CHEST Physician

When physicians gaze into their crystal balls to predict what’s coming in 2020, they see continued efforts to defund the Affordable Care Act – meaning the ACA will still be around to be defunded – but they don’t see a lot of support for universal health care, according to health care market research company InCrowd.

Expectations for universal health care came in at 18% of the 100 generalists and 101 specialists who responded to InCrowd’s fifth annual health care predictions survey, which left 82% who thought that “election outcomes will result in universal healthcare support” was somewhat or very unlikely in 2020.

One respondent, a specialist from California, commented that “the global data on universal healthcare for all shows that it results in overall improved population health. Unfortunately, we are so polarized in the US against universal healthcare driven by bias from health insurance companies and decision makers that are quick to ignore scientific data.”

This was the first time InCrowd asked physicians about universal health care, but ACA-related predictions have been included before, and all three scenarios presented were deemed to be increasingly likely, compared with 2019.

Respondents thought that federal government defunding was more likely to occur in 2020 (80%) than in 2019 (73%), but increased majorities also said that preexisting conditions coverage would continue (78% in 2020 vs. 70% in 2019) and that the ACA would remain in place (74% in 2020 vs. 60% in 2019), InCrowd reported after the survey, which was conducted from Dec. 30, 2019, to Jan. 2, 2020.

A respondent who thought the ACA will be eliminated said, “I have as many uninsured today as before the ACA. They are just different. Mainly younger patients who spend less in a year on healthcare than one month’s premium.” Another suggested that eliminateing it “will limit access to care and overload [emergency departments]. More people will die.”

Cost was addressed in a separate survey question that asked how physicians could help to reduce health care spending in 2020.

The leading answer, given by 37% of respondents, was for physicians to “inform themselves of costs and adapt cost-saving prescription practices.” Next came “limit use of expensive tests and scans” with 21%, followed by “prescribe generics when possible” at 20%, which was a substantial drop from the 38% it garnered in 2019, InCrowd noted.

“Participation in [shared savings] programs and risk-based incentive programs and pay-for-performance programs” would provide “better stewardship of resources,” a primary care physician from Michigan wrote.

When the survey turned to pharmaceutical industry predictions for 2020, cost was the major issue.

“What’s interesting about this year’s data is that we’re seeing less emphasis on the importance of bringing innovative, new therapies to market faster … versus expanding affordability, which was nearly a unanimous top priority for respondents,” Daniel S. Fitzgerald, InCrowd’s CEO and president, said in a separate statement.

[email protected]

When physicians gaze into their crystal balls to predict what’s coming in 2020, they see continued efforts to defund the Affordable Care Act – meaning the ACA will still be around to be defunded – but they don’t see a lot of support for universal health care, according to health care market research company InCrowd.

Expectations for universal health care came in at 18% of the 100 generalists and 101 specialists who responded to InCrowd’s fifth annual health care predictions survey, which left 82% who thought that “election outcomes will result in universal healthcare support” was somewhat or very unlikely in 2020.

One respondent, a specialist from California, commented that “the global data on universal healthcare for all shows that it results in overall improved population health. Unfortunately, we are so polarized in the US against universal healthcare driven by bias from health insurance companies and decision makers that are quick to ignore scientific data.”

This was the first time InCrowd asked physicians about universal health care, but ACA-related predictions have been included before, and all three scenarios presented were deemed to be increasingly likely, compared with 2019.

Respondents thought that federal government defunding was more likely to occur in 2020 (80%) than in 2019 (73%), but increased majorities also said that preexisting conditions coverage would continue (78% in 2020 vs. 70% in 2019) and that the ACA would remain in place (74% in 2020 vs. 60% in 2019), InCrowd reported after the survey, which was conducted from Dec. 30, 2019, to Jan. 2, 2020.

A respondent who thought the ACA will be eliminated said, “I have as many uninsured today as before the ACA. They are just different. Mainly younger patients who spend less in a year on healthcare than one month’s premium.” Another suggested that eliminateing it “will limit access to care and overload [emergency departments]. More people will die.”

Cost was addressed in a separate survey question that asked how physicians could help to reduce health care spending in 2020.

The leading answer, given by 37% of respondents, was for physicians to “inform themselves of costs and adapt cost-saving prescription practices.” Next came “limit use of expensive tests and scans” with 21%, followed by “prescribe generics when possible” at 20%, which was a substantial drop from the 38% it garnered in 2019, InCrowd noted.

“Participation in [shared savings] programs and risk-based incentive programs and pay-for-performance programs” would provide “better stewardship of resources,” a primary care physician from Michigan wrote.

When the survey turned to pharmaceutical industry predictions for 2020, cost was the major issue.

“What’s interesting about this year’s data is that we’re seeing less emphasis on the importance of bringing innovative, new therapies to market faster … versus expanding affordability, which was nearly a unanimous top priority for respondents,” Daniel S. Fitzgerald, InCrowd’s CEO and president, said in a separate statement.

[email protected]

When physicians gaze into their crystal balls to predict what’s coming in 2020, they see continued efforts to defund the Affordable Care Act – meaning the ACA will still be around to be defunded – but they don’t see a lot of support for universal health care, according to health care market research company InCrowd.

Expectations for universal health care came in at 18% of the 100 generalists and 101 specialists who responded to InCrowd’s fifth annual health care predictions survey, which left 82% who thought that “election outcomes will result in universal healthcare support” was somewhat or very unlikely in 2020.

One respondent, a specialist from California, commented that “the global data on universal healthcare for all shows that it results in overall improved population health. Unfortunately, we are so polarized in the US against universal healthcare driven by bias from health insurance companies and decision makers that are quick to ignore scientific data.”

This was the first time InCrowd asked physicians about universal health care, but ACA-related predictions have been included before, and all three scenarios presented were deemed to be increasingly likely, compared with 2019.

Respondents thought that federal government defunding was more likely to occur in 2020 (80%) than in 2019 (73%), but increased majorities also said that preexisting conditions coverage would continue (78% in 2020 vs. 70% in 2019) and that the ACA would remain in place (74% in 2020 vs. 60% in 2019), InCrowd reported after the survey, which was conducted from Dec. 30, 2019, to Jan. 2, 2020.

A respondent who thought the ACA will be eliminated said, “I have as many uninsured today as before the ACA. They are just different. Mainly younger patients who spend less in a year on healthcare than one month’s premium.” Another suggested that eliminateing it “will limit access to care and overload [emergency departments]. More people will die.”

Cost was addressed in a separate survey question that asked how physicians could help to reduce health care spending in 2020.

The leading answer, given by 37% of respondents, was for physicians to “inform themselves of costs and adapt cost-saving prescription practices.” Next came “limit use of expensive tests and scans” with 21%, followed by “prescribe generics when possible” at 20%, which was a substantial drop from the 38% it garnered in 2019, InCrowd noted.

“Participation in [shared savings] programs and risk-based incentive programs and pay-for-performance programs” would provide “better stewardship of resources,” a primary care physician from Michigan wrote.

When the survey turned to pharmaceutical industry predictions for 2020, cost was the major issue.

“What’s interesting about this year’s data is that we’re seeing less emphasis on the importance of bringing innovative, new therapies to market faster … versus expanding affordability, which was nearly a unanimous top priority for respondents,” Daniel S. Fitzgerald, InCrowd’s CEO and president, said in a separate statement.

[email protected]

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

More than a third (35%) of patients with relapsed non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) were still alive at 3 years, according to long-term results from a pivotal clinical trial.

The results also showed that, among the 10% of patients who completed all 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the 3-year overall survival was approximately 99%, with progression-free survival (PFS) at around 70%.

“It is too soon to say that pembrolizumab is a potential cure...and we know that it doesn’t work for all patients, but the agent remains very, very promising,” said lead investigator Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut.

These new results come from the KEYNOTE-010 trial, conducted in more than 1000 patients with NSCLC who had progressed on chemotherapy, randomized to receive immunotherapy with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy with docetaxel.

The results were published online on February 20 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology and were previously presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology.

Overall survival at 3 years was 35% in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% in the tumor, and 23% in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%.

This compares with 3-year overall survival of 11-13% with docetaxel.

These results are “really extraordinary,” Herbst commented to Medscape Medical News.

The 3-year overall survival rate of 35% in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% “is huge,” he said. “It really shows the durability of the response.”

Herbst commented that the “almost 100%” survival at 3 years among patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab shows that this treatment period (of about 2 years) is “probably about the right time to treat.”

“Currently, the agent is being used in all potential settings, before any other treatment, after other treatment, and with other treatments,” he said.

“Our hope is to find the very best way to use pembrolizumab to treat individual lung cancer patients, assessing how much PD-L1 a tumor expresses, what stage the patient is in, as well as other variables and biomarkers we are working on. This is the story of tailored therapy,” Herbst said.

Approached for comment, Solange Peters, MD, PhD, Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said that the results are “very good” and “confirm the paradigms we have been seeing in melanoma,” with good long-term control, which is “very reassuring.”

However, she told Medscape Medical News that the trial raises an important question: «How long do you need to expose your patient with lung cancer to immunotherapy in order to get this long-term control?»

She said the “good news” is that, for the 10% of patients who completed 2 years of treatment per protocol, almost all of them are still alive at 3 years, “which is not observed with chemotherapy.”

The question for Peters is “more about the definition of long-term control,” as it was seen that almost one in three patients nevertheless had some form of progression.

This suggests that you have a group of people “who are nicely controlled, you stop the drug, and 1 year later a third of them have progressed.”

Peters said: “So how long do you need to treat these patients? I would say I still don’t know.”

“If I were one of these patients probably I would still want to continue [on the drug]. Of course, some might have progressed even while remaining on the drug, but the proportion who would have progressed is probably smaller than this one.”
 

Responses on Re-introduction of Therapy

The study also allowed patients who had completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab to be restarted on the drug if they experienced progression.

The team found that, among 14 patients, 43% had a partial response and 36% had stable disease.

Herbst highlighted this finding and told Medscape Medical News that this «could be very important to physicians because they might want to think about using the drug again» in patients who have progressed on it.

He believes that the progression was not because of any resistance per se but rather a slowing down of the adaptive immune response.

“It’s just that it needs a boost,” he said, while noting that tissue specimens will nevertheless be required to demonstrate the theory.

Peters agreed that these results are “very promising,” but questioned their overall significance, as it is “a very small number of patients” from a subset whose disease was controlled while on treatment and then progressed after stopping.

She also pointed out that, in another study in patients with lung cancer (CheckMate-153), some patients were rechallenged with immunotherapy after having stopped treatment at 1 year “with very poor results.”

Peters said studies in melanoma have shown “rechallenge can be useful in a significant proportion of patients, but still you have not demonstrated that stopping and rechallenging is the same as not stopping.”

Study Details

KEYNOTE-010 involved patients with NSCLC from 202 centers in 24 countries with stage IIIB/IV disease expressing PD-L1 who had experienced disease progression after at least two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy.

They were randomized 1:1:1 to open-label pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, or docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks.

Pembrolizumab was continued for 35 treatment cycles over 2 years and docetaxel was continued for the maximum duration allowed by local regulators.

Patients who stopped pembrolizumab after a complete response or completing all 35 cycles, and who subsequently experienced disease progression, could receive up to 17 additional cycles over 1 year if they had not received another anticancer therapy in the meantime.

Among the 1,034 patients originally recruited between August 2013 and February 2015, 691 were assigned to pembrolizumab at 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg and 343 to docetaxel.

For the intention-to-treat analysis in 1033 patients, the mean duration of follow-up was 42.6 months, with a median treatment duration of 3.5 months in the pembrolizumab group and 2.0 months in the docetaxel group.

Compared with docetaxel, pembrolizumab was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death, at a hazard ratio of 0.53 in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 0.69 in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1% (both P < .0001).

In patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, median overall survival was 16.9 months in those given pembrolizumab and 8.2 months with docetaxel. Among those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%, median overall survival was 11.8 months with pembrolizumab versus 8.4 months with docetaxel.

Overall survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 34.5% with pembrolizumab and 12.7% with docetaxel in the PD-L1 ≥ 50% group, and 22.9% versus 11.0% in the PD-L1 ≥ 1% group.

PFS significantly improved with pembrolizumab versus docetaxel, at a hazard ratio of 0.57 (P < .00001) among patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 0.83 (P < .005) in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%.

In terms of safety, 17.7% of patients who completed 2 years of pembrolizumab had grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events, compared with 16.6% among all pembrolizumab-treated patients and 36.6% of those given docetaxel.

The team reports that 79 patients completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, with a median follow-up of 43.4 months.

Compared with the overall patient group, these patients were less likely to be aged ≥ 65 years and to have received two or more prior treatment lines, although they were more likely to be current or former smokers and to have squamous tumor histology.

Patients who completed 35 cycles had an objective response rate of 94.9%, and 91.0% were still alive at the data cutoff. Overall survival rates were 98.7% at 12 months and 86.3% at 24 months.

Of 71 patients eligible for analysis, 23 experienced progression after completing pembrolizumab, at PFS rates at 12 and 24 months of 72.5% and 57.7%, respectively.

A total of 14 patients were given a second course of pembrolizumab, of whom six had a partial response and five had stable disease. At the data cutoff, five patients had completed 17 additional cycles and 11 were alive.

Pembro Approved at Fixed Dose

One notable aspect of the study is that patients in the pembrolizumab arm were given two different doses of the drug based on body weight, whereas the drug is approved in the United States at a fixed dose of 200 mg.

Herbst told Medscape Medical News he considers the 200-mg dose to be appropriate.

“I didn’t think that the 3-mg versus 10-mg dose per kg that we used in our study made much difference in an average-sized person,” he said, adding that the 200-mg dose “is something a little bit more than 3 mg/kg.”

“So I think that this is clearly the right dos, and I don’t think more would make any difference,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck, the manufacturer of pembrolizumab. Herbst has reported having a consulting or advisory role for many pharmaceutical companies. Other coauthors have also reported relationships with industry, and some of the authors are Merck employees. Peters has reported receiving education grants, providing consultation, attending advisory boards, and/or providing lectures for many pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than a third (35%) of patients with relapsed non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) were still alive at 3 years, according to long-term results from a pivotal clinical trial.

The results also showed that, among the 10% of patients who completed all 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the 3-year overall survival was approximately 99%, with progression-free survival (PFS) at around 70%.

“It is too soon to say that pembrolizumab is a potential cure...and we know that it doesn’t work for all patients, but the agent remains very, very promising,” said lead investigator Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut.

These new results come from the KEYNOTE-010 trial, conducted in more than 1000 patients with NSCLC who had progressed on chemotherapy, randomized to receive immunotherapy with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy with docetaxel.

The results were published online on February 20 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology and were previously presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology.

Overall survival at 3 years was 35% in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% in the tumor, and 23% in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%.

This compares with 3-year overall survival of 11-13% with docetaxel.

These results are “really extraordinary,” Herbst commented to Medscape Medical News.

The 3-year overall survival rate of 35% in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% “is huge,” he said. “It really shows the durability of the response.”

Herbst commented that the “almost 100%” survival at 3 years among patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab shows that this treatment period (of about 2 years) is “probably about the right time to treat.”

“Currently, the agent is being used in all potential settings, before any other treatment, after other treatment, and with other treatments,” he said.

“Our hope is to find the very best way to use pembrolizumab to treat individual lung cancer patients, assessing how much PD-L1 a tumor expresses, what stage the patient is in, as well as other variables and biomarkers we are working on. This is the story of tailored therapy,” Herbst said.

Approached for comment, Solange Peters, MD, PhD, Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said that the results are “very good” and “confirm the paradigms we have been seeing in melanoma,” with good long-term control, which is “very reassuring.”

However, she told Medscape Medical News that the trial raises an important question: «How long do you need to expose your patient with lung cancer to immunotherapy in order to get this long-term control?»

She said the “good news” is that, for the 10% of patients who completed 2 years of treatment per protocol, almost all of them are still alive at 3 years, “which is not observed with chemotherapy.”

The question for Peters is “more about the definition of long-term control,” as it was seen that almost one in three patients nevertheless had some form of progression.

This suggests that you have a group of people “who are nicely controlled, you stop the drug, and 1 year later a third of them have progressed.”

Peters said: “So how long do you need to treat these patients? I would say I still don’t know.”

“If I were one of these patients probably I would still want to continue [on the drug]. Of course, some might have progressed even while remaining on the drug, but the proportion who would have progressed is probably smaller than this one.”
 

Responses on Re-introduction of Therapy

The study also allowed patients who had completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab to be restarted on the drug if they experienced progression.

The team found that, among 14 patients, 43% had a partial response and 36% had stable disease.

Herbst highlighted this finding and told Medscape Medical News that this «could be very important to physicians because they might want to think about using the drug again» in patients who have progressed on it.

He believes that the progression was not because of any resistance per se but rather a slowing down of the adaptive immune response.

“It’s just that it needs a boost,” he said, while noting that tissue specimens will nevertheless be required to demonstrate the theory.

Peters agreed that these results are “very promising,” but questioned their overall significance, as it is “a very small number of patients” from a subset whose disease was controlled while on treatment and then progressed after stopping.

She also pointed out that, in another study in patients with lung cancer (CheckMate-153), some patients were rechallenged with immunotherapy after having stopped treatment at 1 year “with very poor results.”

Peters said studies in melanoma have shown “rechallenge can be useful in a significant proportion of patients, but still you have not demonstrated that stopping and rechallenging is the same as not stopping.”

Study Details

KEYNOTE-010 involved patients with NSCLC from 202 centers in 24 countries with stage IIIB/IV disease expressing PD-L1 who had experienced disease progression after at least two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy.

They were randomized 1:1:1 to open-label pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, or docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks.

Pembrolizumab was continued for 35 treatment cycles over 2 years and docetaxel was continued for the maximum duration allowed by local regulators.

Patients who stopped pembrolizumab after a complete response or completing all 35 cycles, and who subsequently experienced disease progression, could receive up to 17 additional cycles over 1 year if they had not received another anticancer therapy in the meantime.

Among the 1,034 patients originally recruited between August 2013 and February 2015, 691 were assigned to pembrolizumab at 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg and 343 to docetaxel.

For the intention-to-treat analysis in 1033 patients, the mean duration of follow-up was 42.6 months, with a median treatment duration of 3.5 months in the pembrolizumab group and 2.0 months in the docetaxel group.

Compared with docetaxel, pembrolizumab was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death, at a hazard ratio of 0.53 in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 0.69 in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1% (both P < .0001).

In patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, median overall survival was 16.9 months in those given pembrolizumab and 8.2 months with docetaxel. Among those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%, median overall survival was 11.8 months with pembrolizumab versus 8.4 months with docetaxel.

Overall survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 34.5% with pembrolizumab and 12.7% with docetaxel in the PD-L1 ≥ 50% group, and 22.9% versus 11.0% in the PD-L1 ≥ 1% group.

PFS significantly improved with pembrolizumab versus docetaxel, at a hazard ratio of 0.57 (P < .00001) among patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 0.83 (P < .005) in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%.

In terms of safety, 17.7% of patients who completed 2 years of pembrolizumab had grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events, compared with 16.6% among all pembrolizumab-treated patients and 36.6% of those given docetaxel.

The team reports that 79 patients completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, with a median follow-up of 43.4 months.

Compared with the overall patient group, these patients were less likely to be aged ≥ 65 years and to have received two or more prior treatment lines, although they were more likely to be current or former smokers and to have squamous tumor histology.

Patients who completed 35 cycles had an objective response rate of 94.9%, and 91.0% were still alive at the data cutoff. Overall survival rates were 98.7% at 12 months and 86.3% at 24 months.

Of 71 patients eligible for analysis, 23 experienced progression after completing pembrolizumab, at PFS rates at 12 and 24 months of 72.5% and 57.7%, respectively.

A total of 14 patients were given a second course of pembrolizumab, of whom six had a partial response and five had stable disease. At the data cutoff, five patients had completed 17 additional cycles and 11 were alive.

Pembro Approved at Fixed Dose

One notable aspect of the study is that patients in the pembrolizumab arm were given two different doses of the drug based on body weight, whereas the drug is approved in the United States at a fixed dose of 200 mg.

Herbst told Medscape Medical News he considers the 200-mg dose to be appropriate.

“I didn’t think that the 3-mg versus 10-mg dose per kg that we used in our study made much difference in an average-sized person,” he said, adding that the 200-mg dose “is something a little bit more than 3 mg/kg.”

“So I think that this is clearly the right dos, and I don’t think more would make any difference,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck, the manufacturer of pembrolizumab. Herbst has reported having a consulting or advisory role for many pharmaceutical companies. Other coauthors have also reported relationships with industry, and some of the authors are Merck employees. Peters has reported receiving education grants, providing consultation, attending advisory boards, and/or providing lectures for many pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than a third (35%) of patients with relapsed non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) were still alive at 3 years, according to long-term results from a pivotal clinical trial.

The results also showed that, among the 10% of patients who completed all 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the 3-year overall survival was approximately 99%, with progression-free survival (PFS) at around 70%.

“It is too soon to say that pembrolizumab is a potential cure...and we know that it doesn’t work for all patients, but the agent remains very, very promising,” said lead investigator Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut.

These new results come from the KEYNOTE-010 trial, conducted in more than 1000 patients with NSCLC who had progressed on chemotherapy, randomized to receive immunotherapy with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy with docetaxel.

The results were published online on February 20 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology and were previously presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology.

Overall survival at 3 years was 35% in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% in the tumor, and 23% in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%.

This compares with 3-year overall survival of 11-13% with docetaxel.

These results are “really extraordinary,” Herbst commented to Medscape Medical News.

The 3-year overall survival rate of 35% in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% “is huge,” he said. “It really shows the durability of the response.”

Herbst commented that the “almost 100%” survival at 3 years among patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab shows that this treatment period (of about 2 years) is “probably about the right time to treat.”

“Currently, the agent is being used in all potential settings, before any other treatment, after other treatment, and with other treatments,” he said.

“Our hope is to find the very best way to use pembrolizumab to treat individual lung cancer patients, assessing how much PD-L1 a tumor expresses, what stage the patient is in, as well as other variables and biomarkers we are working on. This is the story of tailored therapy,” Herbst said.

Approached for comment, Solange Peters, MD, PhD, Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said that the results are “very good” and “confirm the paradigms we have been seeing in melanoma,” with good long-term control, which is “very reassuring.”

However, she told Medscape Medical News that the trial raises an important question: «How long do you need to expose your patient with lung cancer to immunotherapy in order to get this long-term control?»

She said the “good news” is that, for the 10% of patients who completed 2 years of treatment per protocol, almost all of them are still alive at 3 years, “which is not observed with chemotherapy.”

The question for Peters is “more about the definition of long-term control,” as it was seen that almost one in three patients nevertheless had some form of progression.

This suggests that you have a group of people “who are nicely controlled, you stop the drug, and 1 year later a third of them have progressed.”

Peters said: “So how long do you need to treat these patients? I would say I still don’t know.”

“If I were one of these patients probably I would still want to continue [on the drug]. Of course, some might have progressed even while remaining on the drug, but the proportion who would have progressed is probably smaller than this one.”
 

Responses on Re-introduction of Therapy

The study also allowed patients who had completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab to be restarted on the drug if they experienced progression.

The team found that, among 14 patients, 43% had a partial response and 36% had stable disease.

Herbst highlighted this finding and told Medscape Medical News that this «could be very important to physicians because they might want to think about using the drug again» in patients who have progressed on it.

He believes that the progression was not because of any resistance per se but rather a slowing down of the adaptive immune response.

“It’s just that it needs a boost,” he said, while noting that tissue specimens will nevertheless be required to demonstrate the theory.

Peters agreed that these results are “very promising,” but questioned their overall significance, as it is “a very small number of patients” from a subset whose disease was controlled while on treatment and then progressed after stopping.

She also pointed out that, in another study in patients with lung cancer (CheckMate-153), some patients were rechallenged with immunotherapy after having stopped treatment at 1 year “with very poor results.”

Peters said studies in melanoma have shown “rechallenge can be useful in a significant proportion of patients, but still you have not demonstrated that stopping and rechallenging is the same as not stopping.”

Study Details

KEYNOTE-010 involved patients with NSCLC from 202 centers in 24 countries with stage IIIB/IV disease expressing PD-L1 who had experienced disease progression after at least two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy.

They were randomized 1:1:1 to open-label pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, or docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks.

Pembrolizumab was continued for 35 treatment cycles over 2 years and docetaxel was continued for the maximum duration allowed by local regulators.

Patients who stopped pembrolizumab after a complete response or completing all 35 cycles, and who subsequently experienced disease progression, could receive up to 17 additional cycles over 1 year if they had not received another anticancer therapy in the meantime.

Among the 1,034 patients originally recruited between August 2013 and February 2015, 691 were assigned to pembrolizumab at 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg and 343 to docetaxel.

For the intention-to-treat analysis in 1033 patients, the mean duration of follow-up was 42.6 months, with a median treatment duration of 3.5 months in the pembrolizumab group and 2.0 months in the docetaxel group.

Compared with docetaxel, pembrolizumab was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death, at a hazard ratio of 0.53 in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 0.69 in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1% (both P < .0001).

In patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, median overall survival was 16.9 months in those given pembrolizumab and 8.2 months with docetaxel. Among those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%, median overall survival was 11.8 months with pembrolizumab versus 8.4 months with docetaxel.

Overall survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 34.5% with pembrolizumab and 12.7% with docetaxel in the PD-L1 ≥ 50% group, and 22.9% versus 11.0% in the PD-L1 ≥ 1% group.

PFS significantly improved with pembrolizumab versus docetaxel, at a hazard ratio of 0.57 (P < .00001) among patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 0.83 (P < .005) in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%.

In terms of safety, 17.7% of patients who completed 2 years of pembrolizumab had grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events, compared with 16.6% among all pembrolizumab-treated patients and 36.6% of those given docetaxel.

The team reports that 79 patients completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, with a median follow-up of 43.4 months.

Compared with the overall patient group, these patients were less likely to be aged ≥ 65 years and to have received two or more prior treatment lines, although they were more likely to be current or former smokers and to have squamous tumor histology.

Patients who completed 35 cycles had an objective response rate of 94.9%, and 91.0% were still alive at the data cutoff. Overall survival rates were 98.7% at 12 months and 86.3% at 24 months.

Of 71 patients eligible for analysis, 23 experienced progression after completing pembrolizumab, at PFS rates at 12 and 24 months of 72.5% and 57.7%, respectively.

A total of 14 patients were given a second course of pembrolizumab, of whom six had a partial response and five had stable disease. At the data cutoff, five patients had completed 17 additional cycles and 11 were alive.

Pembro Approved at Fixed Dose

One notable aspect of the study is that patients in the pembrolizumab arm were given two different doses of the drug based on body weight, whereas the drug is approved in the United States at a fixed dose of 200 mg.

Herbst told Medscape Medical News he considers the 200-mg dose to be appropriate.

“I didn’t think that the 3-mg versus 10-mg dose per kg that we used in our study made much difference in an average-sized person,” he said, adding that the 200-mg dose “is something a little bit more than 3 mg/kg.”

“So I think that this is clearly the right dos, and I don’t think more would make any difference,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck, the manufacturer of pembrolizumab. Herbst has reported having a consulting or advisory role for many pharmaceutical companies. Other coauthors have also reported relationships with industry, and some of the authors are Merck employees. Peters has reported receiving education grants, providing consultation, attending advisory boards, and/or providing lectures for many pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who frequently alter the amount of sleep and time they go to bed each night are twofold more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, independent of traditional CVD risk factors, new research suggests.

Prior studies have focused on shift workers because night shift work will influence circadian rhythm and increase CVD risk. But it is increasingly recognized that circadian disruption may occur outside of shift work and accumulate over time, particularly given modern lifestyle factors such as increased use of mobile devices and television at night, said study coauthor Tianyi Huang, ScD, MSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

“Even if they tend to go to sleep at certain times, by following that lifestyle or behavior, it can interfere with their planned sleep timing,” he said.

“One thing that surprised me in this sample is that about one third of participants have irregular sleep patterns that can put them at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. So I think the prevalence is higher than expected,” Huang added.

As reported today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators used data from 7-day wrist actigraphy, 1 night of at-home polysomnography, and sleep questionnaires to assess sleep duration and sleep-onset timing among 1,992 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis () participants, aged 45 to 84 years, who were free of CVD and prospectively followed for a me MESA dian of 4.9 years.

A total of 786 patients (39.5%) had sleep duration standard deviation (SD) > 90 minutes and 510 (25.6%) had sleep-onset timing SD > 90 minutes.

During follow-up, there were 111 incident CVD events, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, stroke, and other coronary events.

Compared with people who had less than 1 hour of variation in sleep duration, the risk for incident CVD was 9% higher for people whose sleep duration varied 61 to 90 minutes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 - 1.92), even after controlling for a variety of cardiovascular and sleep-related risk factors such as body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, total cholesterol, average sleep duration, insomnia symptoms, and sleep apnea.

Moreover, the adjusted CVD risk was substantially increased with 91 to 120 minutes of variation (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.91 - 2.76) and more than 120 minutes of variation in sleep duration (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.24 - 3.68).

Every 1-hour increase in sleep duration SD was associated with 36% higher CVD risk (95% CI; 1.07 - 1.73).

Compared with people with no more than a half hour of variation in nightly bedtimes, the adjusted hazard ratios for CVD were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.64 - 2.13), 1.52 (95% CI, 0.81 - 2.88), and 2.11 (95% CI, 1.13 - 3.91) when bedtimes varied by 31 to 60 minutes, 61 to 90 minutes, and more than 90 minutes.

For every 1-hour increase in sleep-onset timing SD, the risk of CVD was 18% higher (95% CI; 1.06 - 1.31).

“The results are similar for the regularity of sleep timing and the regularity of sleep duration, which means that both can contribute to circadian disruption and then lead to development of cardiovascular disease,” Huang said.

This is an important article and signals how sleep is an important marker and possibly a mediator of cardiovascular risk, said Harlan Krumholz, MD, of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who was not involved with the study.

“What I like about this is it’s a nice longitudinal, epidemiologic study with not just self-report, but sensor-detected sleep, that has been correlated with well-curated and adjudicated outcomes to give us a strong sense of this association,” he told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. “And also, that it goes beyond just the duration — they combine the duration and timing in order to give a fuller picture of sleep.”

Nevertheless, Krumholz said researchers are only at the beginning of being able to quantify the various dimensions of sleep and the degree to which sleep is a reflection of underlying physiologic issues, or whether patients are having erratic sleep patterns that are having a toxic effect on their overall health.

Questions also remain about the mechanism behind the association, whether the increased risk is universal or more harmful for some people, and the best way to measure factors during sleep that can most comprehensively and precisely predict risk.

“As we get more information flowing in from sensors, I think we will begin to develop more sophisticated approaches toward understanding risk, and it will be accompanied by other studies that will help us understand whether, again, this is a reflection of other processes that we should be paying attention to or whether it is a cause of disease and risk,” Krumholz said.

Subgroup analyses suggested positive associations between irregular sleep and CVD in African Americans, Hispanics, and Chinese Americans but not in whites. This could be because sleep irregularity, both timing and duration, was substantially higher in minorities, especially African Americans, but may also be as a result of chance because the study sample is relatively small, Huang explained.

The authors note that the overall findings are biologically plausible because of their previous work linking sleep irregularity with metabolic risk factors that predispose to atherosclerosis, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Participants with irregular sleep tended to have worse baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but this only explained a small portion of the associations between sleep irregularity and CVD, they note.

Other possible explanations include circadian clock genes, such as clock, per2 and bmal1, which have been shown experimentally to control a broad range of cardiovascular functions, from blood pressure and endothelial functions to vascular thrombosis and cardiac remodeling.

Irregular sleep may also influence the rhythms of the autonomic nervous system, and behavioral rhythms with regard to timing and/or amount of eating or exercise.

Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the associations, the impact of sleep irregularity on individual CVD outcomes, and to determine whether a 7-day SD of more than 90 minutes for either sleep duration or sleep-onset timing can be used clinically as a threshold target for promoting cardiometabolically healthy sleep, Huang said.

“When providers communicate with their patients regarding strategies for CVD prevention, usually they focus on healthy diet and physical activity; and even when they talk about sleep, they talk about whether they have good sleep quality or sufficient sleep,” he said. “But one thing they should provide is advice regarding sleep regularity and [they should] recommend their patients follow a regular sleep pattern for the purpose of cardiovascular prevention.”

In a related editorial, Olaf Oldenburg, MD, Luderus-Kliniken Münster, Clemenshospital, Münster, Germany, and Jens Spiesshoefer, MD, Institute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, write that the observed independent association between sleep irregularity and CVD “is a particularly striking finding given that impaired circadian rhythm is likely to be much more prevalent than the extreme example of shift work.”

They call on researchers to utilize big data to facilitate understanding of the association and say it is essential to test whether experimental data support the hypothesis that altered circadian rhythms would translate into unfavorable changes in 24-hour sympathovagal and neurohormonal balance, and ultimately CVD.

The present study “will, and should, stimulate much needed additional research on the association between sleep and CVD that may offer novel approaches to help improve the prognosis and daily symptom burden of patients with CVD, and might make sleep itself a therapeutic target in CVD,” the editorialists conclude.

This research was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The MESA Sleep Study was supported by an NHLBI grant. Huang was supported by a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Krumholz and Oldenburg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Spiesshoefer is supported by grants from the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung, the Innovative Medical Research program at the University of Münster, and Deutsche Herzstiftung; and by young investigator research support from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa. He also has received travel grants and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi.
 

Source: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.054.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who frequently alter the amount of sleep and time they go to bed each night are twofold more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, independent of traditional CVD risk factors, new research suggests.

Prior studies have focused on shift workers because night shift work will influence circadian rhythm and increase CVD risk. But it is increasingly recognized that circadian disruption may occur outside of shift work and accumulate over time, particularly given modern lifestyle factors such as increased use of mobile devices and television at night, said study coauthor Tianyi Huang, ScD, MSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

“Even if they tend to go to sleep at certain times, by following that lifestyle or behavior, it can interfere with their planned sleep timing,” he said.

“One thing that surprised me in this sample is that about one third of participants have irregular sleep patterns that can put them at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. So I think the prevalence is higher than expected,” Huang added.

As reported today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators used data from 7-day wrist actigraphy, 1 night of at-home polysomnography, and sleep questionnaires to assess sleep duration and sleep-onset timing among 1,992 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis () participants, aged 45 to 84 years, who were free of CVD and prospectively followed for a me MESA dian of 4.9 years.

A total of 786 patients (39.5%) had sleep duration standard deviation (SD) > 90 minutes and 510 (25.6%) had sleep-onset timing SD > 90 minutes.

During follow-up, there were 111 incident CVD events, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, stroke, and other coronary events.

Compared with people who had less than 1 hour of variation in sleep duration, the risk for incident CVD was 9% higher for people whose sleep duration varied 61 to 90 minutes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 - 1.92), even after controlling for a variety of cardiovascular and sleep-related risk factors such as body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, total cholesterol, average sleep duration, insomnia symptoms, and sleep apnea.

Moreover, the adjusted CVD risk was substantially increased with 91 to 120 minutes of variation (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.91 - 2.76) and more than 120 minutes of variation in sleep duration (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.24 - 3.68).

Every 1-hour increase in sleep duration SD was associated with 36% higher CVD risk (95% CI; 1.07 - 1.73).

Compared with people with no more than a half hour of variation in nightly bedtimes, the adjusted hazard ratios for CVD were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.64 - 2.13), 1.52 (95% CI, 0.81 - 2.88), and 2.11 (95% CI, 1.13 - 3.91) when bedtimes varied by 31 to 60 minutes, 61 to 90 minutes, and more than 90 minutes.

For every 1-hour increase in sleep-onset timing SD, the risk of CVD was 18% higher (95% CI; 1.06 - 1.31).

“The results are similar for the regularity of sleep timing and the regularity of sleep duration, which means that both can contribute to circadian disruption and then lead to development of cardiovascular disease,” Huang said.

This is an important article and signals how sleep is an important marker and possibly a mediator of cardiovascular risk, said Harlan Krumholz, MD, of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who was not involved with the study.

“What I like about this is it’s a nice longitudinal, epidemiologic study with not just self-report, but sensor-detected sleep, that has been correlated with well-curated and adjudicated outcomes to give us a strong sense of this association,” he told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. “And also, that it goes beyond just the duration — they combine the duration and timing in order to give a fuller picture of sleep.”

Nevertheless, Krumholz said researchers are only at the beginning of being able to quantify the various dimensions of sleep and the degree to which sleep is a reflection of underlying physiologic issues, or whether patients are having erratic sleep patterns that are having a toxic effect on their overall health.

Questions also remain about the mechanism behind the association, whether the increased risk is universal or more harmful for some people, and the best way to measure factors during sleep that can most comprehensively and precisely predict risk.

“As we get more information flowing in from sensors, I think we will begin to develop more sophisticated approaches toward understanding risk, and it will be accompanied by other studies that will help us understand whether, again, this is a reflection of other processes that we should be paying attention to or whether it is a cause of disease and risk,” Krumholz said.

Subgroup analyses suggested positive associations between irregular sleep and CVD in African Americans, Hispanics, and Chinese Americans but not in whites. This could be because sleep irregularity, both timing and duration, was substantially higher in minorities, especially African Americans, but may also be as a result of chance because the study sample is relatively small, Huang explained.

The authors note that the overall findings are biologically plausible because of their previous work linking sleep irregularity with metabolic risk factors that predispose to atherosclerosis, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Participants with irregular sleep tended to have worse baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but this only explained a small portion of the associations between sleep irregularity and CVD, they note.

Other possible explanations include circadian clock genes, such as clock, per2 and bmal1, which have been shown experimentally to control a broad range of cardiovascular functions, from blood pressure and endothelial functions to vascular thrombosis and cardiac remodeling.

Irregular sleep may also influence the rhythms of the autonomic nervous system, and behavioral rhythms with regard to timing and/or amount of eating or exercise.

Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the associations, the impact of sleep irregularity on individual CVD outcomes, and to determine whether a 7-day SD of more than 90 minutes for either sleep duration or sleep-onset timing can be used clinically as a threshold target for promoting cardiometabolically healthy sleep, Huang said.

“When providers communicate with their patients regarding strategies for CVD prevention, usually they focus on healthy diet and physical activity; and even when they talk about sleep, they talk about whether they have good sleep quality or sufficient sleep,” he said. “But one thing they should provide is advice regarding sleep regularity and [they should] recommend their patients follow a regular sleep pattern for the purpose of cardiovascular prevention.”

In a related editorial, Olaf Oldenburg, MD, Luderus-Kliniken Münster, Clemenshospital, Münster, Germany, and Jens Spiesshoefer, MD, Institute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, write that the observed independent association between sleep irregularity and CVD “is a particularly striking finding given that impaired circadian rhythm is likely to be much more prevalent than the extreme example of shift work.”

They call on researchers to utilize big data to facilitate understanding of the association and say it is essential to test whether experimental data support the hypothesis that altered circadian rhythms would translate into unfavorable changes in 24-hour sympathovagal and neurohormonal balance, and ultimately CVD.

The present study “will, and should, stimulate much needed additional research on the association between sleep and CVD that may offer novel approaches to help improve the prognosis and daily symptom burden of patients with CVD, and might make sleep itself a therapeutic target in CVD,” the editorialists conclude.

This research was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The MESA Sleep Study was supported by an NHLBI grant. Huang was supported by a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Krumholz and Oldenburg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Spiesshoefer is supported by grants from the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung, the Innovative Medical Research program at the University of Münster, and Deutsche Herzstiftung; and by young investigator research support from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa. He also has received travel grants and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi.
 

Source: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.054.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who frequently alter the amount of sleep and time they go to bed each night are twofold more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, independent of traditional CVD risk factors, new research suggests.

Prior studies have focused on shift workers because night shift work will influence circadian rhythm and increase CVD risk. But it is increasingly recognized that circadian disruption may occur outside of shift work and accumulate over time, particularly given modern lifestyle factors such as increased use of mobile devices and television at night, said study coauthor Tianyi Huang, ScD, MSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

“Even if they tend to go to sleep at certain times, by following that lifestyle or behavior, it can interfere with their planned sleep timing,” he said.

“One thing that surprised me in this sample is that about one third of participants have irregular sleep patterns that can put them at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. So I think the prevalence is higher than expected,” Huang added.

As reported today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators used data from 7-day wrist actigraphy, 1 night of at-home polysomnography, and sleep questionnaires to assess sleep duration and sleep-onset timing among 1,992 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis () participants, aged 45 to 84 years, who were free of CVD and prospectively followed for a me MESA dian of 4.9 years.

A total of 786 patients (39.5%) had sleep duration standard deviation (SD) > 90 minutes and 510 (25.6%) had sleep-onset timing SD > 90 minutes.

During follow-up, there were 111 incident CVD events, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, stroke, and other coronary events.

Compared with people who had less than 1 hour of variation in sleep duration, the risk for incident CVD was 9% higher for people whose sleep duration varied 61 to 90 minutes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 - 1.92), even after controlling for a variety of cardiovascular and sleep-related risk factors such as body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, total cholesterol, average sleep duration, insomnia symptoms, and sleep apnea.

Moreover, the adjusted CVD risk was substantially increased with 91 to 120 minutes of variation (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.91 - 2.76) and more than 120 minutes of variation in sleep duration (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.24 - 3.68).

Every 1-hour increase in sleep duration SD was associated with 36% higher CVD risk (95% CI; 1.07 - 1.73).

Compared with people with no more than a half hour of variation in nightly bedtimes, the adjusted hazard ratios for CVD were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.64 - 2.13), 1.52 (95% CI, 0.81 - 2.88), and 2.11 (95% CI, 1.13 - 3.91) when bedtimes varied by 31 to 60 minutes, 61 to 90 minutes, and more than 90 minutes.

For every 1-hour increase in sleep-onset timing SD, the risk of CVD was 18% higher (95% CI; 1.06 - 1.31).

“The results are similar for the regularity of sleep timing and the regularity of sleep duration, which means that both can contribute to circadian disruption and then lead to development of cardiovascular disease,” Huang said.

This is an important article and signals how sleep is an important marker and possibly a mediator of cardiovascular risk, said Harlan Krumholz, MD, of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who was not involved with the study.

“What I like about this is it’s a nice longitudinal, epidemiologic study with not just self-report, but sensor-detected sleep, that has been correlated with well-curated and adjudicated outcomes to give us a strong sense of this association,” he told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. “And also, that it goes beyond just the duration — they combine the duration and timing in order to give a fuller picture of sleep.”

Nevertheless, Krumholz said researchers are only at the beginning of being able to quantify the various dimensions of sleep and the degree to which sleep is a reflection of underlying physiologic issues, or whether patients are having erratic sleep patterns that are having a toxic effect on their overall health.

Questions also remain about the mechanism behind the association, whether the increased risk is universal or more harmful for some people, and the best way to measure factors during sleep that can most comprehensively and precisely predict risk.

“As we get more information flowing in from sensors, I think we will begin to develop more sophisticated approaches toward understanding risk, and it will be accompanied by other studies that will help us understand whether, again, this is a reflection of other processes that we should be paying attention to or whether it is a cause of disease and risk,” Krumholz said.

Subgroup analyses suggested positive associations between irregular sleep and CVD in African Americans, Hispanics, and Chinese Americans but not in whites. This could be because sleep irregularity, both timing and duration, was substantially higher in minorities, especially African Americans, but may also be as a result of chance because the study sample is relatively small, Huang explained.

The authors note that the overall findings are biologically plausible because of their previous work linking sleep irregularity with metabolic risk factors that predispose to atherosclerosis, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Participants with irregular sleep tended to have worse baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but this only explained a small portion of the associations between sleep irregularity and CVD, they note.

Other possible explanations include circadian clock genes, such as clock, per2 and bmal1, which have been shown experimentally to control a broad range of cardiovascular functions, from blood pressure and endothelial functions to vascular thrombosis and cardiac remodeling.

Irregular sleep may also influence the rhythms of the autonomic nervous system, and behavioral rhythms with regard to timing and/or amount of eating or exercise.

Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the associations, the impact of sleep irregularity on individual CVD outcomes, and to determine whether a 7-day SD of more than 90 minutes for either sleep duration or sleep-onset timing can be used clinically as a threshold target for promoting cardiometabolically healthy sleep, Huang said.

“When providers communicate with their patients regarding strategies for CVD prevention, usually they focus on healthy diet and physical activity; and even when they talk about sleep, they talk about whether they have good sleep quality or sufficient sleep,” he said. “But one thing they should provide is advice regarding sleep regularity and [they should] recommend their patients follow a regular sleep pattern for the purpose of cardiovascular prevention.”

In a related editorial, Olaf Oldenburg, MD, Luderus-Kliniken Münster, Clemenshospital, Münster, Germany, and Jens Spiesshoefer, MD, Institute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, write that the observed independent association between sleep irregularity and CVD “is a particularly striking finding given that impaired circadian rhythm is likely to be much more prevalent than the extreme example of shift work.”

They call on researchers to utilize big data to facilitate understanding of the association and say it is essential to test whether experimental data support the hypothesis that altered circadian rhythms would translate into unfavorable changes in 24-hour sympathovagal and neurohormonal balance, and ultimately CVD.

The present study “will, and should, stimulate much needed additional research on the association between sleep and CVD that may offer novel approaches to help improve the prognosis and daily symptom burden of patients with CVD, and might make sleep itself a therapeutic target in CVD,” the editorialists conclude.

This research was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The MESA Sleep Study was supported by an NHLBI grant. Huang was supported by a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Krumholz and Oldenburg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Spiesshoefer is supported by grants from the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung, the Innovative Medical Research program at the University of Münster, and Deutsche Herzstiftung; and by young investigator research support from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa. He also has received travel grants and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi.
 

Source: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.054.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Although wild poliovirus type 3 has not been detected globally for 7 years, the number of wild type 1 cases increased from 33 in 2018 to 173 in 2019. In response, a modified oral vaccine is being developed, according to Stephen Cochi, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Center for Global Health.

Several factors, including a Taliban ban on house-to-house vaccination in Afghanistan and a delay of large-scale vaccinations in Pakistan contributed to the surge in polio infections, Dr. Cochi said in a presentation at the February meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

In addition, circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV) outbreaks have occurred in multiple countries including sub-Saharan Africa, China, Pakistan, and the Philippines. These outbreaks threaten the success of the bivalent oral polio vaccine introduced in April 2016 in 155 countries, Dr. Cochi said.

Outbreaks tend to occur just outside targeted areas for campaigns, caused by decreasing population immunity, he said.

To help contain the outbreaks, the CDC is fast-tracking development of a novel oral polio vaccine, OPV2, through the Emergency Use Listing. The novel OPV2 (nOPV2) is a genetic modification of the existing OPV2 vaccine designed to improve genetic stability, Dr. Cochi explained. The modifications would “decrease the risk of seeding new cVDPVs and the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP),” he said.

The Emergency Use Listing (EUL) was developed by the World Health Organization in response to the Ebola virus outbreak in 2014-2016 and is the fastest way to obtain regulatory review and approval of drug products, said Dr. Cochi.

A pilot plant has been established in Indonesia, and upon EUL approval, 4-8 million doses of the nOPV2 should be available for use in the second quarter of 2020, he concluded.

Dr. Cochi had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Although wild poliovirus type 3 has not been detected globally for 7 years, the number of wild type 1 cases increased from 33 in 2018 to 173 in 2019. In response, a modified oral vaccine is being developed, according to Stephen Cochi, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Center for Global Health.

Several factors, including a Taliban ban on house-to-house vaccination in Afghanistan and a delay of large-scale vaccinations in Pakistan contributed to the surge in polio infections, Dr. Cochi said in a presentation at the February meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

In addition, circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV) outbreaks have occurred in multiple countries including sub-Saharan Africa, China, Pakistan, and the Philippines. These outbreaks threaten the success of the bivalent oral polio vaccine introduced in April 2016 in 155 countries, Dr. Cochi said.

Outbreaks tend to occur just outside targeted areas for campaigns, caused by decreasing population immunity, he said.

To help contain the outbreaks, the CDC is fast-tracking development of a novel oral polio vaccine, OPV2, through the Emergency Use Listing. The novel OPV2 (nOPV2) is a genetic modification of the existing OPV2 vaccine designed to improve genetic stability, Dr. Cochi explained. The modifications would “decrease the risk of seeding new cVDPVs and the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP),” he said.

The Emergency Use Listing (EUL) was developed by the World Health Organization in response to the Ebola virus outbreak in 2014-2016 and is the fastest way to obtain regulatory review and approval of drug products, said Dr. Cochi.

A pilot plant has been established in Indonesia, and upon EUL approval, 4-8 million doses of the nOPV2 should be available for use in the second quarter of 2020, he concluded.

Dr. Cochi had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Although wild poliovirus type 3 has not been detected globally for 7 years, the number of wild type 1 cases increased from 33 in 2018 to 173 in 2019. In response, a modified oral vaccine is being developed, according to Stephen Cochi, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Center for Global Health.

Several factors, including a Taliban ban on house-to-house vaccination in Afghanistan and a delay of large-scale vaccinations in Pakistan contributed to the surge in polio infections, Dr. Cochi said in a presentation at the February meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

In addition, circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV) outbreaks have occurred in multiple countries including sub-Saharan Africa, China, Pakistan, and the Philippines. These outbreaks threaten the success of the bivalent oral polio vaccine introduced in April 2016 in 155 countries, Dr. Cochi said.

Outbreaks tend to occur just outside targeted areas for campaigns, caused by decreasing population immunity, he said.

To help contain the outbreaks, the CDC is fast-tracking development of a novel oral polio vaccine, OPV2, through the Emergency Use Listing. The novel OPV2 (nOPV2) is a genetic modification of the existing OPV2 vaccine designed to improve genetic stability, Dr. Cochi explained. The modifications would “decrease the risk of seeding new cVDPVs and the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP),” he said.

The Emergency Use Listing (EUL) was developed by the World Health Organization in response to the Ebola virus outbreak in 2014-2016 and is the fastest way to obtain regulatory review and approval of drug products, said Dr. Cochi.

A pilot plant has been established in Indonesia, and upon EUL approval, 4-8 million doses of the nOPV2 should be available for use in the second quarter of 2020, he concluded.

Dr. Cochi had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

[email protected]

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

[email protected]

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Thermal injury of a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is notorious as a relatively common and problematic complication of the procedure, but two new approaches showed promise for substantially cutting the risk of esophageal thermal injury and the potential for the most severe damage: perforation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

One of these innovations is intensive esophageal cooling with a commercially marketed, fluid-chilled catheter placed in a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation that keeps the inner surface of the esophagus at 4°C. This approach cut the incidence of periprocedural episodes of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal injury from 20% among controls to 3% in patients who had esophageal cooling in a randomized study with 120 patients, Mark M. Gallagher, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. The same device can also maintain a temperature on the inner surface of the esophagus of 42 ° C in patients undergoing cryoablation of atrial fibrillation, noted Dr. Gallagher, a cardiac electrophysiologist at St. George’s University Hospitals in London.

A second approach to cutting esophageal damage focuses on modifying the energy delivery with a radiofrequency ablation method known as high-power short-duration (HPSD). As the name says, this strategy uses a relatively high level of radiofrequency energy, 50 watts in the reported experience, for the brief interval of about 7 seconds, ideally delivering an overall Ablation Index of at least 350 but below 360, said Thomas Deneke, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and cochief of cardiology at the Heart Center in Bad Neustadt, Germany.

Dr. Deneke and his associates in Bad Neustadt began using this HPSD approach in mid-2019, and by early 2020 they had data from 179 patients who underwent first-time catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib), all of whom had undergone routine esophageal endoscopy 1-3 days after their treatment. Eight patients (4%) showed evidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL), including three patients (2%) with an actual esophageal ulcer, and one (0.6%) who developed a perforation that healed after 52 days, Dr. Deneke reported. An additional 55 patients underwent a redo catheter ablation procedure using the HPSD method during this period, and in that group follow-up endoscopy in all patients showed EDEL in two patients (4%). In contrast, during Jan. 2012–May 2019, the same German center treated 2,102 patients who had a first radiofrequency catheter ablation using convention energy levels and treatment times, which resulted in 291 patients having an EDEL (14%), including 94 (4%) with an ulcer, and six patients (0.3%) with an esophageal perforation, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His center’s recent safety experience with HPSD radiofrequncy ablation, compared with the historical controls, suggests that this technique can produce a substantial reduction in esophageal thermal injury, but HPSD has not completely eliminated the risk and hence there is need for continued alertness for this potential complication Dr. Deneke concluded. The HPSD method is also limited by having “a very narrow window” between efficacy at an Ablation Index of 350 and safety when the index remains below 360, he added.

The randomized study that Dr. Gallagher ran at St. George’s followed an analysis he and his associates recently published that suggested efficacy using esophageal cooling in prior reports when the data combined in a meta-analysis (J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00661-5). They also concluded that the clinical setting required a temperature control device with an enhanced capacity for rapid cooling, which prior studies had lacked. So they turned to a Food and Drug Administration–approved catheter designed for placement in the esophagus for the purpose of either whole-body cooling or warming.

The study randomized a total of 187 patients, but collected follow-up endoscopy at 5-7 days after the ablation procedure on 120 patients, of whom 60 received esophageal cooling and 60 did not. The types of ablations performed on patients in the two study arms were similar, and use of esophageal cooling had no impact on treatment duration or efficacy, either acute and longer term, Dr. Gallagher reported.

Cooling had a marked and statistically significant impact on endoscopically detected thermal injury. Although two patients in the group that underwent cooling had injuries, in one of these cases the injury involved a protocol violation: Radiofrequency ablation mistakenly occurred after the cooling device shut off, and it was during this period when the injury happened. In the second case of thermal injury, blinded scoring judged the injury as grade 2 in severity – an erosion of less than 5 mm – on a nine-item scale that ranged from zero to grade 6, the most severe level denoting a fistula. By contrast, among the 12 patients with thermal injury in the nonprotected subgroup, one patient had a grade 5a lesion denoting a deep ulcer, one had a 4b denoting a superficial ulcer with a clot, and four had a 4a lesion defined as a clean superficial ulcer.

“This is really effective. It’s the first study to show reduced damage without affecting ablation efficacy,” Dr. Gallagher said. He plans to now use this method of esophageal protection routinely for his AFib ablation patients who pay privately, and for patients insured under the national U.K. system once this coverage is approved. Dr. Deneke expressed his interest in also using this approach to esophageal protection, but noted that currently he did not have access to the cooling catheter that Dr. Gallagher used because of regulatory constraints.

The esophageal cooling study was sponsored by Attune Medical, which markets the cooling device. Dr. Gallagher has received research funding from Attune Medical, and has received honoraria as a speaker on behalf of Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Deneke has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, and his institution has received research funding from Biosense Webster and Securus/Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Thermal injury of a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is notorious as a relatively common and problematic complication of the procedure, but two new approaches showed promise for substantially cutting the risk of esophageal thermal injury and the potential for the most severe damage: perforation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

One of these innovations is intensive esophageal cooling with a commercially marketed, fluid-chilled catheter placed in a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation that keeps the inner surface of the esophagus at 4°C. This approach cut the incidence of periprocedural episodes of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal injury from 20% among controls to 3% in patients who had esophageal cooling in a randomized study with 120 patients, Mark M. Gallagher, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. The same device can also maintain a temperature on the inner surface of the esophagus of 42 ° C in patients undergoing cryoablation of atrial fibrillation, noted Dr. Gallagher, a cardiac electrophysiologist at St. George’s University Hospitals in London.

A second approach to cutting esophageal damage focuses on modifying the energy delivery with a radiofrequency ablation method known as high-power short-duration (HPSD). As the name says, this strategy uses a relatively high level of radiofrequency energy, 50 watts in the reported experience, for the brief interval of about 7 seconds, ideally delivering an overall Ablation Index of at least 350 but below 360, said Thomas Deneke, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and cochief of cardiology at the Heart Center in Bad Neustadt, Germany.

Dr. Deneke and his associates in Bad Neustadt began using this HPSD approach in mid-2019, and by early 2020 they had data from 179 patients who underwent first-time catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib), all of whom had undergone routine esophageal endoscopy 1-3 days after their treatment. Eight patients (4%) showed evidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL), including three patients (2%) with an actual esophageal ulcer, and one (0.6%) who developed a perforation that healed after 52 days, Dr. Deneke reported. An additional 55 patients underwent a redo catheter ablation procedure using the HPSD method during this period, and in that group follow-up endoscopy in all patients showed EDEL in two patients (4%). In contrast, during Jan. 2012–May 2019, the same German center treated 2,102 patients who had a first radiofrequency catheter ablation using convention energy levels and treatment times, which resulted in 291 patients having an EDEL (14%), including 94 (4%) with an ulcer, and six patients (0.3%) with an esophageal perforation, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His center’s recent safety experience with HPSD radiofrequncy ablation, compared with the historical controls, suggests that this technique can produce a substantial reduction in esophageal thermal injury, but HPSD has not completely eliminated the risk and hence there is need for continued alertness for this potential complication Dr. Deneke concluded. The HPSD method is also limited by having “a very narrow window” between efficacy at an Ablation Index of 350 and safety when the index remains below 360, he added.

The randomized study that Dr. Gallagher ran at St. George’s followed an analysis he and his associates recently published that suggested efficacy using esophageal cooling in prior reports when the data combined in a meta-analysis (J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00661-5). They also concluded that the clinical setting required a temperature control device with an enhanced capacity for rapid cooling, which prior studies had lacked. So they turned to a Food and Drug Administration–approved catheter designed for placement in the esophagus for the purpose of either whole-body cooling or warming.

The study randomized a total of 187 patients, but collected follow-up endoscopy at 5-7 days after the ablation procedure on 120 patients, of whom 60 received esophageal cooling and 60 did not. The types of ablations performed on patients in the two study arms were similar, and use of esophageal cooling had no impact on treatment duration or efficacy, either acute and longer term, Dr. Gallagher reported.

Cooling had a marked and statistically significant impact on endoscopically detected thermal injury. Although two patients in the group that underwent cooling had injuries, in one of these cases the injury involved a protocol violation: Radiofrequency ablation mistakenly occurred after the cooling device shut off, and it was during this period when the injury happened. In the second case of thermal injury, blinded scoring judged the injury as grade 2 in severity – an erosion of less than 5 mm – on a nine-item scale that ranged from zero to grade 6, the most severe level denoting a fistula. By contrast, among the 12 patients with thermal injury in the nonprotected subgroup, one patient had a grade 5a lesion denoting a deep ulcer, one had a 4b denoting a superficial ulcer with a clot, and four had a 4a lesion defined as a clean superficial ulcer.

“This is really effective. It’s the first study to show reduced damage without affecting ablation efficacy,” Dr. Gallagher said. He plans to now use this method of esophageal protection routinely for his AFib ablation patients who pay privately, and for patients insured under the national U.K. system once this coverage is approved. Dr. Deneke expressed his interest in also using this approach to esophageal protection, but noted that currently he did not have access to the cooling catheter that Dr. Gallagher used because of regulatory constraints.

The esophageal cooling study was sponsored by Attune Medical, which markets the cooling device. Dr. Gallagher has received research funding from Attune Medical, and has received honoraria as a speaker on behalf of Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Deneke has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, and his institution has received research funding from Biosense Webster and Securus/Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Thermal injury of a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is notorious as a relatively common and problematic complication of the procedure, but two new approaches showed promise for substantially cutting the risk of esophageal thermal injury and the potential for the most severe damage: perforation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

One of these innovations is intensive esophageal cooling with a commercially marketed, fluid-chilled catheter placed in a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation that keeps the inner surface of the esophagus at 4°C. This approach cut the incidence of periprocedural episodes of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal injury from 20% among controls to 3% in patients who had esophageal cooling in a randomized study with 120 patients, Mark M. Gallagher, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. The same device can also maintain a temperature on the inner surface of the esophagus of 42 ° C in patients undergoing cryoablation of atrial fibrillation, noted Dr. Gallagher, a cardiac electrophysiologist at St. George’s University Hospitals in London.

A second approach to cutting esophageal damage focuses on modifying the energy delivery with a radiofrequency ablation method known as high-power short-duration (HPSD). As the name says, this strategy uses a relatively high level of radiofrequency energy, 50 watts in the reported experience, for the brief interval of about 7 seconds, ideally delivering an overall Ablation Index of at least 350 but below 360, said Thomas Deneke, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and cochief of cardiology at the Heart Center in Bad Neustadt, Germany.

Dr. Deneke and his associates in Bad Neustadt began using this HPSD approach in mid-2019, and by early 2020 they had data from 179 patients who underwent first-time catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib), all of whom had undergone routine esophageal endoscopy 1-3 days after their treatment. Eight patients (4%) showed evidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL), including three patients (2%) with an actual esophageal ulcer, and one (0.6%) who developed a perforation that healed after 52 days, Dr. Deneke reported. An additional 55 patients underwent a redo catheter ablation procedure using the HPSD method during this period, and in that group follow-up endoscopy in all patients showed EDEL in two patients (4%). In contrast, during Jan. 2012–May 2019, the same German center treated 2,102 patients who had a first radiofrequency catheter ablation using convention energy levels and treatment times, which resulted in 291 patients having an EDEL (14%), including 94 (4%) with an ulcer, and six patients (0.3%) with an esophageal perforation, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His center’s recent safety experience with HPSD radiofrequncy ablation, compared with the historical controls, suggests that this technique can produce a substantial reduction in esophageal thermal injury, but HPSD has not completely eliminated the risk and hence there is need for continued alertness for this potential complication Dr. Deneke concluded. The HPSD method is also limited by having “a very narrow window” between efficacy at an Ablation Index of 350 and safety when the index remains below 360, he added.

The randomized study that Dr. Gallagher ran at St. George’s followed an analysis he and his associates recently published that suggested efficacy using esophageal cooling in prior reports when the data combined in a meta-analysis (J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00661-5). They also concluded that the clinical setting required a temperature control device with an enhanced capacity for rapid cooling, which prior studies had lacked. So they turned to a Food and Drug Administration–approved catheter designed for placement in the esophagus for the purpose of either whole-body cooling or warming.

The study randomized a total of 187 patients, but collected follow-up endoscopy at 5-7 days after the ablation procedure on 120 patients, of whom 60 received esophageal cooling and 60 did not. The types of ablations performed on patients in the two study arms were similar, and use of esophageal cooling had no impact on treatment duration or efficacy, either acute and longer term, Dr. Gallagher reported.

Cooling had a marked and statistically significant impact on endoscopically detected thermal injury. Although two patients in the group that underwent cooling had injuries, in one of these cases the injury involved a protocol violation: Radiofrequency ablation mistakenly occurred after the cooling device shut off, and it was during this period when the injury happened. In the second case of thermal injury, blinded scoring judged the injury as grade 2 in severity – an erosion of less than 5 mm – on a nine-item scale that ranged from zero to grade 6, the most severe level denoting a fistula. By contrast, among the 12 patients with thermal injury in the nonprotected subgroup, one patient had a grade 5a lesion denoting a deep ulcer, one had a 4b denoting a superficial ulcer with a clot, and four had a 4a lesion defined as a clean superficial ulcer.

“This is really effective. It’s the first study to show reduced damage without affecting ablation efficacy,” Dr. Gallagher said. He plans to now use this method of esophageal protection routinely for his AFib ablation patients who pay privately, and for patients insured under the national U.K. system once this coverage is approved. Dr. Deneke expressed his interest in also using this approach to esophageal protection, but noted that currently he did not have access to the cooling catheter that Dr. Gallagher used because of regulatory constraints.

The esophageal cooling study was sponsored by Attune Medical, which markets the cooling device. Dr. Gallagher has received research funding from Attune Medical, and has received honoraria as a speaker on behalf of Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Deneke has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, and his institution has received research funding from Biosense Webster and Securus/Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

Some instances of unprofessional behavior by medical trainees are universally deemed egregious and worthy of discipline — for example, looking up a friend’s medical data after HIPAA training.

Conversely, some professionalism lapses may be widely thought of as a teaching and consoling moment, such as the human error involved in forgetting a scheduled repositioning of a patient.

But between the extremes is a vast gray area. To deal with those cases appropriately, Jason Wasserman, PhD, and colleagues propose a new framework by which to judge each infraction.

The framework draws from “just culture” concepts used to evaluate medical errors, Wasserman, associate professor of biomedical science at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine in Rochester, Michigan, told Medscape Medical News. Such an approach takes into account the environment in which the error was made, the knowledge and intent of the person making the error, and the severity and consequences of the infraction so that trainees and institutions can learn from mistakes.

“Trainees by definition are not going to fully get it,” he explained. “By definition they’re not going to fully achieve professional expectations. So how can we respond to the things we need to respond to, but do it in a way that’s educational?”

Wasserman and coauthors’ framework for remediation, which they published February 20 in The New England Journal of Medicine, takes into account several questions: Was the expectation clear? Were there factors beyond the trainees› control? What were the trainees› intentions and did they understand the consequences? Did the person genuinely believe the action was inconsequential?

An example requiring discipline, the authors say, would be using a crib sheet during an exam. In that case the intent is clear, there is no defensible belief that the action is inconsequential, and there is a clear understanding the action is wrong.

But a response of “affirm, support, and advise” is more appropriate, for example, when a student’s alarm doesn’t go off after a power outage and they miss a mandatory meeting.

Wasserman points out that this framework won’t cover all situations.

“This is not an algorithm for answering your questions about what to do,” he said. “It’s an architecture for clarifying the discussion about that. It can really tease out all the threads that need to be considered to best respond to and correct the professionalism lapse, but do it in a way that is developmentally appropriate.”
 

A Core Competency

For two decades, professionalism has been considered a core competency of medical education. In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties formalized it as such. In 2013, the Association of American Medical Colleges formally required related professionalism competencies.

However, identifying lapses has operated largely on an “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” basis, leading to widely varying remediation practices judged by a small number of faculty members or administrators.

The ideas outlined by Wasserman and colleagues are “a terrific application of the ‘just-culture’ framework,” according to Nicole Treadway, MD, a first-year primary care resident at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

At Emory, discussions of professionalism start from day 1 of medical school and the subject is revisited throughout training in small groups, Treadway told Medscape Medical News.

But, she said, as the authors point out, definitions of unprofessionalism are not always clear and the examples the authors put forward help put lapses in context.

The framework also allows for looking at mistakes in light of the stress trainees encounter and the greater chance of making a professionalism error in those situations, she noted.

In her own work, she says, because she is juggling both inpatient and outpatient care, she is finding it is easy to get behind on correspondence or communicating lab results or having follow-up conversations.

Those delays could be seen as lapses in professionalism, but under this framework, there may be system solutions or training opportunities to consider.

“We do need this organizational architecture, and I think it could serve us well in really helping us identify and appropriately respond to what we see regarding professionalism,” she said.

Framework Helps Standardize Thinking

She said having a universal framework also helps because while standards of professionalism are easier to monitor in a single medical school, when students scatter to other hospitals for clinical training, those hospitals may have different professionalism standards.

Wasserman agrees, saying, “This could be easily adopted in any environment where people deal with professionalism lapses. I don’t even think it’s necessarily relegated to trainees. It’s a great way to think about any kind of lapses, just as hospitals think about medical errors.”

He said the next step is presenting the framework at various medical schools for feedback and research to see whether the framework improves processes.

Potential criticism, he said, might come from those who say such a construct avoids punishing students who make errors.

“There will always be people who say we’re pandering to medical students whenever we worry about the learning environment,” he said. “There are old-school purists who say when people screw up you should punish them.”

But he adds healthcare broadly has moved past that thinking.

“People recognized 20 years ago or more from the standpoint of improving healthcare systems and safety that is a bad strategy. You’ll never get error-free humans working in your system, and what you have to do is consider how the system is functioning and think about ways to optimize the system so people can be their best within it.”

Wasserman and Treadway have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some instances of unprofessional behavior by medical trainees are universally deemed egregious and worthy of discipline — for example, looking up a friend’s medical data after HIPAA training.

Conversely, some professionalism lapses may be widely thought of as a teaching and consoling moment, such as the human error involved in forgetting a scheduled repositioning of a patient.

But between the extremes is a vast gray area. To deal with those cases appropriately, Jason Wasserman, PhD, and colleagues propose a new framework by which to judge each infraction.

The framework draws from “just culture” concepts used to evaluate medical errors, Wasserman, associate professor of biomedical science at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine in Rochester, Michigan, told Medscape Medical News. Such an approach takes into account the environment in which the error was made, the knowledge and intent of the person making the error, and the severity and consequences of the infraction so that trainees and institutions can learn from mistakes.

“Trainees by definition are not going to fully get it,” he explained. “By definition they’re not going to fully achieve professional expectations. So how can we respond to the things we need to respond to, but do it in a way that’s educational?”

Wasserman and coauthors’ framework for remediation, which they published February 20 in The New England Journal of Medicine, takes into account several questions: Was the expectation clear? Were there factors beyond the trainees› control? What were the trainees› intentions and did they understand the consequences? Did the person genuinely believe the action was inconsequential?

An example requiring discipline, the authors say, would be using a crib sheet during an exam. In that case the intent is clear, there is no defensible belief that the action is inconsequential, and there is a clear understanding the action is wrong.

But a response of “affirm, support, and advise” is more appropriate, for example, when a student’s alarm doesn’t go off after a power outage and they miss a mandatory meeting.

Wasserman points out that this framework won’t cover all situations.

“This is not an algorithm for answering your questions about what to do,” he said. “It’s an architecture for clarifying the discussion about that. It can really tease out all the threads that need to be considered to best respond to and correct the professionalism lapse, but do it in a way that is developmentally appropriate.”
 

A Core Competency

For two decades, professionalism has been considered a core competency of medical education. In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties formalized it as such. In 2013, the Association of American Medical Colleges formally required related professionalism competencies.

However, identifying lapses has operated largely on an “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” basis, leading to widely varying remediation practices judged by a small number of faculty members or administrators.

The ideas outlined by Wasserman and colleagues are “a terrific application of the ‘just-culture’ framework,” according to Nicole Treadway, MD, a first-year primary care resident at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

At Emory, discussions of professionalism start from day 1 of medical school and the subject is revisited throughout training in small groups, Treadway told Medscape Medical News.

But, she said, as the authors point out, definitions of unprofessionalism are not always clear and the examples the authors put forward help put lapses in context.

The framework also allows for looking at mistakes in light of the stress trainees encounter and the greater chance of making a professionalism error in those situations, she noted.

In her own work, she says, because she is juggling both inpatient and outpatient care, she is finding it is easy to get behind on correspondence or communicating lab results or having follow-up conversations.

Those delays could be seen as lapses in professionalism, but under this framework, there may be system solutions or training opportunities to consider.

“We do need this organizational architecture, and I think it could serve us well in really helping us identify and appropriately respond to what we see regarding professionalism,” she said.

Framework Helps Standardize Thinking

She said having a universal framework also helps because while standards of professionalism are easier to monitor in a single medical school, when students scatter to other hospitals for clinical training, those hospitals may have different professionalism standards.

Wasserman agrees, saying, “This could be easily adopted in any environment where people deal with professionalism lapses. I don’t even think it’s necessarily relegated to trainees. It’s a great way to think about any kind of lapses, just as hospitals think about medical errors.”

He said the next step is presenting the framework at various medical schools for feedback and research to see whether the framework improves processes.

Potential criticism, he said, might come from those who say such a construct avoids punishing students who make errors.

“There will always be people who say we’re pandering to medical students whenever we worry about the learning environment,” he said. “There are old-school purists who say when people screw up you should punish them.”

But he adds healthcare broadly has moved past that thinking.

“People recognized 20 years ago or more from the standpoint of improving healthcare systems and safety that is a bad strategy. You’ll never get error-free humans working in your system, and what you have to do is consider how the system is functioning and think about ways to optimize the system so people can be their best within it.”

Wasserman and Treadway have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some instances of unprofessional behavior by medical trainees are universally deemed egregious and worthy of discipline — for example, looking up a friend’s medical data after HIPAA training.

Conversely, some professionalism lapses may be widely thought of as a teaching and consoling moment, such as the human error involved in forgetting a scheduled repositioning of a patient.

But between the extremes is a vast gray area. To deal with those cases appropriately, Jason Wasserman, PhD, and colleagues propose a new framework by which to judge each infraction.

The framework draws from “just culture” concepts used to evaluate medical errors, Wasserman, associate professor of biomedical science at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine in Rochester, Michigan, told Medscape Medical News. Such an approach takes into account the environment in which the error was made, the knowledge and intent of the person making the error, and the severity and consequences of the infraction so that trainees and institutions can learn from mistakes.

“Trainees by definition are not going to fully get it,” he explained. “By definition they’re not going to fully achieve professional expectations. So how can we respond to the things we need to respond to, but do it in a way that’s educational?”

Wasserman and coauthors’ framework for remediation, which they published February 20 in The New England Journal of Medicine, takes into account several questions: Was the expectation clear? Were there factors beyond the trainees› control? What were the trainees› intentions and did they understand the consequences? Did the person genuinely believe the action was inconsequential?

An example requiring discipline, the authors say, would be using a crib sheet during an exam. In that case the intent is clear, there is no defensible belief that the action is inconsequential, and there is a clear understanding the action is wrong.

But a response of “affirm, support, and advise” is more appropriate, for example, when a student’s alarm doesn’t go off after a power outage and they miss a mandatory meeting.

Wasserman points out that this framework won’t cover all situations.

“This is not an algorithm for answering your questions about what to do,” he said. “It’s an architecture for clarifying the discussion about that. It can really tease out all the threads that need to be considered to best respond to and correct the professionalism lapse, but do it in a way that is developmentally appropriate.”
 

A Core Competency

For two decades, professionalism has been considered a core competency of medical education. In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties formalized it as such. In 2013, the Association of American Medical Colleges formally required related professionalism competencies.

However, identifying lapses has operated largely on an “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” basis, leading to widely varying remediation practices judged by a small number of faculty members or administrators.

The ideas outlined by Wasserman and colleagues are “a terrific application of the ‘just-culture’ framework,” according to Nicole Treadway, MD, a first-year primary care resident at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

At Emory, discussions of professionalism start from day 1 of medical school and the subject is revisited throughout training in small groups, Treadway told Medscape Medical News.

But, she said, as the authors point out, definitions of unprofessionalism are not always clear and the examples the authors put forward help put lapses in context.

The framework also allows for looking at mistakes in light of the stress trainees encounter and the greater chance of making a professionalism error in those situations, she noted.

In her own work, she says, because she is juggling both inpatient and outpatient care, she is finding it is easy to get behind on correspondence or communicating lab results or having follow-up conversations.

Those delays could be seen as lapses in professionalism, but under this framework, there may be system solutions or training opportunities to consider.

“We do need this organizational architecture, and I think it could serve us well in really helping us identify and appropriately respond to what we see regarding professionalism,” she said.

Framework Helps Standardize Thinking

She said having a universal framework also helps because while standards of professionalism are easier to monitor in a single medical school, when students scatter to other hospitals for clinical training, those hospitals may have different professionalism standards.

Wasserman agrees, saying, “This could be easily adopted in any environment where people deal with professionalism lapses. I don’t even think it’s necessarily relegated to trainees. It’s a great way to think about any kind of lapses, just as hospitals think about medical errors.”

He said the next step is presenting the framework at various medical schools for feedback and research to see whether the framework improves processes.

Potential criticism, he said, might come from those who say such a construct avoids punishing students who make errors.

“There will always be people who say we’re pandering to medical students whenever we worry about the learning environment,” he said. “There are old-school purists who say when people screw up you should punish them.”

But he adds healthcare broadly has moved past that thinking.

“People recognized 20 years ago or more from the standpoint of improving healthcare systems and safety that is a bad strategy. You’ll never get error-free humans working in your system, and what you have to do is consider how the system is functioning and think about ways to optimize the system so people can be their best within it.”

Wasserman and Treadway have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Texas v. California, a closely watched case that could upend the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The justices will hear oral arguments in the case in fall 2020, with a ruling likely in 2021.

The Texas case, consolidated with a similar challenge, stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Since the Trump administration declined to defend the ACA, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court granted two petitions by the defendants requesting that the high court review the appeals court decision.

The review follows a previous look at the ACA’s mandate by the Supreme Court in 2012. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, justices upheld the ACA’s insurance mandate as constitutional, ruling the requirement was authorized by Congress’ power to levy taxes. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in agreement with the court’s four more liberal members.

[email protected]

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Texas v. California, a closely watched case that could upend the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The justices will hear oral arguments in the case in fall 2020, with a ruling likely in 2021.

The Texas case, consolidated with a similar challenge, stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Since the Trump administration declined to defend the ACA, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court granted two petitions by the defendants requesting that the high court review the appeals court decision.

The review follows a previous look at the ACA’s mandate by the Supreme Court in 2012. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, justices upheld the ACA’s insurance mandate as constitutional, ruling the requirement was authorized by Congress’ power to levy taxes. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in agreement with the court’s four more liberal members.

[email protected]

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Texas v. California, a closely watched case that could upend the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The justices will hear oral arguments in the case in fall 2020, with a ruling likely in 2021.

The Texas case, consolidated with a similar challenge, stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Since the Trump administration declined to defend the ACA, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court granted two petitions by the defendants requesting that the high court review the appeals court decision.

The review follows a previous look at the ACA’s mandate by the Supreme Court in 2012. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, justices upheld the ACA’s insurance mandate as constitutional, ruling the requirement was authorized by Congress’ power to levy taxes. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in agreement with the court’s four more liberal members.

[email protected]