phoenix, and clinical professor of neurology at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
However, Dr. Laurin asserted that it would be a mistake for physicians and patients to shrug off anti-CD20 therapy–induced lymphopenia in light of studies demonstrating that lymphopenia and older age are two main risk factors for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in patients on disease-modifying therapies.
“More cases of PML can be expected with continuous use of anti-CD20 therapies if lymphopenia is ignored,” she cautioned.
Depressed levels of IgM and IgG have been associated with increased risk of serious infections. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the eventual prospect of a vaccine, it is especially important to avoid putting patients with MS in harm’s way via treatment-induced acquired immunodeficiency, Dr. Laurin said.
Ms. Vollmer reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study. Dr. Laurin reported serving as a speaker or consultant for Alexion, Allergan, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Lundbeck, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Hendin serves as a consultant to Biogen, Genentech, Genzyme, EMD Serono, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
SOURCE: Vollmer BL et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S29.002.
, Brandi L. Vollmer, MPH, reported online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
The hypogammaglobulinemia was preceded by an IgM of 40 mg/dL or less in 35% of cases and was accompanied by concurrent development of low IgM in another 39%, added Ms. Vollmer, a professional research assistant at the Rocky Mountain Multiple Sclerosis Center at Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Denver.
She presented a retrospective study of 527 randomly selected MS patients and another 17 with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder who averaged 44 years of age and a 9.2-year disease duration upon commencing rituximab (Rituxan) with close laboratory monitoring. Their mean cumulative rituximab dose during a mean 30.2 months of therapy was 3,312 mg. Ninety-six MS patients eventually switched to ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), accumulating a total dose of 1,175 mg of that anti-CD20 humanized monoclonal antibody.
Absolute lymphocyte count dropped to 500 cells/mm3 or lower in 10.4% of patients at a mean of 11.3 months into anti-CD20 therapy. Low immunoglobulins came later: The mean time to onset of low IgM in affected patients was 19.7 months, and hypogammaglobulinemia, as defined by an IgG of 500 mg/dL or less, occurred at a mean of 36.1 months. Higher cumulative doses of anti-CD20 agents were associated with increased likelihood of hypogammaglobulinemia.
Asked to comment on the research findings, neurologist Nida Laurin, MD, said the Colorado study provides helpful insights into the timing of onset of acquired immunodeficiency in patients on B-cell-targeted therapy.
“This paper informs us that we should monitor our patients much closer for signs of hypogammaglobulinemia and lymphopenia starting with year 2 on therapy, and switch treatment when the threshold is reached. I do expect production of gamma globulins and lymphocytes to recover with discontinuation of anti-CD20 therapy, maybe over a period of 6-10 months. It might also recover with lower-dose therapy because the effect on B cells is dose-dependent,” observed Dr. Laurin, an MS specialist at the Banner Health–University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix and the University of Arizona in Tucson.
Her colleague Barry Hendin, MD, noted that there is no consensus regarding the best response to all these changes.
“Some clinicians add IVIG, some change therapies, and some observe only,” said Dr. Hendin, a neurologist at Banner Health–University Medical Center, Phoenix, and clinical professor of neurology at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
However, Dr. Laurin asserted that it would be a mistake for physicians and patients to shrug off anti-CD20 therapy–induced lymphopenia in light of studies demonstrating that lymphopenia and older age are two main risk factors for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in patients on disease-modifying therapies.
“More cases of PML can be expected with continuous use of anti-CD20 therapies if lymphopenia is ignored,” she cautioned.
Depressed levels of IgM and IgG have been associated with increased risk of serious infections. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the eventual prospect of a vaccine, it is especially important to avoid putting patients with MS in harm’s way via treatment-induced acquired immunodeficiency, Dr. Laurin said.
Ms. Vollmer reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study. Dr. Laurin reported serving as a speaker or consultant for Alexion, Allergan, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Lundbeck, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Hendin serves as a consultant to Biogen, Genentech, Genzyme, EMD Serono, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
SOURCE: Vollmer BL et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S29.002.
, Brandi L. Vollmer, MPH, reported online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
The hypogammaglobulinemia was preceded by an IgM of 40 mg/dL or less in 35% of cases and was accompanied by concurrent development of low IgM in another 39%, added Ms. Vollmer, a professional research assistant at the Rocky Mountain Multiple Sclerosis Center at Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Denver.
She presented a retrospective study of 527 randomly selected MS patients and another 17 with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder who averaged 44 years of age and a 9.2-year disease duration upon commencing rituximab (Rituxan) with close laboratory monitoring. Their mean cumulative rituximab dose during a mean 30.2 months of therapy was 3,312 mg. Ninety-six MS patients eventually switched to ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), accumulating a total dose of 1,175 mg of that anti-CD20 humanized monoclonal antibody.
Absolute lymphocyte count dropped to 500 cells/mm3 or lower in 10.4% of patients at a mean of 11.3 months into anti-CD20 therapy. Low immunoglobulins came later: The mean time to onset of low IgM in affected patients was 19.7 months, and hypogammaglobulinemia, as defined by an IgG of 500 mg/dL or less, occurred at a mean of 36.1 months. Higher cumulative doses of anti-CD20 agents were associated with increased likelihood of hypogammaglobulinemia.
Asked to comment on the research findings, neurologist Nida Laurin, MD, said the Colorado study provides helpful insights into the timing of onset of acquired immunodeficiency in patients on B-cell-targeted therapy.
“This paper informs us that we should monitor our patients much closer for signs of hypogammaglobulinemia and lymphopenia starting with year 2 on therapy, and switch treatment when the threshold is reached. I do expect production of gamma globulins and lymphocytes to recover with discontinuation of anti-CD20 therapy, maybe over a period of 6-10 months. It might also recover with lower-dose therapy because the effect on B cells is dose-dependent,” observed Dr. Laurin, an MS specialist at the Banner Health–University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix and the University of Arizona in Tucson.
Her colleague Barry Hendin, MD, noted that there is no consensus regarding the best response to all these changes.
“Some clinicians add IVIG, some change therapies, and some observe only,” said Dr. Hendin, a neurologist at Banner Health–University Medical Center, Phoenix, and clinical professor of neurology at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
However, Dr. Laurin asserted that it would be a mistake for physicians and patients to shrug off anti-CD20 therapy–induced lymphopenia in light of studies demonstrating that lymphopenia and older age are two main risk factors for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in patients on disease-modifying therapies.
“More cases of PML can be expected with continuous use of anti-CD20 therapies if lymphopenia is ignored,” she cautioned.
Depressed levels of IgM and IgG have been associated with increased risk of serious infections. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the eventual prospect of a vaccine, it is especially important to avoid putting patients with MS in harm’s way via treatment-induced acquired immunodeficiency, Dr. Laurin said.
Ms. Vollmer reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study. Dr. Laurin reported serving as a speaker or consultant for Alexion, Allergan, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Lundbeck, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Hendin serves as a consultant to Biogen, Genentech, Genzyme, EMD Serono, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
SOURCE: Vollmer BL et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S29.002.
REPORTING FROM AAN 2020
New tetracycline antibiotic effective in acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections
Background: Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) continue to account for substantial morbidity and health care burden, with the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens further complicating their management. Omadacycline is a new once-daily tetracycline with in vitro activity against a wide range of causative agents of ABSSSI, including Streptococcus pyogenes, Staphylococcus aureus (including methicillin-resistant strains, or MRSA), and Enterococcus spp.
Study design: Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trial.
Setting: A total of 55 sites in the United States, Peru, South Africa, and Europe.
Synopsis: The trial recruited 645 adults with a qualifying ABSSSI (such as wound infection, cellulitis or erysipelas, or major abscess) with evidence of an inflammatory response (white blood cell count at least 10,000 cells/mm3 or 4,000 cells/mm3 and below, immature neutrophils at least 15%, lymphatic involvement, or oral or rectal temperature greater than 38.0° C or less than 36.0° C). Exclusion criteria included infections associated with chronic skin lesions and clinically significant liver or renal insufficiency or immunocompromised state. All patients received either omadacycline or linezolid IV with the option to switch to the oral preparation of the respective drugs after at least 3 days of therapy.
Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin with respect to early clinical response (84.8% vs. 85.5%, respectively) and posttreatment clinical response rates (86.1% vs. 83.6%). Efficacy was similar for methicillin-susceptible or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, the most common isolated pathogens. Frequency of adverse events (primarily gastrointestinal) was also similar in the two groups. Mean duration of IV therapy was 4.4 days, and mean duration of oral therapy was 5.5 days in the omadacycline group.
Bottom line: Omadacycline provides similar clinical benefit as linezolid in the treatment of ABSSSIs.
Citation: O’Riordan W et al. Omadacycline for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. N Eng J Med. 2019;380:528-38.
Dr. Manian is a core educator faculty member in the department of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Background: Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) continue to account for substantial morbidity and health care burden, with the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens further complicating their management. Omadacycline is a new once-daily tetracycline with in vitro activity against a wide range of causative agents of ABSSSI, including Streptococcus pyogenes, Staphylococcus aureus (including methicillin-resistant strains, or MRSA), and Enterococcus spp.
Study design: Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trial.
Setting: A total of 55 sites in the United States, Peru, South Africa, and Europe.
Synopsis: The trial recruited 645 adults with a qualifying ABSSSI (such as wound infection, cellulitis or erysipelas, or major abscess) with evidence of an inflammatory response (white blood cell count at least 10,000 cells/mm3 or 4,000 cells/mm3 and below, immature neutrophils at least 15%, lymphatic involvement, or oral or rectal temperature greater than 38.0° C or less than 36.0° C). Exclusion criteria included infections associated with chronic skin lesions and clinically significant liver or renal insufficiency or immunocompromised state. All patients received either omadacycline or linezolid IV with the option to switch to the oral preparation of the respective drugs after at least 3 days of therapy.
Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin with respect to early clinical response (84.8% vs. 85.5%, respectively) and posttreatment clinical response rates (86.1% vs. 83.6%). Efficacy was similar for methicillin-susceptible or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, the most common isolated pathogens. Frequency of adverse events (primarily gastrointestinal) was also similar in the two groups. Mean duration of IV therapy was 4.4 days, and mean duration of oral therapy was 5.5 days in the omadacycline group.
Bottom line: Omadacycline provides similar clinical benefit as linezolid in the treatment of ABSSSIs.
Citation: O’Riordan W et al. Omadacycline for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. N Eng J Med. 2019;380:528-38.
Dr. Manian is a core educator faculty member in the department of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Background: Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) continue to account for substantial morbidity and health care burden, with the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens further complicating their management. Omadacycline is a new once-daily tetracycline with in vitro activity against a wide range of causative agents of ABSSSI, including Streptococcus pyogenes, Staphylococcus aureus (including methicillin-resistant strains, or MRSA), and Enterococcus spp.
Study design: Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trial.
Setting: A total of 55 sites in the United States, Peru, South Africa, and Europe.
Synopsis: The trial recruited 645 adults with a qualifying ABSSSI (such as wound infection, cellulitis or erysipelas, or major abscess) with evidence of an inflammatory response (white blood cell count at least 10,000 cells/mm3 or 4,000 cells/mm3 and below, immature neutrophils at least 15%, lymphatic involvement, or oral or rectal temperature greater than 38.0° C or less than 36.0° C). Exclusion criteria included infections associated with chronic skin lesions and clinically significant liver or renal insufficiency or immunocompromised state. All patients received either omadacycline or linezolid IV with the option to switch to the oral preparation of the respective drugs after at least 3 days of therapy.
Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin with respect to early clinical response (84.8% vs. 85.5%, respectively) and posttreatment clinical response rates (86.1% vs. 83.6%). Efficacy was similar for methicillin-susceptible or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, the most common isolated pathogens. Frequency of adverse events (primarily gastrointestinal) was also similar in the two groups. Mean duration of IV therapy was 4.4 days, and mean duration of oral therapy was 5.5 days in the omadacycline group.
Bottom line: Omadacycline provides similar clinical benefit as linezolid in the treatment of ABSSSIs.
Citation: O’Riordan W et al. Omadacycline for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. N Eng J Med. 2019;380:528-38.
Dr. Manian is a core educator faculty member in the department of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Five-year siponimod data support early MS treatment
Among and had a lower annualized relapse rate up to 5 years later, compared with patients who initially received placebo and switched to siponimod. This research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
Benefits of siponimod gained during the controlled period were “sustained for up to 5 years, suggesting a continuous effect of siponimod and underlining the advantages of early treatment initiation with siponimod,” the researchers said. Incidence rates of adverse events during the extension study were consistent with those during the controlled treatment period.
The results “highlight the critical importance of early treatment intervention ... to ensure the best possible long-term outcomes for patients with MS who are experiencing progression,” study investigator Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, said in a news release.
“It’s never too early to stay ahead of progression in MS, since the early identification of physical and cognitive changes – even subtle ones – can indicate MS disease progression and therefore allow for timely intervention.” said Dr. Cree, who is clinical research director and George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California, San Francisco.
Siponimod, marketed as Mayzent, is a sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator that selectively binds to S1P1 and S1P5 receptors. The oral drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease in adults.
To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of siponimod in patients with secondary progressive MS, Dr. Cree and colleagues analyzed data from patients in the controlled and extension parts of the EXPAND trial. Patients could have had been in the study for as long as 5 years at the data cutoff in April 2019. Efficacy analyses included time to 3-month confirmed disability progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), time to 6-month confirmed disability progression, time to 6-month confirmed worsening of 4 or more points on the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), and annualized relapse rate. In EXPAND, the researchers defined confirmed disability progression as a 1-point increase in EDSS if the baseline score was 3.0-5.0, or a 0.5-point increase if the baseline score was 5.5-6.5.
“Of the 1,224 (74% of 1,651 randomized) patients entering the extension, 878 (72%) were ongoing,” the researchers reported. Patients who received siponimod continuously were less likely to experience 3-month confirmed disability progression and 6-month confirmed disability progression, relative to patients who switched from placebo. In addition, patients who received continuous siponimod treatment had a prolonged time to 6-month confirmed disability progression, compared with patients who switched from placebo. For the 25th percentile of patients, continuous siponimod treatment corresponded to a delay of 54% (21 months vs. 13.6 months). Risk of worsening on the SDMT was reduced by 23% in the continuous siponimod–treatment group. For the 25th percentile of patients, this reduced risk corresponded to a delay of 62% (29.6 months vs. 18.3 months). ARR was 0.054 in the continuous-siponimod group, compared with 0.097 in the group that switched to siponimod from placebo, a reduction of 52%.
Dr. Cree has received personal compensation from Novartis, which markets siponimod, as well as Akili, Alexion, Atara, Biogen, EMD Serono, and TG Therapeutics. His coauthors reported receiving research support and personal compensation from Novartis and other pharmaceutical companies. Several coauthors were Novartis employees.
SOURCE: Kappos L et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S40.003.
Among and had a lower annualized relapse rate up to 5 years later, compared with patients who initially received placebo and switched to siponimod. This research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
Benefits of siponimod gained during the controlled period were “sustained for up to 5 years, suggesting a continuous effect of siponimod and underlining the advantages of early treatment initiation with siponimod,” the researchers said. Incidence rates of adverse events during the extension study were consistent with those during the controlled treatment period.
The results “highlight the critical importance of early treatment intervention ... to ensure the best possible long-term outcomes for patients with MS who are experiencing progression,” study investigator Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, said in a news release.
“It’s never too early to stay ahead of progression in MS, since the early identification of physical and cognitive changes – even subtle ones – can indicate MS disease progression and therefore allow for timely intervention.” said Dr. Cree, who is clinical research director and George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California, San Francisco.
Siponimod, marketed as Mayzent, is a sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator that selectively binds to S1P1 and S1P5 receptors. The oral drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease in adults.
To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of siponimod in patients with secondary progressive MS, Dr. Cree and colleagues analyzed data from patients in the controlled and extension parts of the EXPAND trial. Patients could have had been in the study for as long as 5 years at the data cutoff in April 2019. Efficacy analyses included time to 3-month confirmed disability progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), time to 6-month confirmed disability progression, time to 6-month confirmed worsening of 4 or more points on the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), and annualized relapse rate. In EXPAND, the researchers defined confirmed disability progression as a 1-point increase in EDSS if the baseline score was 3.0-5.0, or a 0.5-point increase if the baseline score was 5.5-6.5.
“Of the 1,224 (74% of 1,651 randomized) patients entering the extension, 878 (72%) were ongoing,” the researchers reported. Patients who received siponimod continuously were less likely to experience 3-month confirmed disability progression and 6-month confirmed disability progression, relative to patients who switched from placebo. In addition, patients who received continuous siponimod treatment had a prolonged time to 6-month confirmed disability progression, compared with patients who switched from placebo. For the 25th percentile of patients, continuous siponimod treatment corresponded to a delay of 54% (21 months vs. 13.6 months). Risk of worsening on the SDMT was reduced by 23% in the continuous siponimod–treatment group. For the 25th percentile of patients, this reduced risk corresponded to a delay of 62% (29.6 months vs. 18.3 months). ARR was 0.054 in the continuous-siponimod group, compared with 0.097 in the group that switched to siponimod from placebo, a reduction of 52%.
Dr. Cree has received personal compensation from Novartis, which markets siponimod, as well as Akili, Alexion, Atara, Biogen, EMD Serono, and TG Therapeutics. His coauthors reported receiving research support and personal compensation from Novartis and other pharmaceutical companies. Several coauthors were Novartis employees.
SOURCE: Kappos L et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S40.003.
Among and had a lower annualized relapse rate up to 5 years later, compared with patients who initially received placebo and switched to siponimod. This research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
Benefits of siponimod gained during the controlled period were “sustained for up to 5 years, suggesting a continuous effect of siponimod and underlining the advantages of early treatment initiation with siponimod,” the researchers said. Incidence rates of adverse events during the extension study were consistent with those during the controlled treatment period.
The results “highlight the critical importance of early treatment intervention ... to ensure the best possible long-term outcomes for patients with MS who are experiencing progression,” study investigator Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, said in a news release.
“It’s never too early to stay ahead of progression in MS, since the early identification of physical and cognitive changes – even subtle ones – can indicate MS disease progression and therefore allow for timely intervention.” said Dr. Cree, who is clinical research director and George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California, San Francisco.
Siponimod, marketed as Mayzent, is a sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator that selectively binds to S1P1 and S1P5 receptors. The oral drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease in adults.
To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of siponimod in patients with secondary progressive MS, Dr. Cree and colleagues analyzed data from patients in the controlled and extension parts of the EXPAND trial. Patients could have had been in the study for as long as 5 years at the data cutoff in April 2019. Efficacy analyses included time to 3-month confirmed disability progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), time to 6-month confirmed disability progression, time to 6-month confirmed worsening of 4 or more points on the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), and annualized relapse rate. In EXPAND, the researchers defined confirmed disability progression as a 1-point increase in EDSS if the baseline score was 3.0-5.0, or a 0.5-point increase if the baseline score was 5.5-6.5.
“Of the 1,224 (74% of 1,651 randomized) patients entering the extension, 878 (72%) were ongoing,” the researchers reported. Patients who received siponimod continuously were less likely to experience 3-month confirmed disability progression and 6-month confirmed disability progression, relative to patients who switched from placebo. In addition, patients who received continuous siponimod treatment had a prolonged time to 6-month confirmed disability progression, compared with patients who switched from placebo. For the 25th percentile of patients, continuous siponimod treatment corresponded to a delay of 54% (21 months vs. 13.6 months). Risk of worsening on the SDMT was reduced by 23% in the continuous siponimod–treatment group. For the 25th percentile of patients, this reduced risk corresponded to a delay of 62% (29.6 months vs. 18.3 months). ARR was 0.054 in the continuous-siponimod group, compared with 0.097 in the group that switched to siponimod from placebo, a reduction of 52%.
Dr. Cree has received personal compensation from Novartis, which markets siponimod, as well as Akili, Alexion, Atara, Biogen, EMD Serono, and TG Therapeutics. His coauthors reported receiving research support and personal compensation from Novartis and other pharmaceutical companies. Several coauthors were Novartis employees.
SOURCE: Kappos L et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S40.003.
FROM AAN 2020
Medical meetings may be forever changed
As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.
Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.
One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.
Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005-2015, there were more than 30,000 medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.
Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”
The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.
Michaela West, MD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”
Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”
However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
Worth the Effort?
The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.
David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”
Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.
Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”
Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.
The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.
Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”
Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the ‘virtual meetings!’ ”
However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process.
Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?
Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.
This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, occurred online on those days. The ACC said it would stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.
Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.
The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast-forward more than 50 years later to 2019: There were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.
Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.
“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Ky., in a regular column.
The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argued. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he wrote.
But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.
“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).
Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her health care colleagues: “... there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Editor’s note: For information on the impending virtual DDW® meeting, please go to https://ddw.org/attendee-planning/covid-19-update/.
As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.
Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.
One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.
Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005-2015, there were more than 30,000 medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.
Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”
The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.
Michaela West, MD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”
Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”
However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
Worth the Effort?
The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.
David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”
Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.
Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”
Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.
The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.
Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”
Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the ‘virtual meetings!’ ”
However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process.
Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?
Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.
This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, occurred online on those days. The ACC said it would stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.
Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.
The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast-forward more than 50 years later to 2019: There were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.
Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.
“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Ky., in a regular column.
The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argued. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he wrote.
But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.
“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).
Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her health care colleagues: “... there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Editor’s note: For information on the impending virtual DDW® meeting, please go to https://ddw.org/attendee-planning/covid-19-update/.
As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.
Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.
One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.
Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005-2015, there were more than 30,000 medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.
Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”
The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.
Michaela West, MD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”
Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”
However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
Worth the Effort?
The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.
David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”
Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.
Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”
Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.
The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.
Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”
Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the ‘virtual meetings!’ ”
However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process.
Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?
Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.
This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, occurred online on those days. The ACC said it would stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.
Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.
The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast-forward more than 50 years later to 2019: There were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.
Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.
“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Ky., in a regular column.
The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argued. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he wrote.
But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.
“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).
Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her health care colleagues: “... there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Editor’s note: For information on the impending virtual DDW® meeting, please go to https://ddw.org/attendee-planning/covid-19-update/.
Crohn’s: Novel biomarker predicts early responses to anti-TNF therapy
A novel biomarker may predict early responses to anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease, according to investigators.
After 1 week of therapy with adalimumab, serum levels of citrullinated and matrix metalloproteinase-degraded vimentin (VICM) predicted early responses to treatment with an odds ratio of 42.5, reported lead author Joachim H. Mortensen, PhD, of Nordic Bioscience, Herlev, Denmark, and colleagues.
“VICM may help to facilitate early decision-making of the best possible treatment option for Crohn’s disease patients,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.This is an area of particular need, the investigators explained because 10%-40% of patients with Crohn’s disease have an inadequate response to anti-TNF therapy, yet early detection of treatment failure remains challenging.
According to the investigators, C-reactive protein (CRP) may serve as a reliable biomarker for acute inflammation, but intestinal tissue remodeling in Crohn’s disease is largely caused by chronic inflammation, which is driven by proteases. As these proteases degrade intestinal tissue, protein fragments called neo-epitopes are released into circulation, offering a potential biomarker of disease activity. Previous research showed that VICM, a neo-epitope that correlates with macrophage activity, was highly associated with Crohn’s disease.
“Because anti-TNF reduces the number of activated macrophages, we hypothesized that changes in VICM levels can be applied to monitor the outcome of early response to anti-TNF treatment in Crohn’s disease,” the investigators wrote.
To test this hypothesis, the investigators retrospectively analyzed clinical data and serum samples from 42 patients with Crohn’s disease, of whom 21 were treated with adalimumab at University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands) and 21 were treated with infliximab at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. In both cohorts, disease activity was measured by the Harvey-Bradshaw Index, with responders defined by a score of less than 5, which indicates clinical remission. Harvey-Bradshaw Index scores were evaluated at week 8 and week 14 for the adalimumab and infliximab groups, respectively. In the adalimumab group, serum VICM and CRP levels were evaluated at baseline, then at weeks 1 and 8. In the infliximab group, VICM and CRP were measured at baseline, then at weeks 2, 6, and 14.
Patients responding to adalimumab had significantly lower levels of VICM than did nonresponders at week 1 (P = .007) and week 8 (P = .048). Although infliximab responders showed numerical differences in VICM, compared with nonresponders, at week 2 (P = .48), these differences lacked statistical significance until week 6 (P = .046), then lost significance again at week 14 (P = .23). No significant differences in CRP levels between responders and nonresponders were detected at any timepoints.
Using a receiver operating characteristic–curve analysis, the investigators identified a clinically relevant cutoff value for VICM at 12.5 ng/mL. With this cutoff, responders were identifiable as early as week 6 in the infliximab group with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 (specificity, 75%; sensitivity, 88%; P less than .01). In the adalimumab group, responders were identifiable as early as week 1, with an AUC of 0.91 (specificity, 87%; sensitivity, 100%; P less than .01).
In the infliximab group, patients with a serum VICM level less than 12.5 ng/mL at week 6 were 22.5 times more likely to be responders (odds ratio, 22.5). Patients treated with adalimumab were 42 times more likely to be responders if their VICM level fell below the cutoff at week 1. A similar analysis involving CRP had no predictive value.
“In conclusion, the reduction in VICM serum levels, but not reduction in CRP levels, was associated with early response to [anti–TNF-alpha] treatment in patients with Crohn’s disease,” the investigators concluded. “Thus, VICM may help to facilitate early decision-making of the best possible treatment option for Crohn’s disease patients.”
The study was funded by the Danish Research Foundation. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Nordic Bioscience.
SOURCE: Mortensen JH et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001341.
Help your patients understand their Crohn’s disease treatment options by sharing AGA patient education content at https://www.gastro.org/
A novel biomarker may predict early responses to anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease, according to investigators.
After 1 week of therapy with adalimumab, serum levels of citrullinated and matrix metalloproteinase-degraded vimentin (VICM) predicted early responses to treatment with an odds ratio of 42.5, reported lead author Joachim H. Mortensen, PhD, of Nordic Bioscience, Herlev, Denmark, and colleagues.
“VICM may help to facilitate early decision-making of the best possible treatment option for Crohn’s disease patients,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.This is an area of particular need, the investigators explained because 10%-40% of patients with Crohn’s disease have an inadequate response to anti-TNF therapy, yet early detection of treatment failure remains challenging.
According to the investigators, C-reactive protein (CRP) may serve as a reliable biomarker for acute inflammation, but intestinal tissue remodeling in Crohn’s disease is largely caused by chronic inflammation, which is driven by proteases. As these proteases degrade intestinal tissue, protein fragments called neo-epitopes are released into circulation, offering a potential biomarker of disease activity. Previous research showed that VICM, a neo-epitope that correlates with macrophage activity, was highly associated with Crohn’s disease.
“Because anti-TNF reduces the number of activated macrophages, we hypothesized that changes in VICM levels can be applied to monitor the outcome of early response to anti-TNF treatment in Crohn’s disease,” the investigators wrote.
To test this hypothesis, the investigators retrospectively analyzed clinical data and serum samples from 42 patients with Crohn’s disease, of whom 21 were treated with adalimumab at University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands) and 21 were treated with infliximab at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. In both cohorts, disease activity was measured by the Harvey-Bradshaw Index, with responders defined by a score of less than 5, which indicates clinical remission. Harvey-Bradshaw Index scores were evaluated at week 8 and week 14 for the adalimumab and infliximab groups, respectively. In the adalimumab group, serum VICM and CRP levels were evaluated at baseline, then at weeks 1 and 8. In the infliximab group, VICM and CRP were measured at baseline, then at weeks 2, 6, and 14.
Patients responding to adalimumab had significantly lower levels of VICM than did nonresponders at week 1 (P = .007) and week 8 (P = .048). Although infliximab responders showed numerical differences in VICM, compared with nonresponders, at week 2 (P = .48), these differences lacked statistical significance until week 6 (P = .046), then lost significance again at week 14 (P = .23). No significant differences in CRP levels between responders and nonresponders were detected at any timepoints.
Using a receiver operating characteristic–curve analysis, the investigators identified a clinically relevant cutoff value for VICM at 12.5 ng/mL. With this cutoff, responders were identifiable as early as week 6 in the infliximab group with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 (specificity, 75%; sensitivity, 88%; P less than .01). In the adalimumab group, responders were identifiable as early as week 1, with an AUC of 0.91 (specificity, 87%; sensitivity, 100%; P less than .01).
In the infliximab group, patients with a serum VICM level less than 12.5 ng/mL at week 6 were 22.5 times more likely to be responders (odds ratio, 22.5). Patients treated with adalimumab were 42 times more likely to be responders if their VICM level fell below the cutoff at week 1. A similar analysis involving CRP had no predictive value.
“In conclusion, the reduction in VICM serum levels, but not reduction in CRP levels, was associated with early response to [anti–TNF-alpha] treatment in patients with Crohn’s disease,” the investigators concluded. “Thus, VICM may help to facilitate early decision-making of the best possible treatment option for Crohn’s disease patients.”
The study was funded by the Danish Research Foundation. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Nordic Bioscience.
SOURCE: Mortensen JH et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001341.
Help your patients understand their Crohn’s disease treatment options by sharing AGA patient education content at https://www.gastro.org/
A novel biomarker may predict early responses to anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease, according to investigators.
After 1 week of therapy with adalimumab, serum levels of citrullinated and matrix metalloproteinase-degraded vimentin (VICM) predicted early responses to treatment with an odds ratio of 42.5, reported lead author Joachim H. Mortensen, PhD, of Nordic Bioscience, Herlev, Denmark, and colleagues.
“VICM may help to facilitate early decision-making of the best possible treatment option for Crohn’s disease patients,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.This is an area of particular need, the investigators explained because 10%-40% of patients with Crohn’s disease have an inadequate response to anti-TNF therapy, yet early detection of treatment failure remains challenging.
According to the investigators, C-reactive protein (CRP) may serve as a reliable biomarker for acute inflammation, but intestinal tissue remodeling in Crohn’s disease is largely caused by chronic inflammation, which is driven by proteases. As these proteases degrade intestinal tissue, protein fragments called neo-epitopes are released into circulation, offering a potential biomarker of disease activity. Previous research showed that VICM, a neo-epitope that correlates with macrophage activity, was highly associated with Crohn’s disease.
“Because anti-TNF reduces the number of activated macrophages, we hypothesized that changes in VICM levels can be applied to monitor the outcome of early response to anti-TNF treatment in Crohn’s disease,” the investigators wrote.
To test this hypothesis, the investigators retrospectively analyzed clinical data and serum samples from 42 patients with Crohn’s disease, of whom 21 were treated with adalimumab at University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands) and 21 were treated with infliximab at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. In both cohorts, disease activity was measured by the Harvey-Bradshaw Index, with responders defined by a score of less than 5, which indicates clinical remission. Harvey-Bradshaw Index scores were evaluated at week 8 and week 14 for the adalimumab and infliximab groups, respectively. In the adalimumab group, serum VICM and CRP levels were evaluated at baseline, then at weeks 1 and 8. In the infliximab group, VICM and CRP were measured at baseline, then at weeks 2, 6, and 14.
Patients responding to adalimumab had significantly lower levels of VICM than did nonresponders at week 1 (P = .007) and week 8 (P = .048). Although infliximab responders showed numerical differences in VICM, compared with nonresponders, at week 2 (P = .48), these differences lacked statistical significance until week 6 (P = .046), then lost significance again at week 14 (P = .23). No significant differences in CRP levels between responders and nonresponders were detected at any timepoints.
Using a receiver operating characteristic–curve analysis, the investigators identified a clinically relevant cutoff value for VICM at 12.5 ng/mL. With this cutoff, responders were identifiable as early as week 6 in the infliximab group with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 (specificity, 75%; sensitivity, 88%; P less than .01). In the adalimumab group, responders were identifiable as early as week 1, with an AUC of 0.91 (specificity, 87%; sensitivity, 100%; P less than .01).
In the infliximab group, patients with a serum VICM level less than 12.5 ng/mL at week 6 were 22.5 times more likely to be responders (odds ratio, 22.5). Patients treated with adalimumab were 42 times more likely to be responders if their VICM level fell below the cutoff at week 1. A similar analysis involving CRP had no predictive value.
“In conclusion, the reduction in VICM serum levels, but not reduction in CRP levels, was associated with early response to [anti–TNF-alpha] treatment in patients with Crohn’s disease,” the investigators concluded. “Thus, VICM may help to facilitate early decision-making of the best possible treatment option for Crohn’s disease patients.”
The study was funded by the Danish Research Foundation. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Nordic Bioscience.
SOURCE: Mortensen JH et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001341.
Help your patients understand their Crohn’s disease treatment options by sharing AGA patient education content at https://www.gastro.org/
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
Key clinical point: A novel biomarker may predict early responses to anti–TNF-alpha therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease.
Major finding: After 1 week of therapy with adalimumab, serum levels of citrullinated and matrix metalloproteinase-degraded vimentin (VICM) predicted response to treatment with an odds ratio of 42.5.
Study details: A retrospective study involving 42 patients with Crohn’s disease.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the Danish Research Foundation. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Nordic Bioscience.
Source: Mortensen JH et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001341.