Conference Coverage

When Frances R. Levin, MD, began her clinical psychiatry career in the mid-1990s, she spent a lot of time educating colleagues about the validity of an ADHD diagnosis in adults.

“That’s no longer an issue,” Dr. Levin, the Kennedy-Leavy Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “But at the time, we often thought, ‘ADHD is something that’s specific to people who are stimulant users.’ In fact, what we found over the years was that these rates are elevated in a range of substance use populations.”

According to National Comorbidity Survey, a nontreatment sample of more than 3,000 adults, individuals who have SUD have two to three times the risk of having ADHD, while individuals who have ADHD have about three times the rate of having an SUD, compared with those who don’t (Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163[4]:716-23). “When you move to treatment samples, the rates also remain quite high,” said Dr. Levin, who is also chief of the division of substance use disorders at the medical center.

“In the general population, the rates of ADHD are 2%-4%. When we look at people who are coming in specifically for treatment of their SUD, the rates are substantially higher, ranging from 10% to 24%.”

According to a 2014 review of medical literature, potential reasons for the association between ADHD and SUD vary and include underlying biologic deficits, such as parental SUDs and genetics; conduct disorder symptoms, such as defiance, rule breaking, and delinquency; poor performance in school, such as low grades, grade retention, or drop-out; and social difficulties, such as rejection from conventional groups or few quality friendships (Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:607-39). Other potential pathways include neurocognitive deficits, stress-negative affect models, impulsive anger, and other underlying traits.

One key reason to treat ADHD in patients with SUDs is that they tend to develop the SUD earlier when the ADHD is present, Dr. Levin said. They’re also less likely to be retained in treatment and have a reduced likelihood of going into remission if dependence develops. “Even when they do achieve remission, it seems to take longer for people to reach remission,” she said. “They have more treatment exposure yet do less well in treatment. The other elephant in the room is that often people with ADHD and an SUD have other psychiatric comorbidities. This can make it more challenging to treat this population.”

One common assumption from clinicians regarding patients with ADHD and a concomitant SUD is that standard treatments for ADHD do not work in active substance users. Another is that, even if treatments work for ADHD, they do not affect the substance use disorder. “Understandably, there is also concern that active substance abusers will misuse and divert their medications,” she said. “Finally, there are often additional psychiatric comorbidities that may make it harder to effectively treat individuals with ADHD and SUD.”

Since 2002, 15 double-blind outpatient studies using stimulants/atomoxetine to treat substance abusers with ADHD have appeared in the medical literature, Dr. Levin said. Only three have included adolescents. “That’s surprising, because up to 40% of kids who come in for treatment, often for cannabis use disorder, will have ADHD, yet there is very little guidance from empirical studies as to how to best treat them,” she said. “There have been several studies looking at atomoxetine to treat substance abusers with ADHD, but results have been mixed. In the cannabis use populations, atomoxetine has not been shown to be effective in treating the substance use disorder, and results are mixed regarding superiority in reducing ADHD symptoms. There is one study showing that ADHD is more likely to be improved in adults with alcohol use disorders with mixed results regarding the alcohol use.”

Overall, most of the outpatient and inpatient studies conducted in this population have demonstrated some signal in terms of reducing ADHD, she said, while a minority of the outpatient studies suggest some benefit in terms of substance use. “What’s interesting is that when you see a response in terms of the ADHD, you often see an improvement in the substance use as well,” Dr. Levin said. “This potentially suggests that patients may be self-medicating their ADHD symptoms or that if the ADHD responds to treatment, then the patient may benefit from the psychosocial interventions that targets the SUD.”

A separate meta-analysis involving more than 1,000 patients found mixed results from pharmacologic interventions and concluded that, while they modestly improved ADHD symptoms, no beneficial effect was seen on drug abstinence or on treatment discontinuation (J Psychopharmacol. 2015 Jan;29[1]:15-23). “I would argue that you don’t need to be as nihilistic about this as the meta-analysis might suggest, because the devil’s in the details,” said Dr. Levin, whose own research was included in the work.

“First of all, many of the studies had high drop-out rates. The outcome measures were variable, and some of the studies used formulations with poor bioavailability. Also, trials that evaluated atomoxetine or stimulants were combined, which may be problematic given the different mechanisms of action. Further, the meta-analysis did not include two recent placebo-controlled trials in adults with stimulant-use disorders that both found that higher dosing of a long-acting stimulant resulted in greater improvements in ADHD symptoms and stimulant use” (Addict. 2014;109[3]:440-9 and JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72[6]:593-602).

Dr. Levin went on to note that there are few empirical data to guide treatment for those who have multiple psychiatric disorders, let alone treatment for ADHD and SUDs without additional psychiatric disorders. The challenge is what to treat first and/or how to treat the concomitant conditions safely.

“Generally, if possible, treat what is most clinically impairing first,” she said. “Overall, both stimulants and atomoxetine may work for ADHD even in the presence of additional depression, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders.”

She cautioned against treating a patient with ADHD medication if there is a preexisting psychosis or bipolar illness. “If you start a stimulant or atomoxetine and psychosis or mania occurs, you clearly want to stop the medication and reassess,” she said. Researchers found that the risk of precipitating mania with a stimulant is uncommon if you alleviate symptoms first with a mood stabilizer. “This is a situation where you probably want to treat the bipolar illness first, but it does not preclude the treatment of ADHD once the mood stabilization has occurred,” she said.

In patients with ADHD and anxiety, she often treats the ADHD first, “because oftentimes the anxiety is driven by the procrastination and the inability to get things done,” she explained. “It’s important to determine whether the anxiety is an independent disorder rather than symptoms of ADHD. Inner restlessness can be described as anxiety.”

When there are concerns that preclude the use of a controlled medication, there are medications, in addition to atomoxetine, that might be considered. While bupropion is not Food and Drug Administration approved for ADHD, it might be useful in comorbid mood disorders for nicotine dependence. Other off-label medications that may help include guanfacine, modafinil, and tricyclic antidepressants.

“To date, robust dosing of long-acting amphetamine or methylphenidate formulations have been shown to be effective for patients with stimulant-use disorder, but as mentioned earlier, the data only come from two studies,” she said.

In order to determine whether stimulant treatment is yielding a benefit in a patient with co-occurring ADHD and SUD, she recommends carrying out a structured assessment of ADHD symptoms. Monitoring for functional improvement is also key.

“If there is no improvement in social, occupational, or academic settings and the patient is still actively using drugs, then there is no reason to keep prescribing,” she said. Close monitoring for cardiovascular or other psychiatric symptoms are key as well. Further, for those individuals with both ADHD and a substance-use disorder, it is critical that both are targeted for treatment.

Dr. Levin reported that she has received research, training, or salary support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, New York state, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. She has also received or currently receives industry support from Indivior and U.S. World Meds and for medication and from Major League Baseball. In addition, Dr. Levin has been an unpaid scientific advisory board member for Alkermes, Indivior, and Novartis.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

When Frances R. Levin, MD, began her clinical psychiatry career in the mid-1990s, she spent a lot of time educating colleagues about the validity of an ADHD diagnosis in adults.

“That’s no longer an issue,” Dr. Levin, the Kennedy-Leavy Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “But at the time, we often thought, ‘ADHD is something that’s specific to people who are stimulant users.’ In fact, what we found over the years was that these rates are elevated in a range of substance use populations.”

According to National Comorbidity Survey, a nontreatment sample of more than 3,000 adults, individuals who have SUD have two to three times the risk of having ADHD, while individuals who have ADHD have about three times the rate of having an SUD, compared with those who don’t (Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163[4]:716-23). “When you move to treatment samples, the rates also remain quite high,” said Dr. Levin, who is also chief of the division of substance use disorders at the medical center.

“In the general population, the rates of ADHD are 2%-4%. When we look at people who are coming in specifically for treatment of their SUD, the rates are substantially higher, ranging from 10% to 24%.”

According to a 2014 review of medical literature, potential reasons for the association between ADHD and SUD vary and include underlying biologic deficits, such as parental SUDs and genetics; conduct disorder symptoms, such as defiance, rule breaking, and delinquency; poor performance in school, such as low grades, grade retention, or drop-out; and social difficulties, such as rejection from conventional groups or few quality friendships (Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:607-39). Other potential pathways include neurocognitive deficits, stress-negative affect models, impulsive anger, and other underlying traits.

One key reason to treat ADHD in patients with SUDs is that they tend to develop the SUD earlier when the ADHD is present, Dr. Levin said. They’re also less likely to be retained in treatment and have a reduced likelihood of going into remission if dependence develops. “Even when they do achieve remission, it seems to take longer for people to reach remission,” she said. “They have more treatment exposure yet do less well in treatment. The other elephant in the room is that often people with ADHD and an SUD have other psychiatric comorbidities. This can make it more challenging to treat this population.”

One common assumption from clinicians regarding patients with ADHD and a concomitant SUD is that standard treatments for ADHD do not work in active substance users. Another is that, even if treatments work for ADHD, they do not affect the substance use disorder. “Understandably, there is also concern that active substance abusers will misuse and divert their medications,” she said. “Finally, there are often additional psychiatric comorbidities that may make it harder to effectively treat individuals with ADHD and SUD.”

Since 2002, 15 double-blind outpatient studies using stimulants/atomoxetine to treat substance abusers with ADHD have appeared in the medical literature, Dr. Levin said. Only three have included adolescents. “That’s surprising, because up to 40% of kids who come in for treatment, often for cannabis use disorder, will have ADHD, yet there is very little guidance from empirical studies as to how to best treat them,” she said. “There have been several studies looking at atomoxetine to treat substance abusers with ADHD, but results have been mixed. In the cannabis use populations, atomoxetine has not been shown to be effective in treating the substance use disorder, and results are mixed regarding superiority in reducing ADHD symptoms. There is one study showing that ADHD is more likely to be improved in adults with alcohol use disorders with mixed results regarding the alcohol use.”

Overall, most of the outpatient and inpatient studies conducted in this population have demonstrated some signal in terms of reducing ADHD, she said, while a minority of the outpatient studies suggest some benefit in terms of substance use. “What’s interesting is that when you see a response in terms of the ADHD, you often see an improvement in the substance use as well,” Dr. Levin said. “This potentially suggests that patients may be self-medicating their ADHD symptoms or that if the ADHD responds to treatment, then the patient may benefit from the psychosocial interventions that targets the SUD.”

A separate meta-analysis involving more than 1,000 patients found mixed results from pharmacologic interventions and concluded that, while they modestly improved ADHD symptoms, no beneficial effect was seen on drug abstinence or on treatment discontinuation (J Psychopharmacol. 2015 Jan;29[1]:15-23). “I would argue that you don’t need to be as nihilistic about this as the meta-analysis might suggest, because the devil’s in the details,” said Dr. Levin, whose own research was included in the work.

“First of all, many of the studies had high drop-out rates. The outcome measures were variable, and some of the studies used formulations with poor bioavailability. Also, trials that evaluated atomoxetine or stimulants were combined, which may be problematic given the different mechanisms of action. Further, the meta-analysis did not include two recent placebo-controlled trials in adults with stimulant-use disorders that both found that higher dosing of a long-acting stimulant resulted in greater improvements in ADHD symptoms and stimulant use” (Addict. 2014;109[3]:440-9 and JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72[6]:593-602).

Dr. Levin went on to note that there are few empirical data to guide treatment for those who have multiple psychiatric disorders, let alone treatment for ADHD and SUDs without additional psychiatric disorders. The challenge is what to treat first and/or how to treat the concomitant conditions safely.

“Generally, if possible, treat what is most clinically impairing first,” she said. “Overall, both stimulants and atomoxetine may work for ADHD even in the presence of additional depression, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders.”

She cautioned against treating a patient with ADHD medication if there is a preexisting psychosis or bipolar illness. “If you start a stimulant or atomoxetine and psychosis or mania occurs, you clearly want to stop the medication and reassess,” she said. Researchers found that the risk of precipitating mania with a stimulant is uncommon if you alleviate symptoms first with a mood stabilizer. “This is a situation where you probably want to treat the bipolar illness first, but it does not preclude the treatment of ADHD once the mood stabilization has occurred,” she said.

In patients with ADHD and anxiety, she often treats the ADHD first, “because oftentimes the anxiety is driven by the procrastination and the inability to get things done,” she explained. “It’s important to determine whether the anxiety is an independent disorder rather than symptoms of ADHD. Inner restlessness can be described as anxiety.”

When there are concerns that preclude the use of a controlled medication, there are medications, in addition to atomoxetine, that might be considered. While bupropion is not Food and Drug Administration approved for ADHD, it might be useful in comorbid mood disorders for nicotine dependence. Other off-label medications that may help include guanfacine, modafinil, and tricyclic antidepressants.

“To date, robust dosing of long-acting amphetamine or methylphenidate formulations have been shown to be effective for patients with stimulant-use disorder, but as mentioned earlier, the data only come from two studies,” she said.

In order to determine whether stimulant treatment is yielding a benefit in a patient with co-occurring ADHD and SUD, she recommends carrying out a structured assessment of ADHD symptoms. Monitoring for functional improvement is also key.

“If there is no improvement in social, occupational, or academic settings and the patient is still actively using drugs, then there is no reason to keep prescribing,” she said. Close monitoring for cardiovascular or other psychiatric symptoms are key as well. Further, for those individuals with both ADHD and a substance-use disorder, it is critical that both are targeted for treatment.

Dr. Levin reported that she has received research, training, or salary support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, New York state, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. She has also received or currently receives industry support from Indivior and U.S. World Meds and for medication and from Major League Baseball. In addition, Dr. Levin has been an unpaid scientific advisory board member for Alkermes, Indivior, and Novartis.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

When Frances R. Levin, MD, began her clinical psychiatry career in the mid-1990s, she spent a lot of time educating colleagues about the validity of an ADHD diagnosis in adults.

“That’s no longer an issue,” Dr. Levin, the Kennedy-Leavy Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “But at the time, we often thought, ‘ADHD is something that’s specific to people who are stimulant users.’ In fact, what we found over the years was that these rates are elevated in a range of substance use populations.”

According to National Comorbidity Survey, a nontreatment sample of more than 3,000 adults, individuals who have SUD have two to three times the risk of having ADHD, while individuals who have ADHD have about three times the rate of having an SUD, compared with those who don’t (Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163[4]:716-23). “When you move to treatment samples, the rates also remain quite high,” said Dr. Levin, who is also chief of the division of substance use disorders at the medical center.

“In the general population, the rates of ADHD are 2%-4%. When we look at people who are coming in specifically for treatment of their SUD, the rates are substantially higher, ranging from 10% to 24%.”

According to a 2014 review of medical literature, potential reasons for the association between ADHD and SUD vary and include underlying biologic deficits, such as parental SUDs and genetics; conduct disorder symptoms, such as defiance, rule breaking, and delinquency; poor performance in school, such as low grades, grade retention, or drop-out; and social difficulties, such as rejection from conventional groups or few quality friendships (Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:607-39). Other potential pathways include neurocognitive deficits, stress-negative affect models, impulsive anger, and other underlying traits.

One key reason to treat ADHD in patients with SUDs is that they tend to develop the SUD earlier when the ADHD is present, Dr. Levin said. They’re also less likely to be retained in treatment and have a reduced likelihood of going into remission if dependence develops. “Even when they do achieve remission, it seems to take longer for people to reach remission,” she said. “They have more treatment exposure yet do less well in treatment. The other elephant in the room is that often people with ADHD and an SUD have other psychiatric comorbidities. This can make it more challenging to treat this population.”

One common assumption from clinicians regarding patients with ADHD and a concomitant SUD is that standard treatments for ADHD do not work in active substance users. Another is that, even if treatments work for ADHD, they do not affect the substance use disorder. “Understandably, there is also concern that active substance abusers will misuse and divert their medications,” she said. “Finally, there are often additional psychiatric comorbidities that may make it harder to effectively treat individuals with ADHD and SUD.”

Since 2002, 15 double-blind outpatient studies using stimulants/atomoxetine to treat substance abusers with ADHD have appeared in the medical literature, Dr. Levin said. Only three have included adolescents. “That’s surprising, because up to 40% of kids who come in for treatment, often for cannabis use disorder, will have ADHD, yet there is very little guidance from empirical studies as to how to best treat them,” she said. “There have been several studies looking at atomoxetine to treat substance abusers with ADHD, but results have been mixed. In the cannabis use populations, atomoxetine has not been shown to be effective in treating the substance use disorder, and results are mixed regarding superiority in reducing ADHD symptoms. There is one study showing that ADHD is more likely to be improved in adults with alcohol use disorders with mixed results regarding the alcohol use.”

Overall, most of the outpatient and inpatient studies conducted in this population have demonstrated some signal in terms of reducing ADHD, she said, while a minority of the outpatient studies suggest some benefit in terms of substance use. “What’s interesting is that when you see a response in terms of the ADHD, you often see an improvement in the substance use as well,” Dr. Levin said. “This potentially suggests that patients may be self-medicating their ADHD symptoms or that if the ADHD responds to treatment, then the patient may benefit from the psychosocial interventions that targets the SUD.”

A separate meta-analysis involving more than 1,000 patients found mixed results from pharmacologic interventions and concluded that, while they modestly improved ADHD symptoms, no beneficial effect was seen on drug abstinence or on treatment discontinuation (J Psychopharmacol. 2015 Jan;29[1]:15-23). “I would argue that you don’t need to be as nihilistic about this as the meta-analysis might suggest, because the devil’s in the details,” said Dr. Levin, whose own research was included in the work.

“First of all, many of the studies had high drop-out rates. The outcome measures were variable, and some of the studies used formulations with poor bioavailability. Also, trials that evaluated atomoxetine or stimulants were combined, which may be problematic given the different mechanisms of action. Further, the meta-analysis did not include two recent placebo-controlled trials in adults with stimulant-use disorders that both found that higher dosing of a long-acting stimulant resulted in greater improvements in ADHD symptoms and stimulant use” (Addict. 2014;109[3]:440-9 and JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72[6]:593-602).

Dr. Levin went on to note that there are few empirical data to guide treatment for those who have multiple psychiatric disorders, let alone treatment for ADHD and SUDs without additional psychiatric disorders. The challenge is what to treat first and/or how to treat the concomitant conditions safely.

“Generally, if possible, treat what is most clinically impairing first,” she said. “Overall, both stimulants and atomoxetine may work for ADHD even in the presence of additional depression, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders.”

She cautioned against treating a patient with ADHD medication if there is a preexisting psychosis or bipolar illness. “If you start a stimulant or atomoxetine and psychosis or mania occurs, you clearly want to stop the medication and reassess,” she said. Researchers found that the risk of precipitating mania with a stimulant is uncommon if you alleviate symptoms first with a mood stabilizer. “This is a situation where you probably want to treat the bipolar illness first, but it does not preclude the treatment of ADHD once the mood stabilization has occurred,” she said.

In patients with ADHD and anxiety, she often treats the ADHD first, “because oftentimes the anxiety is driven by the procrastination and the inability to get things done,” she explained. “It’s important to determine whether the anxiety is an independent disorder rather than symptoms of ADHD. Inner restlessness can be described as anxiety.”

When there are concerns that preclude the use of a controlled medication, there are medications, in addition to atomoxetine, that might be considered. While bupropion is not Food and Drug Administration approved for ADHD, it might be useful in comorbid mood disorders for nicotine dependence. Other off-label medications that may help include guanfacine, modafinil, and tricyclic antidepressants.

“To date, robust dosing of long-acting amphetamine or methylphenidate formulations have been shown to be effective for patients with stimulant-use disorder, but as mentioned earlier, the data only come from two studies,” she said.

In order to determine whether stimulant treatment is yielding a benefit in a patient with co-occurring ADHD and SUD, she recommends carrying out a structured assessment of ADHD symptoms. Monitoring for functional improvement is also key.

“If there is no improvement in social, occupational, or academic settings and the patient is still actively using drugs, then there is no reason to keep prescribing,” she said. Close monitoring for cardiovascular or other psychiatric symptoms are key as well. Further, for those individuals with both ADHD and a substance-use disorder, it is critical that both are targeted for treatment.

Dr. Levin reported that she has received research, training, or salary support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, New York state, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. She has also received or currently receives industry support from Indivior and U.S. World Meds and for medication and from Major League Baseball. In addition, Dr. Levin has been an unpaid scientific advisory board member for Alkermes, Indivior, and Novartis.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In a clinical trial comparing three graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)–prevention regimens in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplants, a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)–free strategy using CD34-selected peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) was associated with a nearly twofold increase in transplant-related mortality, compared with either a different CNI-free regimen or tacrolimus plus methotrexate, investigators reported.

In the phase 3 Progress II trial, patients who received CD34-selected PBSCs without post-transplant immune suppression had a hazard ratio for death of 1.74 compared with patients who received T-cell depletion with posttransplant cyclophosphamide, and a HR of 1.78, compared with patients who received tacrolimus and methotrexate after a bone marrow graft, Miguel-Angel Perales , MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, reported at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

“CD34 selection was associated with worse overall survival, which offset any benefit from lower rates of moderate to severe chronic GVHD,” he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Neither of the two CNI-free interventions were superior to tacrolimus/methotrexate with bone marrow–derived stem cells for preventing chronic GVHD, and there were no differences in the primary endpoint of chronic GVHD/relapse-free survival, Dr. Perales said.
 

T-cell depletion vs. CNI

The Progress II trial was designed to see whether either of two CNI-free, T-cell depletion approaches could improve chronic GVHD rates post transplant over a CNI-based regimen.

The investigators enrolled patients aged 65 years or younger with acute leukemia or myelodysplasia with fewer than 5% blasts and a HLA-matched related or unrelated donor.

The patients were randomly assigned to either bone marrow grafts with tacrolimus/methotrexate (118 patients), bone marrow with in vivo posttransplant cyclophosphamide (114), or PBSCs with ex vivo CD34-selected cells (114).

The primary endpoint of chronic GVHD/relapse-free survival (CRFS) was a time-to-event outcome defined as moderate to severe chronic GVHD according to National Institutes of Health consensus criteria, disease relapse or progression, or death from any cause.

As noted before, there were no between-arm differences in the primary CRFS endpoint, and in multivariate analysis controlling for donor type, patient characteristics, disease category and disease risk index, the only factor significantly predictive for CRFS was being aged 50 years or older.

The 2-year posttransplant survival rates were 61.6% in the CD34-selected arm, 76.7% in the posttransplant cyclophosphamide arm, and 74.2% in the tacrolimus/methotrexate arm.

As noted before, the HR for CRFS with CD34 versus tacrolimus/methotrexate was 1.74, and for CD34 versus cyclophosphamide was 1.78 (P = .02 for both comparisons). In contrast, there was no differe­nce in CRFS between posttransplant cyclophosphamide and tacrolimus/methotrexate.

Both relapse-free survival and transplant-related mortality were worse with the CD34-selected group, compared with the other two groups, but there were no significant differences among the arms in disease relapse.

Hematologic recovery was faster in the CD34 arm, but there were no significant differences in graft failure.

In addition, the incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD was increased in the posttransplant cyclophosphamide group, compared with the other two, while chronic GVHD and moderate to severe chronic GVHD were reduced in the CD34 group.

There were no differences in quality of life measures among the groups, Dr. Perales said.
 

Practice changing?

In the question-and answer-session following the presentation, comoderator Sarah Nikiforow , MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was not involved in the study, asked whether the trial results could be considered as practice changing for any centers that historically have done CD34 selection, or whether CD34 selection is still a viable approach to GVHD prophylaxis.

“That’s obviously a key question from the study, and a question that we’re asking ourselves,” Dr. Perales said. “I think the lesson that we took from this study as it pertains to CD34 selection is obviously the increased mortality, likely related to regimen toxicity, and I think the use of high-dose radiation is something that we have to reexamine.”

He said that his center is also considering whether to reduce antithymocyte globulin dosing, move it earlier in the process, and to use pharmokinetic-directed ATG as a possible means of decreasing nonrelapse mortality.

“I think it remains a useful platform for adoptive cell therapy, potentially targeting relapsed disease,” he added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Perales disclosed advisory board activities and consulting for multiple companies, and receiving research funding for clinical trials from several more. Dr. Nikiforow disclosed a consulting/advisory role for Kite Pharma, and travel accommodations and expense from Celyad Oncology.

In a clinical trial comparing three graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)–prevention regimens in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplants, a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)–free strategy using CD34-selected peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) was associated with a nearly twofold increase in transplant-related mortality, compared with either a different CNI-free regimen or tacrolimus plus methotrexate, investigators reported.

In the phase 3 Progress II trial, patients who received CD34-selected PBSCs without post-transplant immune suppression had a hazard ratio for death of 1.74 compared with patients who received T-cell depletion with posttransplant cyclophosphamide, and a HR of 1.78, compared with patients who received tacrolimus and methotrexate after a bone marrow graft, Miguel-Angel Perales , MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, reported at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

“CD34 selection was associated with worse overall survival, which offset any benefit from lower rates of moderate to severe chronic GVHD,” he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Neither of the two CNI-free interventions were superior to tacrolimus/methotrexate with bone marrow–derived stem cells for preventing chronic GVHD, and there were no differences in the primary endpoint of chronic GVHD/relapse-free survival, Dr. Perales said.
 

T-cell depletion vs. CNI

The Progress II trial was designed to see whether either of two CNI-free, T-cell depletion approaches could improve chronic GVHD rates post transplant over a CNI-based regimen.

The investigators enrolled patients aged 65 years or younger with acute leukemia or myelodysplasia with fewer than 5% blasts and a HLA-matched related or unrelated donor.

The patients were randomly assigned to either bone marrow grafts with tacrolimus/methotrexate (118 patients), bone marrow with in vivo posttransplant cyclophosphamide (114), or PBSCs with ex vivo CD34-selected cells (114).

The primary endpoint of chronic GVHD/relapse-free survival (CRFS) was a time-to-event outcome defined as moderate to severe chronic GVHD according to National Institutes of Health consensus criteria, disease relapse or progression, or death from any cause.

As noted before, there were no between-arm differences in the primary CRFS endpoint, and in multivariate analysis controlling for donor type, patient characteristics, disease category and disease risk index, the only factor significantly predictive for CRFS was being aged 50 years or older.

The 2-year posttransplant survival rates were 61.6% in the CD34-selected arm, 76.7% in the posttransplant cyclophosphamide arm, and 74.2% in the tacrolimus/methotrexate arm.

As noted before, the HR for CRFS with CD34 versus tacrolimus/methotrexate was 1.74, and for CD34 versus cyclophosphamide was 1.78 (P = .02 for both comparisons). In contrast, there was no differe­nce in CRFS between posttransplant cyclophosphamide and tacrolimus/methotrexate.

Both relapse-free survival and transplant-related mortality were worse with the CD34-selected group, compared with the other two groups, but there were no significant differences among the arms in disease relapse.

Hematologic recovery was faster in the CD34 arm, but there were no significant differences in graft failure.

In addition, the incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD was increased in the posttransplant cyclophosphamide group, compared with the other two, while chronic GVHD and moderate to severe chronic GVHD were reduced in the CD34 group.

There were no differences in quality of life measures among the groups, Dr. Perales said.
 

Practice changing?

In the question-and answer-session following the presentation, comoderator Sarah Nikiforow , MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was not involved in the study, asked whether the trial results could be considered as practice changing for any centers that historically have done CD34 selection, or whether CD34 selection is still a viable approach to GVHD prophylaxis.

“That’s obviously a key question from the study, and a question that we’re asking ourselves,” Dr. Perales said. “I think the lesson that we took from this study as it pertains to CD34 selection is obviously the increased mortality, likely related to regimen toxicity, and I think the use of high-dose radiation is something that we have to reexamine.”

He said that his center is also considering whether to reduce antithymocyte globulin dosing, move it earlier in the process, and to use pharmokinetic-directed ATG as a possible means of decreasing nonrelapse mortality.

“I think it remains a useful platform for adoptive cell therapy, potentially targeting relapsed disease,” he added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Perales disclosed advisory board activities and consulting for multiple companies, and receiving research funding for clinical trials from several more. Dr. Nikiforow disclosed a consulting/advisory role for Kite Pharma, and travel accommodations and expense from Celyad Oncology.

In a clinical trial comparing three graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)–prevention regimens in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplants, a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)–free strategy using CD34-selected peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) was associated with a nearly twofold increase in transplant-related mortality, compared with either a different CNI-free regimen or tacrolimus plus methotrexate, investigators reported.

In the phase 3 Progress II trial, patients who received CD34-selected PBSCs without post-transplant immune suppression had a hazard ratio for death of 1.74 compared with patients who received T-cell depletion with posttransplant cyclophosphamide, and a HR of 1.78, compared with patients who received tacrolimus and methotrexate after a bone marrow graft, Miguel-Angel Perales , MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, reported at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

“CD34 selection was associated with worse overall survival, which offset any benefit from lower rates of moderate to severe chronic GVHD,” he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Neither of the two CNI-free interventions were superior to tacrolimus/methotrexate with bone marrow–derived stem cells for preventing chronic GVHD, and there were no differences in the primary endpoint of chronic GVHD/relapse-free survival, Dr. Perales said.
 

T-cell depletion vs. CNI

The Progress II trial was designed to see whether either of two CNI-free, T-cell depletion approaches could improve chronic GVHD rates post transplant over a CNI-based regimen.

The investigators enrolled patients aged 65 years or younger with acute leukemia or myelodysplasia with fewer than 5% blasts and a HLA-matched related or unrelated donor.

The patients were randomly assigned to either bone marrow grafts with tacrolimus/methotrexate (118 patients), bone marrow with in vivo posttransplant cyclophosphamide (114), or PBSCs with ex vivo CD34-selected cells (114).

The primary endpoint of chronic GVHD/relapse-free survival (CRFS) was a time-to-event outcome defined as moderate to severe chronic GVHD according to National Institutes of Health consensus criteria, disease relapse or progression, or death from any cause.

As noted before, there were no between-arm differences in the primary CRFS endpoint, and in multivariate analysis controlling for donor type, patient characteristics, disease category and disease risk index, the only factor significantly predictive for CRFS was being aged 50 years or older.

The 2-year posttransplant survival rates were 61.6% in the CD34-selected arm, 76.7% in the posttransplant cyclophosphamide arm, and 74.2% in the tacrolimus/methotrexate arm.

As noted before, the HR for CRFS with CD34 versus tacrolimus/methotrexate was 1.74, and for CD34 versus cyclophosphamide was 1.78 (P = .02 for both comparisons). In contrast, there was no differe­nce in CRFS between posttransplant cyclophosphamide and tacrolimus/methotrexate.

Both relapse-free survival and transplant-related mortality were worse with the CD34-selected group, compared with the other two groups, but there were no significant differences among the arms in disease relapse.

Hematologic recovery was faster in the CD34 arm, but there were no significant differences in graft failure.

In addition, the incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD was increased in the posttransplant cyclophosphamide group, compared with the other two, while chronic GVHD and moderate to severe chronic GVHD were reduced in the CD34 group.

There were no differences in quality of life measures among the groups, Dr. Perales said.
 

Practice changing?

In the question-and answer-session following the presentation, comoderator Sarah Nikiforow , MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was not involved in the study, asked whether the trial results could be considered as practice changing for any centers that historically have done CD34 selection, or whether CD34 selection is still a viable approach to GVHD prophylaxis.

“That’s obviously a key question from the study, and a question that we’re asking ourselves,” Dr. Perales said. “I think the lesson that we took from this study as it pertains to CD34 selection is obviously the increased mortality, likely related to regimen toxicity, and I think the use of high-dose radiation is something that we have to reexamine.”

He said that his center is also considering whether to reduce antithymocyte globulin dosing, move it earlier in the process, and to use pharmokinetic-directed ATG as a possible means of decreasing nonrelapse mortality.

“I think it remains a useful platform for adoptive cell therapy, potentially targeting relapsed disease,” he added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Perales disclosed advisory board activities and consulting for multiple companies, and receiving research funding for clinical trials from several more. Dr. Nikiforow disclosed a consulting/advisory role for Kite Pharma, and travel accommodations and expense from Celyad Oncology.

In December 2019, a cluster of cases of what was first identified as a “mysterious pneumonia” was reported in the central Chinese city of Wuhan. Within a few short months, the disease had spread all over the world.

Wuhan was essentially “ground zero” for the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, and now researchers report that many of the early survivors continue to experience a variety of lingering health issues.

At 6 months, for example, pulmonary and immune function have still not returned to normal in many of the patients who had been critically ill, said Zhiyong Peng, MD, PhD, an intensivist and medical researcher, in the department of critical care medicine, Zhonnan Hospital, Wuhan.

In addition, many are still experiencing varying degrees of psychiatric disability and physical morbidity.

The results of the report were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

In 2020, Dr. Peng and colleagues conducted a single-center case series involving 138 patients with coronavirus pneumonia in order to describe the clinical characteristics of this new disease. Within this group, 26% of patients required admission to the intensive care unit and 4.3% died. As of Feb. 3, 2020, 26% required ICU care, 34.1% were discharged, 4.3% died, and 61.6% remained hospitalized. (JAMA. 2020 Mar 17;323[11]:1061-69) Not surprisingly, those requiring critical care experienced a higher rate of severe complications, including shock, arrythmias, acute cardiac injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome, compared with non-ICU patients.

“However, the long-term outcomes of survivors were unknown,” said Dr. Peng. Thus, the goal of the current study was to analyze the outcomes based on pulmonary function, physical morbidity, immunological status, health-related quality of life, cognitive impairment, and psychiatric disability.

The cohort included patients from four hospitals in Wuhan, who had been treated in the adult ICU and required mechanical ventilation (invasive or noninvasive), or had a high FiO₂ concentration, or needed an intravenous infusion of vasopressors.

In all, 171 critically ill patients were admitted to the four designated hospitals, and of this group, 110 were discharged from ICU and 106 survived. At the 3-month follow-up, 92 patients were evaluated and at 6 months, 72 were evaluated.

Pulmonary function tests were performed, and all patients received a chest CT scan, and did the “6-minute walk test.” For immune function, lymphocyte counts and function assays were performed. The SF-36 questionnaire was used to evaluate health related quality of life, and cognitive and psychological assessments were conducted with a variety of tools including the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Depression and anxiety were measured with Zung’s Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and the Hamilton Rating Scale.

At 3 months, 5 patients (5.4%) were seropositive for IgM and 9 (9.8%) were seronegative, while at 6 months, 9 patients (12.9%) tested seropositive for IgM and 12 (16.67%) tested seronegative.

A high proportion of patients also reported tachypnea after exercising (54%), heart palpitations (51.8%), fatigue (44.6%), and joint pain (20.5%).

In terms of lung function, survivors who had been intubated scored worse on pulmonary function tests and had a significant decrease in diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), compared with those who had not been intubated.

At 6 months, the DLCO remained at 76% of the predicted level, but the walking test and chest CT scan improved over time. “In multivariate analysis tracheostomy was a risk factor associated with distance walked in 6 minutes,” said Dr. Peng.

Other results showed that B cells were lower in survivors who had been intubated, compared with those who weren’t, and they were still low at 3 and 6 months, compared with normal values. T-cell subsets were also persistently low.

“Hyperfunction of T lymphocytes and hypofunction of NK cells were detected, which had not improved at 6 months,” said Dr. Peng.

Cognitive dysfunction and depression were reported in some survivors. Cognitive dysfunction at 3 months affected 12.8% of survivors, but it improved by 6 months, affecting on only 2.9% of the cohort (P = .029). However, rates of depression more than doubled from 3 to 6 months (20% vs. 47.8%, P < .001), and anxiety showed a slight increase (15.6% vs. 17.6%, P = .726).

“Further follow-up will be performed to confirm these findings,” Dr. Peng concluded.

Rahul Kashyap, MBBS, MBA, a research scientist and assistant professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that currently the research from Wuhan is showing the follow-up for 6 months, but it takes time to gather and analyze the data. “I suspect we will be seeing results from the 1-year follow-up by June,” he said.

In December 2019, a cluster of cases of what was first identified as a “mysterious pneumonia” was reported in the central Chinese city of Wuhan. Within a few short months, the disease had spread all over the world.

Wuhan was essentially “ground zero” for the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, and now researchers report that many of the early survivors continue to experience a variety of lingering health issues.

At 6 months, for example, pulmonary and immune function have still not returned to normal in many of the patients who had been critically ill, said Zhiyong Peng, MD, PhD, an intensivist and medical researcher, in the department of critical care medicine, Zhonnan Hospital, Wuhan.

In addition, many are still experiencing varying degrees of psychiatric disability and physical morbidity.

The results of the report were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

In 2020, Dr. Peng and colleagues conducted a single-center case series involving 138 patients with coronavirus pneumonia in order to describe the clinical characteristics of this new disease. Within this group, 26% of patients required admission to the intensive care unit and 4.3% died. As of Feb. 3, 2020, 26% required ICU care, 34.1% were discharged, 4.3% died, and 61.6% remained hospitalized. (JAMA. 2020 Mar 17;323[11]:1061-69) Not surprisingly, those requiring critical care experienced a higher rate of severe complications, including shock, arrythmias, acute cardiac injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome, compared with non-ICU patients.

“However, the long-term outcomes of survivors were unknown,” said Dr. Peng. Thus, the goal of the current study was to analyze the outcomes based on pulmonary function, physical morbidity, immunological status, health-related quality of life, cognitive impairment, and psychiatric disability.

The cohort included patients from four hospitals in Wuhan, who had been treated in the adult ICU and required mechanical ventilation (invasive or noninvasive), or had a high FiO₂ concentration, or needed an intravenous infusion of vasopressors.

In all, 171 critically ill patients were admitted to the four designated hospitals, and of this group, 110 were discharged from ICU and 106 survived. At the 3-month follow-up, 92 patients were evaluated and at 6 months, 72 were evaluated.

Pulmonary function tests were performed, and all patients received a chest CT scan, and did the “6-minute walk test.” For immune function, lymphocyte counts and function assays were performed. The SF-36 questionnaire was used to evaluate health related quality of life, and cognitive and psychological assessments were conducted with a variety of tools including the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Depression and anxiety were measured with Zung’s Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and the Hamilton Rating Scale.

At 3 months, 5 patients (5.4%) were seropositive for IgM and 9 (9.8%) were seronegative, while at 6 months, 9 patients (12.9%) tested seropositive for IgM and 12 (16.67%) tested seronegative.

A high proportion of patients also reported tachypnea after exercising (54%), heart palpitations (51.8%), fatigue (44.6%), and joint pain (20.5%).

In terms of lung function, survivors who had been intubated scored worse on pulmonary function tests and had a significant decrease in diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), compared with those who had not been intubated.

At 6 months, the DLCO remained at 76% of the predicted level, but the walking test and chest CT scan improved over time. “In multivariate analysis tracheostomy was a risk factor associated with distance walked in 6 minutes,” said Dr. Peng.

Other results showed that B cells were lower in survivors who had been intubated, compared with those who weren’t, and they were still low at 3 and 6 months, compared with normal values. T-cell subsets were also persistently low.

“Hyperfunction of T lymphocytes and hypofunction of NK cells were detected, which had not improved at 6 months,” said Dr. Peng.

Cognitive dysfunction and depression were reported in some survivors. Cognitive dysfunction at 3 months affected 12.8% of survivors, but it improved by 6 months, affecting on only 2.9% of the cohort (P = .029). However, rates of depression more than doubled from 3 to 6 months (20% vs. 47.8%, P < .001), and anxiety showed a slight increase (15.6% vs. 17.6%, P = .726).

“Further follow-up will be performed to confirm these findings,” Dr. Peng concluded.

Rahul Kashyap, MBBS, MBA, a research scientist and assistant professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that currently the research from Wuhan is showing the follow-up for 6 months, but it takes time to gather and analyze the data. “I suspect we will be seeing results from the 1-year follow-up by June,” he said.

In December 2019, a cluster of cases of what was first identified as a “mysterious pneumonia” was reported in the central Chinese city of Wuhan. Within a few short months, the disease had spread all over the world.

Wuhan was essentially “ground zero” for the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, and now researchers report that many of the early survivors continue to experience a variety of lingering health issues.

At 6 months, for example, pulmonary and immune function have still not returned to normal in many of the patients who had been critically ill, said Zhiyong Peng, MD, PhD, an intensivist and medical researcher, in the department of critical care medicine, Zhonnan Hospital, Wuhan.

In addition, many are still experiencing varying degrees of psychiatric disability and physical morbidity.

The results of the report were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

In 2020, Dr. Peng and colleagues conducted a single-center case series involving 138 patients with coronavirus pneumonia in order to describe the clinical characteristics of this new disease. Within this group, 26% of patients required admission to the intensive care unit and 4.3% died. As of Feb. 3, 2020, 26% required ICU care, 34.1% were discharged, 4.3% died, and 61.6% remained hospitalized. (JAMA. 2020 Mar 17;323[11]:1061-69) Not surprisingly, those requiring critical care experienced a higher rate of severe complications, including shock, arrythmias, acute cardiac injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome, compared with non-ICU patients.

“However, the long-term outcomes of survivors were unknown,” said Dr. Peng. Thus, the goal of the current study was to analyze the outcomes based on pulmonary function, physical morbidity, immunological status, health-related quality of life, cognitive impairment, and psychiatric disability.

The cohort included patients from four hospitals in Wuhan, who had been treated in the adult ICU and required mechanical ventilation (invasive or noninvasive), or had a high FiO₂ concentration, or needed an intravenous infusion of vasopressors.

In all, 171 critically ill patients were admitted to the four designated hospitals, and of this group, 110 were discharged from ICU and 106 survived. At the 3-month follow-up, 92 patients were evaluated and at 6 months, 72 were evaluated.

Pulmonary function tests were performed, and all patients received a chest CT scan, and did the “6-minute walk test.” For immune function, lymphocyte counts and function assays were performed. The SF-36 questionnaire was used to evaluate health related quality of life, and cognitive and psychological assessments were conducted with a variety of tools including the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Depression and anxiety were measured with Zung’s Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and the Hamilton Rating Scale.

At 3 months, 5 patients (5.4%) were seropositive for IgM and 9 (9.8%) were seronegative, while at 6 months, 9 patients (12.9%) tested seropositive for IgM and 12 (16.67%) tested seronegative.

A high proportion of patients also reported tachypnea after exercising (54%), heart palpitations (51.8%), fatigue (44.6%), and joint pain (20.5%).

In terms of lung function, survivors who had been intubated scored worse on pulmonary function tests and had a significant decrease in diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), compared with those who had not been intubated.

At 6 months, the DLCO remained at 76% of the predicted level, but the walking test and chest CT scan improved over time. “In multivariate analysis tracheostomy was a risk factor associated with distance walked in 6 minutes,” said Dr. Peng.

Other results showed that B cells were lower in survivors who had been intubated, compared with those who weren’t, and they were still low at 3 and 6 months, compared with normal values. T-cell subsets were also persistently low.

“Hyperfunction of T lymphocytes and hypofunction of NK cells were detected, which had not improved at 6 months,” said Dr. Peng.

Cognitive dysfunction and depression were reported in some survivors. Cognitive dysfunction at 3 months affected 12.8% of survivors, but it improved by 6 months, affecting on only 2.9% of the cohort (P = .029). However, rates of depression more than doubled from 3 to 6 months (20% vs. 47.8%, P < .001), and anxiety showed a slight increase (15.6% vs. 17.6%, P = .726).

“Further follow-up will be performed to confirm these findings,” Dr. Peng concluded.

Rahul Kashyap, MBBS, MBA, a research scientist and assistant professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that currently the research from Wuhan is showing the follow-up for 6 months, but it takes time to gather and analyze the data. “I suspect we will be seeing results from the 1-year follow-up by June,” he said.

A novel quantitative assay used with flow cytometry helps to precisely measure chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion to predict patient outcomes after CAR T-cell infusion, according to researchers at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumorion in Milan.

Higher frequencies of CAR-positive T cells at day 9 after infusion, as measured using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay, accurately distinguished responders from nonresponders, Paolo Corradini, MD, said at the 3rd European CAR T-cell Meeting.

The findings, first presented in December at the American Society of Hematology annual conference, suggest the assay could improve treatment decision-making, Dr. Corradini of the University of Milan said at the meeting, which is jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association

He and his colleagues prospectively collected samples from 16 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 5 with transformed follicular lymphoma, and 7 with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who were treated with either axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; Yescarta) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cal; Kymriah) between November 2019 and July 2020. CAR T cells were monitored using flow cytometry.

Pivotal trial data and subsequent findings with respect to tisa-cel and axi-cel have demonstrated that CAR T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion have a crucial impact on disease response and toxicity: a cut-off value of CAR+ cells at day 9 greater than 24.5/microliters distinguished responders from nonresponders with a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 81%, Dr. Corradini noted.

“But we have also devised a methodology by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) recently that correlates perfectly with the flow cytometry data,” he said, adding that the assay is “easy and allowed precise enumeration of the CAR T cells in the blood of the patient.”

The R square (coefficient of determination) for ddPCR and flow cytometry was 0.9995 and 0.9997 for tisa-cel and axi-cel, respectively (P < .0001 for each). This is particularly useful for assessing whether low CAR T-cell levels on flow cytometry are background signals resulting from nonspecific binding of the antibodies or true low levels, and the findings therefore have implications for improving clinical decision-making and outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy recipients, he said.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A novel quantitative assay used with flow cytometry helps to precisely measure chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion to predict patient outcomes after CAR T-cell infusion, according to researchers at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumorion in Milan.

Higher frequencies of CAR-positive T cells at day 9 after infusion, as measured using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay, accurately distinguished responders from nonresponders, Paolo Corradini, MD, said at the 3rd European CAR T-cell Meeting.

The findings, first presented in December at the American Society of Hematology annual conference, suggest the assay could improve treatment decision-making, Dr. Corradini of the University of Milan said at the meeting, which is jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association

He and his colleagues prospectively collected samples from 16 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 5 with transformed follicular lymphoma, and 7 with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who were treated with either axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; Yescarta) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cal; Kymriah) between November 2019 and July 2020. CAR T cells were monitored using flow cytometry.

Pivotal trial data and subsequent findings with respect to tisa-cel and axi-cel have demonstrated that CAR T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion have a crucial impact on disease response and toxicity: a cut-off value of CAR+ cells at day 9 greater than 24.5/microliters distinguished responders from nonresponders with a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 81%, Dr. Corradini noted.

“But we have also devised a methodology by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) recently that correlates perfectly with the flow cytometry data,” he said, adding that the assay is “easy and allowed precise enumeration of the CAR T cells in the blood of the patient.”

The R square (coefficient of determination) for ddPCR and flow cytometry was 0.9995 and 0.9997 for tisa-cel and axi-cel, respectively (P < .0001 for each). This is particularly useful for assessing whether low CAR T-cell levels on flow cytometry are background signals resulting from nonspecific binding of the antibodies or true low levels, and the findings therefore have implications for improving clinical decision-making and outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy recipients, he said.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A novel quantitative assay used with flow cytometry helps to precisely measure chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion to predict patient outcomes after CAR T-cell infusion, according to researchers at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumorion in Milan.

Higher frequencies of CAR-positive T cells at day 9 after infusion, as measured using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay, accurately distinguished responders from nonresponders, Paolo Corradini, MD, said at the 3rd European CAR T-cell Meeting.

The findings, first presented in December at the American Society of Hematology annual conference, suggest the assay could improve treatment decision-making, Dr. Corradini of the University of Milan said at the meeting, which is jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association

He and his colleagues prospectively collected samples from 16 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 5 with transformed follicular lymphoma, and 7 with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who were treated with either axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; Yescarta) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cal; Kymriah) between November 2019 and July 2020. CAR T cells were monitored using flow cytometry.

Pivotal trial data and subsequent findings with respect to tisa-cel and axi-cel have demonstrated that CAR T-cell engraftment and in vivo expansion have a crucial impact on disease response and toxicity: a cut-off value of CAR+ cells at day 9 greater than 24.5/microliters distinguished responders from nonresponders with a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 81%, Dr. Corradini noted.

“But we have also devised a methodology by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) recently that correlates perfectly with the flow cytometry data,” he said, adding that the assay is “easy and allowed precise enumeration of the CAR T cells in the blood of the patient.”

The R square (coefficient of determination) for ddPCR and flow cytometry was 0.9995 and 0.9997 for tisa-cel and axi-cel, respectively (P < .0001 for each). This is particularly useful for assessing whether low CAR T-cell levels on flow cytometry are background signals resulting from nonspecific binding of the antibodies or true low levels, and the findings therefore have implications for improving clinical decision-making and outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy recipients, he said.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Steroids are usually the first choice of therapy for the treatment of patients with graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD), but complications from steroid use may carry a high financial cost, investigators caution.

Among 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD following a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) who received steroids, 685 (97%) had at least one steroid-related complication, resulting in nearly $165,000 in mean health-care costs over 24 months, said Elizabeth J. Bell, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at Optum Inc.

“For both acute and chronic GVHD, the standard of care for first-line treatment is systemic steroids. The complications associated with steroid treatment are well known. However, the health-care resources utilized and the costs incurred by these patients are not well-quantified,” she said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings (Abstract 12).

Dr. Bell reported the results of a retrospective database analysis on costs associated with steroid complications in HSCT recipients at the meeting, which was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

She and colleagues from Optum, Incyte, and the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis looked at data on 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD after HSCT who received systemic steroids from July 1, 2010, through Aug. 31, 2019. The data were extracted from the Optum Research database, and included U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage patients.

They looked at total complications and steroid-associated complications in each of four categories: infections; metabolic or endocrine complications (for example, diabetes, dyslipidemia); gastrointestinal (GI) complications (e.g., peptic ulcer disease); and bone or muscle complications (myopathy, etc).

They estimated costs based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for any steroid complications during the 24 months after steroid initiation, including those complications that may have been present at the time of GVHD diagnosis.

The median patient age was 55 years, and 60% of the sample were male. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score at baseline was 3.

Overall, 22% of patients had only acute GVHD, 21% had only chronic GVHD, and 39% had both acute and chronic disease. The GVHD type was unspecified in the remaining 18%.

The median time from GVHD diagnosis to initiating steroids was 30 days for patients with both acute and chronic disease, as well as those with both presentations. The median time to initiation was 36 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

The median cumulative duration of steroid use over 24 months was 62 days for patients with acute GVHD, 208 days for those with chronic GVHD, 166 days for those with both, and 74 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

As noted before, complications occurred in 97% of patients, with infections being the most common complications, occurring in 80% of patients, followed by metabolic/endocrine complications in 32%, gastrointestinal in 29%, and bone/muscle complications in 20%.

For the 665 patients who had any steroid-related complication, the mean costs of steroid-associated care in the 24 months after they were started on steroids was $164,787, and the median cost was $50,834.

Health care costs were highest among patients with infections, at a mean of $167,473, and a median of $57,680, followed by bone/muscle conditions ($75,289 and $2,057, respectively), GI conditions ($67,861 and $3,360), and metabolic or endocrine conditions ($47, 101 and $1,164).

In all categories, hospitalizations accounted for the large majority of costs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients who experienced any steroid-related complication required hospitalization, primarily for infections.

Among all patients with complications, the median cumulative hospital stay over 24 months was 20 days, with bone/muscle complications and infections associated with a median of 19 and 18 days of hospitalization, respectively.

Dr. Bell acknowledged that the study was limited by use of ICD coding to identify steroid complication-related health-care utilization and costs, which can be imprecise, and by the fact that the analysis included only complications resulting in health care use as documented in medical claims. In addition, the investigators noted that they could not control for the possibility that steroids exacerbated conditions that existed at baseline.

“These findings emphasize the need to cautiously evaluate the treatment options for patients with GVHD. Future study with medical records is needed to provide insights on the clinical aspects of the complications (e.g., severity and suspected causality),” Dr. Bell and colleagues concluded in the study’s abstract.
 

Definitions questioned

An HSCT specialist approached for comment said that the findings of the study made sense, but she had questions regarding the study methodology.

“I would intuitively think that steroid-associated complications are a major cause of health care use in GVHD patients and it’s interesting to see that there is emerging data to support this hypothesis,” HSCT specialist Hélène Schoemans, MD of the University of Leuven, Belgium, said in an interview.

She noted, however, that “it is surprising that the period of steroid initiation was the same for acute and chronic GVHD,” and questioned whether that anomalous finding could be due to the study’s definition of acute and chronic GVHD or to how the period from baseline to steroid initiation was defined.

The questions about the definitions and timing of therapy make it uncertain as to whether the complications reported were caused by steroids or by some other factor, she suggested.

The study was supported by Optum Inc. Dr. Bell is an employee of the company, and a paid consultant of Incyte. Dr. Schoemans has received travel expenses from Celgene, Abbvie, and Incyte; is part of the advisory boards for Incyte; and has received speakers fees from Novartis, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.

Steroids are usually the first choice of therapy for the treatment of patients with graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD), but complications from steroid use may carry a high financial cost, investigators caution.

Among 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD following a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) who received steroids, 685 (97%) had at least one steroid-related complication, resulting in nearly $165,000 in mean health-care costs over 24 months, said Elizabeth J. Bell, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at Optum Inc.

“For both acute and chronic GVHD, the standard of care for first-line treatment is systemic steroids. The complications associated with steroid treatment are well known. However, the health-care resources utilized and the costs incurred by these patients are not well-quantified,” she said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings (Abstract 12).

Dr. Bell reported the results of a retrospective database analysis on costs associated with steroid complications in HSCT recipients at the meeting, which was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

She and colleagues from Optum, Incyte, and the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis looked at data on 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD after HSCT who received systemic steroids from July 1, 2010, through Aug. 31, 2019. The data were extracted from the Optum Research database, and included U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage patients.

They looked at total complications and steroid-associated complications in each of four categories: infections; metabolic or endocrine complications (for example, diabetes, dyslipidemia); gastrointestinal (GI) complications (e.g., peptic ulcer disease); and bone or muscle complications (myopathy, etc).

They estimated costs based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for any steroid complications during the 24 months after steroid initiation, including those complications that may have been present at the time of GVHD diagnosis.

The median patient age was 55 years, and 60% of the sample were male. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score at baseline was 3.

Overall, 22% of patients had only acute GVHD, 21% had only chronic GVHD, and 39% had both acute and chronic disease. The GVHD type was unspecified in the remaining 18%.

The median time from GVHD diagnosis to initiating steroids was 30 days for patients with both acute and chronic disease, as well as those with both presentations. The median time to initiation was 36 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

The median cumulative duration of steroid use over 24 months was 62 days for patients with acute GVHD, 208 days for those with chronic GVHD, 166 days for those with both, and 74 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

As noted before, complications occurred in 97% of patients, with infections being the most common complications, occurring in 80% of patients, followed by metabolic/endocrine complications in 32%, gastrointestinal in 29%, and bone/muscle complications in 20%.

For the 665 patients who had any steroid-related complication, the mean costs of steroid-associated care in the 24 months after they were started on steroids was $164,787, and the median cost was $50,834.

Health care costs were highest among patients with infections, at a mean of $167,473, and a median of $57,680, followed by bone/muscle conditions ($75,289 and $2,057, respectively), GI conditions ($67,861 and $3,360), and metabolic or endocrine conditions ($47, 101 and $1,164).

In all categories, hospitalizations accounted for the large majority of costs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients who experienced any steroid-related complication required hospitalization, primarily for infections.

Among all patients with complications, the median cumulative hospital stay over 24 months was 20 days, with bone/muscle complications and infections associated with a median of 19 and 18 days of hospitalization, respectively.

Dr. Bell acknowledged that the study was limited by use of ICD coding to identify steroid complication-related health-care utilization and costs, which can be imprecise, and by the fact that the analysis included only complications resulting in health care use as documented in medical claims. In addition, the investigators noted that they could not control for the possibility that steroids exacerbated conditions that existed at baseline.

“These findings emphasize the need to cautiously evaluate the treatment options for patients with GVHD. Future study with medical records is needed to provide insights on the clinical aspects of the complications (e.g., severity and suspected causality),” Dr. Bell and colleagues concluded in the study’s abstract.
 

Definitions questioned

An HSCT specialist approached for comment said that the findings of the study made sense, but she had questions regarding the study methodology.

“I would intuitively think that steroid-associated complications are a major cause of health care use in GVHD patients and it’s interesting to see that there is emerging data to support this hypothesis,” HSCT specialist Hélène Schoemans, MD of the University of Leuven, Belgium, said in an interview.

She noted, however, that “it is surprising that the period of steroid initiation was the same for acute and chronic GVHD,” and questioned whether that anomalous finding could be due to the study’s definition of acute and chronic GVHD or to how the period from baseline to steroid initiation was defined.

The questions about the definitions and timing of therapy make it uncertain as to whether the complications reported were caused by steroids or by some other factor, she suggested.

The study was supported by Optum Inc. Dr. Bell is an employee of the company, and a paid consultant of Incyte. Dr. Schoemans has received travel expenses from Celgene, Abbvie, and Incyte; is part of the advisory boards for Incyte; and has received speakers fees from Novartis, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.

Steroids are usually the first choice of therapy for the treatment of patients with graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD), but complications from steroid use may carry a high financial cost, investigators caution.

Among 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD following a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) who received steroids, 685 (97%) had at least one steroid-related complication, resulting in nearly $165,000 in mean health-care costs over 24 months, said Elizabeth J. Bell, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at Optum Inc.

“For both acute and chronic GVHD, the standard of care for first-line treatment is systemic steroids. The complications associated with steroid treatment are well known. However, the health-care resources utilized and the costs incurred by these patients are not well-quantified,” she said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings (Abstract 12).

Dr. Bell reported the results of a retrospective database analysis on costs associated with steroid complications in HSCT recipients at the meeting, which was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

She and colleagues from Optum, Incyte, and the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis looked at data on 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD after HSCT who received systemic steroids from July 1, 2010, through Aug. 31, 2019. The data were extracted from the Optum Research database, and included U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage patients.

They looked at total complications and steroid-associated complications in each of four categories: infections; metabolic or endocrine complications (for example, diabetes, dyslipidemia); gastrointestinal (GI) complications (e.g., peptic ulcer disease); and bone or muscle complications (myopathy, etc).

They estimated costs based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for any steroid complications during the 24 months after steroid initiation, including those complications that may have been present at the time of GVHD diagnosis.

The median patient age was 55 years, and 60% of the sample were male. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score at baseline was 3.

Overall, 22% of patients had only acute GVHD, 21% had only chronic GVHD, and 39% had both acute and chronic disease. The GVHD type was unspecified in the remaining 18%.

The median time from GVHD diagnosis to initiating steroids was 30 days for patients with both acute and chronic disease, as well as those with both presentations. The median time to initiation was 36 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

The median cumulative duration of steroid use over 24 months was 62 days for patients with acute GVHD, 208 days for those with chronic GVHD, 166 days for those with both, and 74 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

As noted before, complications occurred in 97% of patients, with infections being the most common complications, occurring in 80% of patients, followed by metabolic/endocrine complications in 32%, gastrointestinal in 29%, and bone/muscle complications in 20%.

For the 665 patients who had any steroid-related complication, the mean costs of steroid-associated care in the 24 months after they were started on steroids was $164,787, and the median cost was $50,834.

Health care costs were highest among patients with infections, at a mean of $167,473, and a median of $57,680, followed by bone/muscle conditions ($75,289 and $2,057, respectively), GI conditions ($67,861 and $3,360), and metabolic or endocrine conditions ($47, 101 and $1,164).

In all categories, hospitalizations accounted for the large majority of costs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients who experienced any steroid-related complication required hospitalization, primarily for infections.

Among all patients with complications, the median cumulative hospital stay over 24 months was 20 days, with bone/muscle complications and infections associated with a median of 19 and 18 days of hospitalization, respectively.

Dr. Bell acknowledged that the study was limited by use of ICD coding to identify steroid complication-related health-care utilization and costs, which can be imprecise, and by the fact that the analysis included only complications resulting in health care use as documented in medical claims. In addition, the investigators noted that they could not control for the possibility that steroids exacerbated conditions that existed at baseline.

“These findings emphasize the need to cautiously evaluate the treatment options for patients with GVHD. Future study with medical records is needed to provide insights on the clinical aspects of the complications (e.g., severity and suspected causality),” Dr. Bell and colleagues concluded in the study’s abstract.
 

Definitions questioned

An HSCT specialist approached for comment said that the findings of the study made sense, but she had questions regarding the study methodology.

“I would intuitively think that steroid-associated complications are a major cause of health care use in GVHD patients and it’s interesting to see that there is emerging data to support this hypothesis,” HSCT specialist Hélène Schoemans, MD of the University of Leuven, Belgium, said in an interview.

She noted, however, that “it is surprising that the period of steroid initiation was the same for acute and chronic GVHD,” and questioned whether that anomalous finding could be due to the study’s definition of acute and chronic GVHD or to how the period from baseline to steroid initiation was defined.

The questions about the definitions and timing of therapy make it uncertain as to whether the complications reported were caused by steroids or by some other factor, she suggested.

The study was supported by Optum Inc. Dr. Bell is an employee of the company, and a paid consultant of Incyte. Dr. Schoemans has received travel expenses from Celgene, Abbvie, and Incyte; is part of the advisory boards for Incyte; and has received speakers fees from Novartis, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.

In the days since recreational sales of marijuana became legal in Colorado in January 2014, concerning trends have emerged among the state’s young cannabis users.

Courtesy Dr. Paula D. Riggs

According to a report from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, between 2014 and 2017, the number of suicides positive for marijuana increased 250% among those aged 10-19 years (from 4 to 14) and 22% among those aged 20 and older (from 118 to 144). “Other states are seeing something similar, and there is an emerging research showing a relationship between suicidality and the use of marijuana, especially high-potency products that are available in legalized markets,” Paula D. Riggs, MD, reported during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

 During that same 3-year time span, the proportion of Colorado youth aged 12 years and older who used marijuana in the past month jumped by 45%, which is more than 85% above the national average. “Similarly, among college-age students, we’ve seen an 18% increase in past-month marijuana use, which is 60% above the national average,” said Dr. Riggs, professor and vice chair of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Among adolescents, state health officials have observed a 5% increase in the proportion of those who used marijuana in the past month, which is more than 54% above the national average. “But a concerning trend is that we’re seeing an increase in the use of concentrates such as dabs and waxes,” she said. “That’s worrisome in terms of exposure to high-potency products.”

In other findings, 48% of young marijuana users reported going to work high (40% at least once per week), and there has been a 170% increase in youth ED urgent care visits for marijuana-related illnesses such as cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome or first-episode psychosis. State health officials have also observed a 148% increase in marijuana-related hospitalizations.

According to Dr. Riggs, who also directs the University of Colorado’s division of addiction science, prevention, and treatment, the average marijuana joint in the 1960s contained about 3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a level that crept up to the 4%-6% range in 2002. In today’s postlegalization era, the average joint now contains 13%-23% THC. “What’s concerning is that the concentrates – the dabs, waxes, shatter, and butane hash oils – contain upward of 70%-95% THC,” Dr. Riggs said. “Those are highly potent products that represent about 25% of the market share now. That’s a very big concern because the higher the potency the cannabis product used, the greater the abuse liability and addictive potential.”

The use of high-potency products also doubles the risk of developing generalized anxiety disorder, triples the risk of tobacco dependence, doubles the risk of other illicit substance disorders, and it at least quadruples the risk of developing first-episode psychosis in young people. “So, when you’re taking a cannabis use history, it’s important to ask patients about the potency of the products being used,” she said.

In the 2019 Monitoring the Future survey, 12% of U.S. 8th graders self-reported marijuana use in the past year and 7% in the past month, compared with 29% and 18% of 10th graders, respectively. Self-reported use by 12th graders was even more elevated (36% in the past year and 29% in the past month). “The concern is, this survey doesn’t really capture what’s happening with marijuana concentrates,” Dr. Riggs said.

A survey of Colorado youth conducted by the state’s Department of Public Health and Environment found that the percentage of students who reported using concentrated forms of marijuana has risen steadily in recent years and now stands at roughly 34%. “The use of edibles has also crept up,” said Dr. Riggs, who noted that marijuana dispensaries in Colorado outnumber Starbucks locations and McDonald’s restaurants. “You might not think that’s particularly concerning, except that the use of edibles is even more associated with onset of psychosis than other forms. This is probably because when you eat a marijuana product, you can’t control the exposure or the dose that you’re ingesting. We need to be concerned about these trends.”

European studies report that 30%-50% of new cases of first-onset psychosis are attributed to high-potency cannabis. “There is a dose-response relationship between cannabis and psychosis,” Dr. Riggs said. “That is, the frequency and duration of cannabis use, or the use of high-potency products, and the age of onset, are strongly associated with the risk of first-episode psychosis.

Researchers have known for some time that alterations in the endocannabinoid system are associated with psychosis independent of cannabis exposure. “Dysregulation of that endocannabinoid system occurs in patients at all stages of the psychosis continuum,” she continued. “It also means that the endocannabinoid system is a potential therapeutic target for psychosis.”

According to Dr. Riggs, THC exposure acutely increases dopamine in the ventral striatum and it can produce transient psychotomimetic effects in clinical and nonclinical populations. Genetic differences in the dopaminergic system can also interact with cannabis use to increase the risk of psychosis.

“For example, the COMT (catechol-O-methyltransferase) breaks down catecholamines such as dopamine in the prefrontal cortex,” she explained. “If you have a COMT gene polymorphism, that increases your risk of developing psychosis due to increased levels of dopamine signaling.”

She emphasized the importance of clinicians to understand that the age of cannabis use onset, the duration, frequency, and THC potency is related to the psychosis risk and worse prognosis. The earlier the initiation of marijuana use, the greater potential for first-episode psychosis. “Those who continue using cannabis after a first-episode psychosis have greater severity of psychotic illness and more treatment resistance, and they’re less likely to engage or be compliant with treatment recommendations,” Dr. Riggs said. “So, after that first-episode psychosis, it’s important to help a patient get abstinent. Because if they resume cannabis use, this can turn into a more chronic psychotic disorder.”

She added that, while insufficient evidence exists to determine whether cannabis plays a causal role in the development of schizophrenia or not, mounting evidence suggests that cannabis use may precipitate earlier onset of schizophrenia in those with other risk factors for the disorder. “There is considerable evidence that cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis in a dose-related manner, especially with an onset before age 16,” Dr. Riggs said. “However, this does not mean that cannabis is safe for young adults. Cannabis-induced psychotic symptoms often develop during young adulthood and may become chronic.”

Dr. Riggs disclosed that she had received grant funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. She is also executive director for Encompass, which provides integrated treatment for adolescents and young adults.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In the days since recreational sales of marijuana became legal in Colorado in January 2014, concerning trends have emerged among the state’s young cannabis users.

Courtesy Dr. Paula D. Riggs

According to a report from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, between 2014 and 2017, the number of suicides positive for marijuana increased 250% among those aged 10-19 years (from 4 to 14) and 22% among those aged 20 and older (from 118 to 144). “Other states are seeing something similar, and there is an emerging research showing a relationship between suicidality and the use of marijuana, especially high-potency products that are available in legalized markets,” Paula D. Riggs, MD, reported during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

 During that same 3-year time span, the proportion of Colorado youth aged 12 years and older who used marijuana in the past month jumped by 45%, which is more than 85% above the national average. “Similarly, among college-age students, we’ve seen an 18% increase in past-month marijuana use, which is 60% above the national average,” said Dr. Riggs, professor and vice chair of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Among adolescents, state health officials have observed a 5% increase in the proportion of those who used marijuana in the past month, which is more than 54% above the national average. “But a concerning trend is that we’re seeing an increase in the use of concentrates such as dabs and waxes,” she said. “That’s worrisome in terms of exposure to high-potency products.”

In other findings, 48% of young marijuana users reported going to work high (40% at least once per week), and there has been a 170% increase in youth ED urgent care visits for marijuana-related illnesses such as cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome or first-episode psychosis. State health officials have also observed a 148% increase in marijuana-related hospitalizations.

According to Dr. Riggs, who also directs the University of Colorado’s division of addiction science, prevention, and treatment, the average marijuana joint in the 1960s contained about 3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a level that crept up to the 4%-6% range in 2002. In today’s postlegalization era, the average joint now contains 13%-23% THC. “What’s concerning is that the concentrates – the dabs, waxes, shatter, and butane hash oils – contain upward of 70%-95% THC,” Dr. Riggs said. “Those are highly potent products that represent about 25% of the market share now. That’s a very big concern because the higher the potency the cannabis product used, the greater the abuse liability and addictive potential.”

The use of high-potency products also doubles the risk of developing generalized anxiety disorder, triples the risk of tobacco dependence, doubles the risk of other illicit substance disorders, and it at least quadruples the risk of developing first-episode psychosis in young people. “So, when you’re taking a cannabis use history, it’s important to ask patients about the potency of the products being used,” she said.

In the 2019 Monitoring the Future survey, 12% of U.S. 8th graders self-reported marijuana use in the past year and 7% in the past month, compared with 29% and 18% of 10th graders, respectively. Self-reported use by 12th graders was even more elevated (36% in the past year and 29% in the past month). “The concern is, this survey doesn’t really capture what’s happening with marijuana concentrates,” Dr. Riggs said.

A survey of Colorado youth conducted by the state’s Department of Public Health and Environment found that the percentage of students who reported using concentrated forms of marijuana has risen steadily in recent years and now stands at roughly 34%. “The use of edibles has also crept up,” said Dr. Riggs, who noted that marijuana dispensaries in Colorado outnumber Starbucks locations and McDonald’s restaurants. “You might not think that’s particularly concerning, except that the use of edibles is even more associated with onset of psychosis than other forms. This is probably because when you eat a marijuana product, you can’t control the exposure or the dose that you’re ingesting. We need to be concerned about these trends.”

European studies report that 30%-50% of new cases of first-onset psychosis are attributed to high-potency cannabis. “There is a dose-response relationship between cannabis and psychosis,” Dr. Riggs said. “That is, the frequency and duration of cannabis use, or the use of high-potency products, and the age of onset, are strongly associated with the risk of first-episode psychosis.

Researchers have known for some time that alterations in the endocannabinoid system are associated with psychosis independent of cannabis exposure. “Dysregulation of that endocannabinoid system occurs in patients at all stages of the psychosis continuum,” she continued. “It also means that the endocannabinoid system is a potential therapeutic target for psychosis.”

According to Dr. Riggs, THC exposure acutely increases dopamine in the ventral striatum and it can produce transient psychotomimetic effects in clinical and nonclinical populations. Genetic differences in the dopaminergic system can also interact with cannabis use to increase the risk of psychosis.

“For example, the COMT (catechol-O-methyltransferase) breaks down catecholamines such as dopamine in the prefrontal cortex,” she explained. “If you have a COMT gene polymorphism, that increases your risk of developing psychosis due to increased levels of dopamine signaling.”

She emphasized the importance of clinicians to understand that the age of cannabis use onset, the duration, frequency, and THC potency is related to the psychosis risk and worse prognosis. The earlier the initiation of marijuana use, the greater potential for first-episode psychosis. “Those who continue using cannabis after a first-episode psychosis have greater severity of psychotic illness and more treatment resistance, and they’re less likely to engage or be compliant with treatment recommendations,” Dr. Riggs said. “So, after that first-episode psychosis, it’s important to help a patient get abstinent. Because if they resume cannabis use, this can turn into a more chronic psychotic disorder.”

She added that, while insufficient evidence exists to determine whether cannabis plays a causal role in the development of schizophrenia or not, mounting evidence suggests that cannabis use may precipitate earlier onset of schizophrenia in those with other risk factors for the disorder. “There is considerable evidence that cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis in a dose-related manner, especially with an onset before age 16,” Dr. Riggs said. “However, this does not mean that cannabis is safe for young adults. Cannabis-induced psychotic symptoms often develop during young adulthood and may become chronic.”

Dr. Riggs disclosed that she had received grant funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. She is also executive director for Encompass, which provides integrated treatment for adolescents and young adults.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In the days since recreational sales of marijuana became legal in Colorado in January 2014, concerning trends have emerged among the state’s young cannabis users.

Courtesy Dr. Paula D. Riggs

According to a report from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, between 2014 and 2017, the number of suicides positive for marijuana increased 250% among those aged 10-19 years (from 4 to 14) and 22% among those aged 20 and older (from 118 to 144). “Other states are seeing something similar, and there is an emerging research showing a relationship between suicidality and the use of marijuana, especially high-potency products that are available in legalized markets,” Paula D. Riggs, MD, reported during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

 During that same 3-year time span, the proportion of Colorado youth aged 12 years and older who used marijuana in the past month jumped by 45%, which is more than 85% above the national average. “Similarly, among college-age students, we’ve seen an 18% increase in past-month marijuana use, which is 60% above the national average,” said Dr. Riggs, professor and vice chair of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Among adolescents, state health officials have observed a 5% increase in the proportion of those who used marijuana in the past month, which is more than 54% above the national average. “But a concerning trend is that we’re seeing an increase in the use of concentrates such as dabs and waxes,” she said. “That’s worrisome in terms of exposure to high-potency products.”

In other findings, 48% of young marijuana users reported going to work high (40% at least once per week), and there has been a 170% increase in youth ED urgent care visits for marijuana-related illnesses such as cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome or first-episode psychosis. State health officials have also observed a 148% increase in marijuana-related hospitalizations.

According to Dr. Riggs, who also directs the University of Colorado’s division of addiction science, prevention, and treatment, the average marijuana joint in the 1960s contained about 3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a level that crept up to the 4%-6% range in 2002. In today’s postlegalization era, the average joint now contains 13%-23% THC. “What’s concerning is that the concentrates – the dabs, waxes, shatter, and butane hash oils – contain upward of 70%-95% THC,” Dr. Riggs said. “Those are highly potent products that represent about 25% of the market share now. That’s a very big concern because the higher the potency the cannabis product used, the greater the abuse liability and addictive potential.”

The use of high-potency products also doubles the risk of developing generalized anxiety disorder, triples the risk of tobacco dependence, doubles the risk of other illicit substance disorders, and it at least quadruples the risk of developing first-episode psychosis in young people. “So, when you’re taking a cannabis use history, it’s important to ask patients about the potency of the products being used,” she said.

In the 2019 Monitoring the Future survey, 12% of U.S. 8th graders self-reported marijuana use in the past year and 7% in the past month, compared with 29% and 18% of 10th graders, respectively. Self-reported use by 12th graders was even more elevated (36% in the past year and 29% in the past month). “The concern is, this survey doesn’t really capture what’s happening with marijuana concentrates,” Dr. Riggs said.

A survey of Colorado youth conducted by the state’s Department of Public Health and Environment found that the percentage of students who reported using concentrated forms of marijuana has risen steadily in recent years and now stands at roughly 34%. “The use of edibles has also crept up,” said Dr. Riggs, who noted that marijuana dispensaries in Colorado outnumber Starbucks locations and McDonald’s restaurants. “You might not think that’s particularly concerning, except that the use of edibles is even more associated with onset of psychosis than other forms. This is probably because when you eat a marijuana product, you can’t control the exposure or the dose that you’re ingesting. We need to be concerned about these trends.”

European studies report that 30%-50% of new cases of first-onset psychosis are attributed to high-potency cannabis. “There is a dose-response relationship between cannabis and psychosis,” Dr. Riggs said. “That is, the frequency and duration of cannabis use, or the use of high-potency products, and the age of onset, are strongly associated with the risk of first-episode psychosis.

Researchers have known for some time that alterations in the endocannabinoid system are associated with psychosis independent of cannabis exposure. “Dysregulation of that endocannabinoid system occurs in patients at all stages of the psychosis continuum,” she continued. “It also means that the endocannabinoid system is a potential therapeutic target for psychosis.”

According to Dr. Riggs, THC exposure acutely increases dopamine in the ventral striatum and it can produce transient psychotomimetic effects in clinical and nonclinical populations. Genetic differences in the dopaminergic system can also interact with cannabis use to increase the risk of psychosis.

“For example, the COMT (catechol-O-methyltransferase) breaks down catecholamines such as dopamine in the prefrontal cortex,” she explained. “If you have a COMT gene polymorphism, that increases your risk of developing psychosis due to increased levels of dopamine signaling.”

She emphasized the importance of clinicians to understand that the age of cannabis use onset, the duration, frequency, and THC potency is related to the psychosis risk and worse prognosis. The earlier the initiation of marijuana use, the greater potential for first-episode psychosis. “Those who continue using cannabis after a first-episode psychosis have greater severity of psychotic illness and more treatment resistance, and they’re less likely to engage or be compliant with treatment recommendations,” Dr. Riggs said. “So, after that first-episode psychosis, it’s important to help a patient get abstinent. Because if they resume cannabis use, this can turn into a more chronic psychotic disorder.”

She added that, while insufficient evidence exists to determine whether cannabis plays a causal role in the development of schizophrenia or not, mounting evidence suggests that cannabis use may precipitate earlier onset of schizophrenia in those with other risk factors for the disorder. “There is considerable evidence that cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis in a dose-related manner, especially with an onset before age 16,” Dr. Riggs said. “However, this does not mean that cannabis is safe for young adults. Cannabis-induced psychotic symptoms often develop during young adulthood and may become chronic.”

Dr. Riggs disclosed that she had received grant funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. She is also executive director for Encompass, which provides integrated treatment for adolescents and young adults.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.

The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.

“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).

Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.

Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.

Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.

The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.

Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).

There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.

The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.

“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.

“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”

Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.

Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.

Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.

COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.

Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.

The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.

The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.

“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).

Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.

Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.

Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.

The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.

Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).

There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.

The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.

“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.

“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”

Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.

Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.

Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.

COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.

Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.

The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.

The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.

“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).

Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.

Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.

Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.

The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.

Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).

There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.

The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.

“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.

“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”

Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.

Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.

Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.

COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.

Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.

The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

When cases of COVID-19 began to surge in New York City in March 2020, Carol A. Bernstein, MD, did her best to practice psychiatry and carry out administrative tasks from a home office, but by mid-May, she became stir-crazy.

Courtesy Dr. Carol A. Bernstein

“I just couldn’t stand it, anymore,” Dr. Bernstein said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “I came back to work at least just to see my colleagues, because I felt so disconnected. Normally, in a disaster, people come together – whether it’s responding to an earthquake or a fire or whatever. People come together to provide themselves with support. They hug each other and hold each other’s hands. We could not and cannot do that in this pandemic.”

According to Dr. Bernstein, stress, fear, and uncertainty triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic require special attention to the needs of health care personnel.

“Taking care of yourself and encouraging others to do the same sustains the ability to care for those in need,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is vice chair for faculty development and well-being in the departments of psychiatry and behavioral science and obstetrics and gynecology at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. “This includes both meeting practical needs as well as physical and emotional self-care. Everyone is impacted by this, so emotional support needs to be available to everyone. In the psychiatric community, we have triple challenges. We have to take care of our patients, our colleagues, and ourselves. It’s a lot.”

Specific challenges for health care workers include the potential for a surge in care demand and uncertainty about future outbreaks.

“Although we don’t have [personal protective] and respirator shortages at the moment, we’re worried about the vaccine shortages,” she said. Then there’s the fact that patients with comorbid conditions have the highest risk of death and the task of providing supportive care as well as medical care. “Of course, we still have a risk of becoming infected or infecting our families. There is additional psychological stress: fear, grief, frustration, guilt, insomnia, and exhaustion.”

Now, more than a year removed from the start of the pandemic, health care personnel are experiencing compassion fatigue, which she described as the inability to feel compassion for our patients because of our inability to feel compassion for ourselves. “We’re certainly experiencing burnout, although the primary aspect of burnout that we are experiencing is emotional exhaustion,” said Dr. Bernstein, who also is a past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

General risk factors for burnout and distress include sleep deprivation, high levels of work/life conflict, work interrupted by personal concerns, high levels of anger, loneliness, or anxiety, the stress of work relationships/work outcomes, anxiety about competency, difficulty “unplugging” after work, and regular use of alcohol and other drugs. At the same time, she continued, signs of burnout and secondary traumatic stress include sadness, depression, or apathy; feeling easily frustrated; feeling isolated and disconnected from others; excessive worry or fear about something bad happening; feeling like a failure, and feeling tired, exhausted, or overwhelmed.

“Why is this crisis so hard for us docs?” she asked. “Because focusing on ourselves – with worries like ‘are we okay? Are we going to get sick?’ – compromises our focus on patients. This can lead to medical errors and unprofessional behavior. There are significant feelings of guilt that ‘I’m not doing enough.’

“This was true for a lot of us in psychiatry who were working virtually early during the pandemic while our medicine colleagues were on the front lines exposing themselves to COVID. Even the people working on the COVID units at the height on the initial surge felt guilty because treatment algorithms were changing almost every day. Fortunately, protocols are more established now, but the sense of not doing enough is pervasive and makes it difficult for us to ask for help.”

Fear of the unknown also posed a challenge to the workforce. “We didn’t know what we were dealing with at first,” she said. “The loss of control and autonomy, which is a major driver of burnout in the best of circumstances, was particularly true here in New York. People were told what to do. They were deployed into new circumstances. We experienced a significant loss of control, both of the virus and of what we were doing, and a widespread sense of isolation and loneliness.”

To cultivate resilience going forward, Dr. Bernstein advocates for the concept of psychological flexibility, which she defined as the ability to stay in contact with the present moment regardless of unpleasant thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations, while choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values. “It is understanding that you can feel demoralized and bad one minute and better the next day,” she said. “This is a key concept for being able to continuously adapt under stressful circumstances and to tolerate uncertainty.”

She advises clinicians to identify safe areas and behaviors, and to maximize their ability to care for themselves and their families – including keeping in touch with colleagues and people you care about. “You also want to take advantage of calming skills and the maintenance of natural body rhythms,” she said. “This includes sensible nutrition and getting adequate rest and exercise.”

Dr. Bernstein also emphasized the importance of trying to maintain hope and optimism while not denying risk. “We also have to think about ethics, to provide the best possible care given the circumstances,” she said. “The crisis standards of care are necessarily different. We are not ethically required to offer futile care, but we must tell the truth.”

She pointed out that resilience is sometimes thought of as returning to the way you were before a stressful or life-altering event. “But here we refer to it as using your coping resources, connecting to others, and cultivating your values and purpose in life as you ride through this time of stress,” Dr. Bernstein said. “You are aware of the time it takes to develop and test for treatment and vaccine efficacy, and to then roll out these interventions, so you do know there will be an end to this, hopefully by the summer. While you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control, your positive relationships, remind yourself of your purpose, and practice gratitude for what you are thankful for in your life. We need to cultivate what is positive and promote the message that emotional health should have the same priority level as physical health. The goal is to flourish.”

Dr. Bernstein reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

When cases of COVID-19 began to surge in New York City in March 2020, Carol A. Bernstein, MD, did her best to practice psychiatry and carry out administrative tasks from a home office, but by mid-May, she became stir-crazy.

Courtesy Dr. Carol A. Bernstein

“I just couldn’t stand it, anymore,” Dr. Bernstein said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “I came back to work at least just to see my colleagues, because I felt so disconnected. Normally, in a disaster, people come together – whether it’s responding to an earthquake or a fire or whatever. People come together to provide themselves with support. They hug each other and hold each other’s hands. We could not and cannot do that in this pandemic.”

According to Dr. Bernstein, stress, fear, and uncertainty triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic require special attention to the needs of health care personnel.

“Taking care of yourself and encouraging others to do the same sustains the ability to care for those in need,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is vice chair for faculty development and well-being in the departments of psychiatry and behavioral science and obstetrics and gynecology at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. “This includes both meeting practical needs as well as physical and emotional self-care. Everyone is impacted by this, so emotional support needs to be available to everyone. In the psychiatric community, we have triple challenges. We have to take care of our patients, our colleagues, and ourselves. It’s a lot.”

Specific challenges for health care workers include the potential for a surge in care demand and uncertainty about future outbreaks.

“Although we don’t have [personal protective] and respirator shortages at the moment, we’re worried about the vaccine shortages,” she said. Then there’s the fact that patients with comorbid conditions have the highest risk of death and the task of providing supportive care as well as medical care. “Of course, we still have a risk of becoming infected or infecting our families. There is additional psychological stress: fear, grief, frustration, guilt, insomnia, and exhaustion.”

Now, more than a year removed from the start of the pandemic, health care personnel are experiencing compassion fatigue, which she described as the inability to feel compassion for our patients because of our inability to feel compassion for ourselves. “We’re certainly experiencing burnout, although the primary aspect of burnout that we are experiencing is emotional exhaustion,” said Dr. Bernstein, who also is a past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

General risk factors for burnout and distress include sleep deprivation, high levels of work/life conflict, work interrupted by personal concerns, high levels of anger, loneliness, or anxiety, the stress of work relationships/work outcomes, anxiety about competency, difficulty “unplugging” after work, and regular use of alcohol and other drugs. At the same time, she continued, signs of burnout and secondary traumatic stress include sadness, depression, or apathy; feeling easily frustrated; feeling isolated and disconnected from others; excessive worry or fear about something bad happening; feeling like a failure, and feeling tired, exhausted, or overwhelmed.

“Why is this crisis so hard for us docs?” she asked. “Because focusing on ourselves – with worries like ‘are we okay? Are we going to get sick?’ – compromises our focus on patients. This can lead to medical errors and unprofessional behavior. There are significant feelings of guilt that ‘I’m not doing enough.’

“This was true for a lot of us in psychiatry who were working virtually early during the pandemic while our medicine colleagues were on the front lines exposing themselves to COVID. Even the people working on the COVID units at the height on the initial surge felt guilty because treatment algorithms were changing almost every day. Fortunately, protocols are more established now, but the sense of not doing enough is pervasive and makes it difficult for us to ask for help.”

Fear of the unknown also posed a challenge to the workforce. “We didn’t know what we were dealing with at first,” she said. “The loss of control and autonomy, which is a major driver of burnout in the best of circumstances, was particularly true here in New York. People were told what to do. They were deployed into new circumstances. We experienced a significant loss of control, both of the virus and of what we were doing, and a widespread sense of isolation and loneliness.”

To cultivate resilience going forward, Dr. Bernstein advocates for the concept of psychological flexibility, which she defined as the ability to stay in contact with the present moment regardless of unpleasant thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations, while choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values. “It is understanding that you can feel demoralized and bad one minute and better the next day,” she said. “This is a key concept for being able to continuously adapt under stressful circumstances and to tolerate uncertainty.”

She advises clinicians to identify safe areas and behaviors, and to maximize their ability to care for themselves and their families – including keeping in touch with colleagues and people you care about. “You also want to take advantage of calming skills and the maintenance of natural body rhythms,” she said. “This includes sensible nutrition and getting adequate rest and exercise.”

Dr. Bernstein also emphasized the importance of trying to maintain hope and optimism while not denying risk. “We also have to think about ethics, to provide the best possible care given the circumstances,” she said. “The crisis standards of care are necessarily different. We are not ethically required to offer futile care, but we must tell the truth.”

She pointed out that resilience is sometimes thought of as returning to the way you were before a stressful or life-altering event. “But here we refer to it as using your coping resources, connecting to others, and cultivating your values and purpose in life as you ride through this time of stress,” Dr. Bernstein said. “You are aware of the time it takes to develop and test for treatment and vaccine efficacy, and to then roll out these interventions, so you do know there will be an end to this, hopefully by the summer. While you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control, your positive relationships, remind yourself of your purpose, and practice gratitude for what you are thankful for in your life. We need to cultivate what is positive and promote the message that emotional health should have the same priority level as physical health. The goal is to flourish.”

Dr. Bernstein reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

When cases of COVID-19 began to surge in New York City in March 2020, Carol A. Bernstein, MD, did her best to practice psychiatry and carry out administrative tasks from a home office, but by mid-May, she became stir-crazy.

Courtesy Dr. Carol A. Bernstein

“I just couldn’t stand it, anymore,” Dr. Bernstein said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “I came back to work at least just to see my colleagues, because I felt so disconnected. Normally, in a disaster, people come together – whether it’s responding to an earthquake or a fire or whatever. People come together to provide themselves with support. They hug each other and hold each other’s hands. We could not and cannot do that in this pandemic.”

According to Dr. Bernstein, stress, fear, and uncertainty triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic require special attention to the needs of health care personnel.

“Taking care of yourself and encouraging others to do the same sustains the ability to care for those in need,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is vice chair for faculty development and well-being in the departments of psychiatry and behavioral science and obstetrics and gynecology at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. “This includes both meeting practical needs as well as physical and emotional self-care. Everyone is impacted by this, so emotional support needs to be available to everyone. In the psychiatric community, we have triple challenges. We have to take care of our patients, our colleagues, and ourselves. It’s a lot.”

Specific challenges for health care workers include the potential for a surge in care demand and uncertainty about future outbreaks.

“Although we don’t have [personal protective] and respirator shortages at the moment, we’re worried about the vaccine shortages,” she said. Then there’s the fact that patients with comorbid conditions have the highest risk of death and the task of providing supportive care as well as medical care. “Of course, we still have a risk of becoming infected or infecting our families. There is additional psychological stress: fear, grief, frustration, guilt, insomnia, and exhaustion.”

Now, more than a year removed from the start of the pandemic, health care personnel are experiencing compassion fatigue, which she described as the inability to feel compassion for our patients because of our inability to feel compassion for ourselves. “We’re certainly experiencing burnout, although the primary aspect of burnout that we are experiencing is emotional exhaustion,” said Dr. Bernstein, who also is a past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

General risk factors for burnout and distress include sleep deprivation, high levels of work/life conflict, work interrupted by personal concerns, high levels of anger, loneliness, or anxiety, the stress of work relationships/work outcomes, anxiety about competency, difficulty “unplugging” after work, and regular use of alcohol and other drugs. At the same time, she continued, signs of burnout and secondary traumatic stress include sadness, depression, or apathy; feeling easily frustrated; feeling isolated and disconnected from others; excessive worry or fear about something bad happening; feeling like a failure, and feeling tired, exhausted, or overwhelmed.

“Why is this crisis so hard for us docs?” she asked. “Because focusing on ourselves – with worries like ‘are we okay? Are we going to get sick?’ – compromises our focus on patients. This can lead to medical errors and unprofessional behavior. There are significant feelings of guilt that ‘I’m not doing enough.’

“This was true for a lot of us in psychiatry who were working virtually early during the pandemic while our medicine colleagues were on the front lines exposing themselves to COVID. Even the people working on the COVID units at the height on the initial surge felt guilty because treatment algorithms were changing almost every day. Fortunately, protocols are more established now, but the sense of not doing enough is pervasive and makes it difficult for us to ask for help.”

Fear of the unknown also posed a challenge to the workforce. “We didn’t know what we were dealing with at first,” she said. “The loss of control and autonomy, which is a major driver of burnout in the best of circumstances, was particularly true here in New York. People were told what to do. They were deployed into new circumstances. We experienced a significant loss of control, both of the virus and of what we were doing, and a widespread sense of isolation and loneliness.”

To cultivate resilience going forward, Dr. Bernstein advocates for the concept of psychological flexibility, which she defined as the ability to stay in contact with the present moment regardless of unpleasant thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations, while choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values. “It is understanding that you can feel demoralized and bad one minute and better the next day,” she said. “This is a key concept for being able to continuously adapt under stressful circumstances and to tolerate uncertainty.”

She advises clinicians to identify safe areas and behaviors, and to maximize their ability to care for themselves and their families – including keeping in touch with colleagues and people you care about. “You also want to take advantage of calming skills and the maintenance of natural body rhythms,” she said. “This includes sensible nutrition and getting adequate rest and exercise.”

Dr. Bernstein also emphasized the importance of trying to maintain hope and optimism while not denying risk. “We also have to think about ethics, to provide the best possible care given the circumstances,” she said. “The crisis standards of care are necessarily different. We are not ethically required to offer futile care, but we must tell the truth.”

She pointed out that resilience is sometimes thought of as returning to the way you were before a stressful or life-altering event. “But here we refer to it as using your coping resources, connecting to others, and cultivating your values and purpose in life as you ride through this time of stress,” Dr. Bernstein said. “You are aware of the time it takes to develop and test for treatment and vaccine efficacy, and to then roll out these interventions, so you do know there will be an end to this, hopefully by the summer. While you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control, your positive relationships, remind yourself of your purpose, and practice gratitude for what you are thankful for in your life. We need to cultivate what is positive and promote the message that emotional health should have the same priority level as physical health. The goal is to flourish.”

Dr. Bernstein reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Despite slightly decreasing numbers of pregnant women hospitalized with influenza, the rate of morbidity among those who do have influenza has substantially increased from 2000 to 2015, likely due in part to an increase in comorbidities.

Maternal patients who have influenza while hospitalized for delivery are twice as likely to develop severe maternal morbidity than are those without influenza, according to findings from a new study presented at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Pregnant women were also at substantially greater risk of sepsis or shock, needing mechanical ventilation, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. In fact, rates of overall severe maternal morbidity and of influenza-related complications have increased in maternal patients with influenza by more than 200% from 2000 to 2015.

“It was striking to see how the rate of delivery hospitalizations complicated by influenza has remained relatively stable with a small decline, but the rates of severe maternal morbidity were increasing and so markedly among those with influenza,” Timothy Wen, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “The findings suggest that influenza may either be a contributor to rising rates of severe maternal morbidity or synergistically amplifying existing comorbidities to worsen outcomes,” he said during his presentation.

The increased risk of influenza complications in pregnant women became particularly apparent during the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza pandemic. “Physiologic and immunologic changes predispose pregnant patients to higher risk for complications such as pneumonia, intensive care unit admission, and inpatient mortality,” Dr. Wen told attendees. But data have been scarce since H1N1.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of delivery hospitalizations from 2000 to 2015 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which includes about 20% of all U.S. inpatient hospitalizations from all payers. They looked at all maternal patients aged 15-54 who had a diagnosis of influenza. In looking at potential associations between influenza and morbidity, they adjusted their calculations for maternal age, payer status, median income, and race/ethnicity as well as the hospital factors of location, teaching status, and region. They also adjusted for a dozen clinical factors.

Of 62.7 million hospitalizations, 0.67% involved severe maternal mortality, including the following influenza complications:

• 0.02% with shock/sepsis.
• 0.01% needing mechanical ventilation.
• 0.04% with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The 182,228 patients with influenza represented a rate of 29 cases per 10,000 deliveries, and 2.09% of them involved severe maternal morbidity, compared to severe maternal morbidity in just 0.66% of deliveries without influenza.

When looking specifically at rates of shock/sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and acute respiratory distress syndrome, the data revealed similar trends, with substantially higher proportions of patients with influenza experiencing these complications compared to maternal patients without influenza. For example, 0.3% of patients with influenza developed shock/sepsis whereas only 0.04% of patients without influenza did. Acute respiratory distress syndrome was similarly more common in patients with flu (0.45% vs. 0.04%), as was the need for mechanical ventilation (0.09% vs. 0.01%).

During the 15-year study period, the rate of maternal hospitalizations with influenza infections declined about 1.5%, from 30 to 24 per 10,000 deliveries. But trends with severe maternal morbidity in patients with influenza went in the other direction, increasing more than 200% over 15 years, from 100 to 342 cases of severe maternal morbidity per 10,000 patients with influenza. An increase also occurred in patients without influenza, but it was more modest, a nearly 50% increase, from 53 to 79 cases per 10,000 hospitalizations.

From year to year, severe maternal morbidity increased 5.3% annually among hospitalizations with influenza – more than twice the rate of a 2.4% annual increase among hospitalizations without influenza.

The researchers found that influenza is linked to twice the risk of severe maternal morbidity (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 2.08, P < .01). There were similarly higher risks with influenza of sepsis/shock (aRR = 3.23), mechanical ventilation (aRR = 6.04), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (aRR = 5.76; all P < .01).

Among the possible reasons for the increase in influenza morbidity – despite a decrease in influenza infections in this population – is the increase in the medical complexity of the patient population, Dr. Wen said.

“Patients who are getting pregnant today likely have more comorbid conditions (chronic hypertension, obesity, pregestational diabetes mellitus, etc.) than they did decades prior,” Dr. Wen said. “Clinically, it means that we have a baseline patient population at a higher risk of susceptibility for influenza and its complications.”

Maternal influenza immunization rates have meanwhile stagnated, Dr. Wen added. Influenza “is something that we know is preventable, or at least mitigated, by a vaccine,” he said. “Our results serve as a reminder for clinicians to continue counseling on the importance of influenza vaccination among pregnant patients, and even in those who are planning to become pregnant.”

He said these findings suggest the need for a low threshold for treating pregnant patients who have influenza symptoms with over-the-counter therapies or closely monitoring them.

Adetola Louis-Jacques, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, found the increase in morbidity in those with flu particularly unexpected and concerning.

Despite slightly decreasing numbers of pregnant women hospitalized with influenza, the rate of morbidity among those who do have influenza has substantially increased from 2000 to 2015, likely due in part to an increase in comorbidities.

Maternal patients who have influenza while hospitalized for delivery are twice as likely to develop severe maternal morbidity than are those without influenza, according to findings from a new study presented at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Pregnant women were also at substantially greater risk of sepsis or shock, needing mechanical ventilation, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. In fact, rates of overall severe maternal morbidity and of influenza-related complications have increased in maternal patients with influenza by more than 200% from 2000 to 2015.

“It was striking to see how the rate of delivery hospitalizations complicated by influenza has remained relatively stable with a small decline, but the rates of severe maternal morbidity were increasing and so markedly among those with influenza,” Timothy Wen, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “The findings suggest that influenza may either be a contributor to rising rates of severe maternal morbidity or synergistically amplifying existing comorbidities to worsen outcomes,” he said during his presentation.

The increased risk of influenza complications in pregnant women became particularly apparent during the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza pandemic. “Physiologic and immunologic changes predispose pregnant patients to higher risk for complications such as pneumonia, intensive care unit admission, and inpatient mortality,” Dr. Wen told attendees. But data have been scarce since H1N1.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of delivery hospitalizations from 2000 to 2015 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which includes about 20% of all U.S. inpatient hospitalizations from all payers. They looked at all maternal patients aged 15-54 who had a diagnosis of influenza. In looking at potential associations between influenza and morbidity, they adjusted their calculations for maternal age, payer status, median income, and race/ethnicity as well as the hospital factors of location, teaching status, and region. They also adjusted for a dozen clinical factors.

Of 62.7 million hospitalizations, 0.67% involved severe maternal mortality, including the following influenza complications:

• 0.02% with shock/sepsis.
• 0.01% needing mechanical ventilation.
• 0.04% with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The 182,228 patients with influenza represented a rate of 29 cases per 10,000 deliveries, and 2.09% of them involved severe maternal morbidity, compared to severe maternal morbidity in just 0.66% of deliveries without influenza.

When looking specifically at rates of shock/sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and acute respiratory distress syndrome, the data revealed similar trends, with substantially higher proportions of patients with influenza experiencing these complications compared to maternal patients without influenza. For example, 0.3% of patients with influenza developed shock/sepsis whereas only 0.04% of patients without influenza did. Acute respiratory distress syndrome was similarly more common in patients with flu (0.45% vs. 0.04%), as was the need for mechanical ventilation (0.09% vs. 0.01%).

During the 15-year study period, the rate of maternal hospitalizations with influenza infections declined about 1.5%, from 30 to 24 per 10,000 deliveries. But trends with severe maternal morbidity in patients with influenza went in the other direction, increasing more than 200% over 15 years, from 100 to 342 cases of severe maternal morbidity per 10,000 patients with influenza. An increase also occurred in patients without influenza, but it was more modest, a nearly 50% increase, from 53 to 79 cases per 10,000 hospitalizations.

From year to year, severe maternal morbidity increased 5.3% annually among hospitalizations with influenza – more than twice the rate of a 2.4% annual increase among hospitalizations without influenza.

The researchers found that influenza is linked to twice the risk of severe maternal morbidity (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 2.08, P < .01). There were similarly higher risks with influenza of sepsis/shock (aRR = 3.23), mechanical ventilation (aRR = 6.04), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (aRR = 5.76; all P < .01).

Among the possible reasons for the increase in influenza morbidity – despite a decrease in influenza infections in this population – is the increase in the medical complexity of the patient population, Dr. Wen said.

“Patients who are getting pregnant today likely have more comorbid conditions (chronic hypertension, obesity, pregestational diabetes mellitus, etc.) than they did decades prior,” Dr. Wen said. “Clinically, it means that we have a baseline patient population at a higher risk of susceptibility for influenza and its complications.”

Maternal influenza immunization rates have meanwhile stagnated, Dr. Wen added. Influenza “is something that we know is preventable, or at least mitigated, by a vaccine,” he said. “Our results serve as a reminder for clinicians to continue counseling on the importance of influenza vaccination among pregnant patients, and even in those who are planning to become pregnant.”

He said these findings suggest the need for a low threshold for treating pregnant patients who have influenza symptoms with over-the-counter therapies or closely monitoring them.

Adetola Louis-Jacques, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, found the increase in morbidity in those with flu particularly unexpected and concerning.

Despite slightly decreasing numbers of pregnant women hospitalized with influenza, the rate of morbidity among those who do have influenza has substantially increased from 2000 to 2015, likely due in part to an increase in comorbidities.

Maternal patients who have influenza while hospitalized for delivery are twice as likely to develop severe maternal morbidity than are those without influenza, according to findings from a new study presented at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Pregnant women were also at substantially greater risk of sepsis or shock, needing mechanical ventilation, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. In fact, rates of overall severe maternal morbidity and of influenza-related complications have increased in maternal patients with influenza by more than 200% from 2000 to 2015.

“It was striking to see how the rate of delivery hospitalizations complicated by influenza has remained relatively stable with a small decline, but the rates of severe maternal morbidity were increasing and so markedly among those with influenza,” Timothy Wen, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “The findings suggest that influenza may either be a contributor to rising rates of severe maternal morbidity or synergistically amplifying existing comorbidities to worsen outcomes,” he said during his presentation.

The increased risk of influenza complications in pregnant women became particularly apparent during the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza pandemic. “Physiologic and immunologic changes predispose pregnant patients to higher risk for complications such as pneumonia, intensive care unit admission, and inpatient mortality,” Dr. Wen told attendees. But data have been scarce since H1N1.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of delivery hospitalizations from 2000 to 2015 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which includes about 20% of all U.S. inpatient hospitalizations from all payers. They looked at all maternal patients aged 15-54 who had a diagnosis of influenza. In looking at potential associations between influenza and morbidity, they adjusted their calculations for maternal age, payer status, median income, and race/ethnicity as well as the hospital factors of location, teaching status, and region. They also adjusted for a dozen clinical factors.

Of 62.7 million hospitalizations, 0.67% involved severe maternal mortality, including the following influenza complications:

• 0.02% with shock/sepsis.
• 0.01% needing mechanical ventilation.
• 0.04% with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The 182,228 patients with influenza represented a rate of 29 cases per 10,000 deliveries, and 2.09% of them involved severe maternal morbidity, compared to severe maternal morbidity in just 0.66% of deliveries without influenza.

When looking specifically at rates of shock/sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and acute respiratory distress syndrome, the data revealed similar trends, with substantially higher proportions of patients with influenza experiencing these complications compared to maternal patients without influenza. For example, 0.3% of patients with influenza developed shock/sepsis whereas only 0.04% of patients without influenza did. Acute respiratory distress syndrome was similarly more common in patients with flu (0.45% vs. 0.04%), as was the need for mechanical ventilation (0.09% vs. 0.01%).

During the 15-year study period, the rate of maternal hospitalizations with influenza infections declined about 1.5%, from 30 to 24 per 10,000 deliveries. But trends with severe maternal morbidity in patients with influenza went in the other direction, increasing more than 200% over 15 years, from 100 to 342 cases of severe maternal morbidity per 10,000 patients with influenza. An increase also occurred in patients without influenza, but it was more modest, a nearly 50% increase, from 53 to 79 cases per 10,000 hospitalizations.

From year to year, severe maternal morbidity increased 5.3% annually among hospitalizations with influenza – more than twice the rate of a 2.4% annual increase among hospitalizations without influenza.

The researchers found that influenza is linked to twice the risk of severe maternal morbidity (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 2.08, P < .01). There were similarly higher risks with influenza of sepsis/shock (aRR = 3.23), mechanical ventilation (aRR = 6.04), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (aRR = 5.76; all P < .01).

Among the possible reasons for the increase in influenza morbidity – despite a decrease in influenza infections in this population – is the increase in the medical complexity of the patient population, Dr. Wen said.

“Patients who are getting pregnant today likely have more comorbid conditions (chronic hypertension, obesity, pregestational diabetes mellitus, etc.) than they did decades prior,” Dr. Wen said. “Clinically, it means that we have a baseline patient population at a higher risk of susceptibility for influenza and its complications.”

Maternal influenza immunization rates have meanwhile stagnated, Dr. Wen added. Influenza “is something that we know is preventable, or at least mitigated, by a vaccine,” he said. “Our results serve as a reminder for clinicians to continue counseling on the importance of influenza vaccination among pregnant patients, and even in those who are planning to become pregnant.”

He said these findings suggest the need for a low threshold for treating pregnant patients who have influenza symptoms with over-the-counter therapies or closely monitoring them.

Adetola Louis-Jacques, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, found the increase in morbidity in those with flu particularly unexpected and concerning.

Real-world experience with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphomas compares favorably with experience in commercial and trial settings and provides new insights for predicting outcomes, according to Paolo Corradini, MD.

The 12-month duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in 152 real-world patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel; Kymriah) for an approved indication were 48.4% and 26.4%, respectively, data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and published in November 2020 in Blood Advances showed.

Those results are similar to the findings of the pivotal phase 2 JULIET trial evaluating tisa-cel in patients with DLBCL who relapsed or were refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Corradini said at the third European CAR T-cell Meeting, jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

A clinical update of the JULIET trial, as presented by Dr. Corradini and colleagues in a poster at the 2020 annual conference of the American Society of Hematology, showed a relapse-free probability of 60.4% at 24 and 30 months among 61 patients with an initial response.

The 12- and 36-month PFS rates as of February 2020, with median follow-up of 40.3 months, were 33% and 31%, respectively, and no new safety signals were identified, said Dr. Corradini, chair of hematology at the University of Milan.

Similarly, real-world data from the U.S. Lymphoma CAR T Consortium showing median PFS of 8.3 months at median follow-up of 12.9 months in 275 patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; YESCARTA) were comparable with outcomes in the ZUMA-1 registrational trial, he noted.

An ongoing response was seen at 2 years in 39% of patients in ZUMA-1, and 3-year survival was 47%, according to an update reported at ASH 2019.

Of note, 43% of patients in the real-world study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in September 2020, would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis.
 

Predicting outcomes

The real-world data also demonstrated that performance status and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels can predict outcomes: Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 versus less than 2, and elevated LDH had shorter PFS and overall survival (OS) on both univariate and multivariate analysis, Dr. Corradini noted.

A subsequent multicenter study showed similar response rates of 70% and 68% in ZUMA-1-eligible and noneligible patients, but significantly improved DOR, PFS, and OS outcomes among the ZUMA-1-eligible patients.

The authors also looked for “clinical predictive factors or some easy clinical biomarkers to predict the outcomes in our patients receiving CAR T-cells,” and found that C-reactive protein levels of more than 30 mg at infusion were associated with poorer DOR, PFS, and OS, he said.

In 60 patients in another U.S. study of both tisa-cel- and axi-cel-treated patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1-year event-free survival and OS were 40% and 69%, and Dr. Corradini’s experience with 55 patients at the University of Milan similarly showed 1-year PFS and OS of 40% and 70%, respectively.

“So all these studies support the notion that the results of CAR T-cells in real-world practice are durable for our patients, and are very similar to results obtained in the studies,” he said.

Other factors that have been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy include systemic bridging therapy, high metabolic tumor volume, and extranodal involvement; patients with these characteristics, along with those who have poor ECOG performance status or elevated LDH or CRP levels, do not comprise “a group to exclude from CAR T-cell therapy, but rather ... a group for whom there is an unmet need with our currently available treatments,” he said, adding: “So, it’s a group for which we have to do clinical trials and studies to improve the outcomes of our patient with large B-cell lymphomas.”

“These are all real-world data with commercially available products, he noted.
 

Product selection

Tisa-cel received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2017 and is used to treat relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in those aged up to 25 years, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or is refractory after at least two prior lines of therapy.

Axi-cel was also approved in 2017 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in February 2021, after Dr. Corradini’s meeting presentation, the FDA granted a third approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi) for this indication.

The information to date from both the trial and real-world settings are limited with respect to showing any differences in outcomes between the CAR T-cell products, but provide “an initial suggestion” that outcomes with tisa-cel and axi-cel are comparable, he said, adding that decisions should be strictly based on product registration data given the absence of reliable data for choosing one product over another.

Dr. Corradini reported honoraria and/or payment for travel and accommodations from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, and a number of other pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Real-world experience with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphomas compares favorably with experience in commercial and trial settings and provides new insights for predicting outcomes, according to Paolo Corradini, MD.

The 12-month duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in 152 real-world patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel; Kymriah) for an approved indication were 48.4% and 26.4%, respectively, data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and published in November 2020 in Blood Advances showed.

Those results are similar to the findings of the pivotal phase 2 JULIET trial evaluating tisa-cel in patients with DLBCL who relapsed or were refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Corradini said at the third European CAR T-cell Meeting, jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

A clinical update of the JULIET trial, as presented by Dr. Corradini and colleagues in a poster at the 2020 annual conference of the American Society of Hematology, showed a relapse-free probability of 60.4% at 24 and 30 months among 61 patients with an initial response.

The 12- and 36-month PFS rates as of February 2020, with median follow-up of 40.3 months, were 33% and 31%, respectively, and no new safety signals were identified, said Dr. Corradini, chair of hematology at the University of Milan.

Similarly, real-world data from the U.S. Lymphoma CAR T Consortium showing median PFS of 8.3 months at median follow-up of 12.9 months in 275 patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; YESCARTA) were comparable with outcomes in the ZUMA-1 registrational trial, he noted.

An ongoing response was seen at 2 years in 39% of patients in ZUMA-1, and 3-year survival was 47%, according to an update reported at ASH 2019.

Of note, 43% of patients in the real-world study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in September 2020, would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis.
 

Predicting outcomes

The real-world data also demonstrated that performance status and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels can predict outcomes: Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 versus less than 2, and elevated LDH had shorter PFS and overall survival (OS) on both univariate and multivariate analysis, Dr. Corradini noted.

A subsequent multicenter study showed similar response rates of 70% and 68% in ZUMA-1-eligible and noneligible patients, but significantly improved DOR, PFS, and OS outcomes among the ZUMA-1-eligible patients.

The authors also looked for “clinical predictive factors or some easy clinical biomarkers to predict the outcomes in our patients receiving CAR T-cells,” and found that C-reactive protein levels of more than 30 mg at infusion were associated with poorer DOR, PFS, and OS, he said.

In 60 patients in another U.S. study of both tisa-cel- and axi-cel-treated patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1-year event-free survival and OS were 40% and 69%, and Dr. Corradini’s experience with 55 patients at the University of Milan similarly showed 1-year PFS and OS of 40% and 70%, respectively.

“So all these studies support the notion that the results of CAR T-cells in real-world practice are durable for our patients, and are very similar to results obtained in the studies,” he said.

Other factors that have been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy include systemic bridging therapy, high metabolic tumor volume, and extranodal involvement; patients with these characteristics, along with those who have poor ECOG performance status or elevated LDH or CRP levels, do not comprise “a group to exclude from CAR T-cell therapy, but rather ... a group for whom there is an unmet need with our currently available treatments,” he said, adding: “So, it’s a group for which we have to do clinical trials and studies to improve the outcomes of our patient with large B-cell lymphomas.”

“These are all real-world data with commercially available products, he noted.
 

Product selection

Tisa-cel received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2017 and is used to treat relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in those aged up to 25 years, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or is refractory after at least two prior lines of therapy.

Axi-cel was also approved in 2017 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in February 2021, after Dr. Corradini’s meeting presentation, the FDA granted a third approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi) for this indication.

The information to date from both the trial and real-world settings are limited with respect to showing any differences in outcomes between the CAR T-cell products, but provide “an initial suggestion” that outcomes with tisa-cel and axi-cel are comparable, he said, adding that decisions should be strictly based on product registration data given the absence of reliable data for choosing one product over another.

Dr. Corradini reported honoraria and/or payment for travel and accommodations from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, and a number of other pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Real-world experience with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphomas compares favorably with experience in commercial and trial settings and provides new insights for predicting outcomes, according to Paolo Corradini, MD.

The 12-month duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in 152 real-world patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel; Kymriah) for an approved indication were 48.4% and 26.4%, respectively, data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and published in November 2020 in Blood Advances showed.

Those results are similar to the findings of the pivotal phase 2 JULIET trial evaluating tisa-cel in patients with DLBCL who relapsed or were refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Corradini said at the third European CAR T-cell Meeting, jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

A clinical update of the JULIET trial, as presented by Dr. Corradini and colleagues in a poster at the 2020 annual conference of the American Society of Hematology, showed a relapse-free probability of 60.4% at 24 and 30 months among 61 patients with an initial response.

The 12- and 36-month PFS rates as of February 2020, with median follow-up of 40.3 months, were 33% and 31%, respectively, and no new safety signals were identified, said Dr. Corradini, chair of hematology at the University of Milan.

Similarly, real-world data from the U.S. Lymphoma CAR T Consortium showing median PFS of 8.3 months at median follow-up of 12.9 months in 275 patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; YESCARTA) were comparable with outcomes in the ZUMA-1 registrational trial, he noted.

An ongoing response was seen at 2 years in 39% of patients in ZUMA-1, and 3-year survival was 47%, according to an update reported at ASH 2019.

Of note, 43% of patients in the real-world study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in September 2020, would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis.
 

Predicting outcomes

The real-world data also demonstrated that performance status and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels can predict outcomes: Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 versus less than 2, and elevated LDH had shorter PFS and overall survival (OS) on both univariate and multivariate analysis, Dr. Corradini noted.

A subsequent multicenter study showed similar response rates of 70% and 68% in ZUMA-1-eligible and noneligible patients, but significantly improved DOR, PFS, and OS outcomes among the ZUMA-1-eligible patients.

The authors also looked for “clinical predictive factors or some easy clinical biomarkers to predict the outcomes in our patients receiving CAR T-cells,” and found that C-reactive protein levels of more than 30 mg at infusion were associated with poorer DOR, PFS, and OS, he said.

In 60 patients in another U.S. study of both tisa-cel- and axi-cel-treated patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1-year event-free survival and OS were 40% and 69%, and Dr. Corradini’s experience with 55 patients at the University of Milan similarly showed 1-year PFS and OS of 40% and 70%, respectively.

“So all these studies support the notion that the results of CAR T-cells in real-world practice are durable for our patients, and are very similar to results obtained in the studies,” he said.

Other factors that have been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy include systemic bridging therapy, high metabolic tumor volume, and extranodal involvement; patients with these characteristics, along with those who have poor ECOG performance status or elevated LDH or CRP levels, do not comprise “a group to exclude from CAR T-cell therapy, but rather ... a group for whom there is an unmet need with our currently available treatments,” he said, adding: “So, it’s a group for which we have to do clinical trials and studies to improve the outcomes of our patient with large B-cell lymphomas.”

“These are all real-world data with commercially available products, he noted.
 

Product selection

Tisa-cel received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2017 and is used to treat relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in those aged up to 25 years, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or is refractory after at least two prior lines of therapy.

Axi-cel was also approved in 2017 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in February 2021, after Dr. Corradini’s meeting presentation, the FDA granted a third approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi) for this indication.

The information to date from both the trial and real-world settings are limited with respect to showing any differences in outcomes between the CAR T-cell products, but provide “an initial suggestion” that outcomes with tisa-cel and axi-cel are comparable, he said, adding that decisions should be strictly based on product registration data given the absence of reliable data for choosing one product over another.

Dr. Corradini reported honoraria and/or payment for travel and accommodations from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, and a number of other pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com