Federal Practitioner

Two years ago, I argued that independent care from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) would not have ill effects on health outcomes. To the surprise of no one, NPs and PAs embraced the argument; physicians clobbered it.

My case had three pegs: One was that medicine isn’t rocket science and clinicians control a lot less than we think we do. The second peg was that technology levels the playing field of clinical care. High-sensitivity troponin assays, for instance, make missing MI a lot less likely. The third peg was empirical: Studies have found little difference in MD versus non–MD-led care. Looking back, I now see empiricism as the weakest part of the argument because the studies had so many limitations.

I update this viewpoint now because health care is increasingly delivered by NPs and PAs. And there are two concerning trends regarding NP education and experience. First is that nurses are turning to advanced practitioner training earlier in their careers – without gathering much bedside experience. And these training programs are increasingly likely to be online, with minimal hands-on clinical tutoring. 

Education and experience pop in my head often. Not every day, but many days I think back to my lucky 7 years in Indiana learning under the supervision of master clinicians – at a time when trainees were allowed the leeway to make decisions ... and mistakes. Then, when I joined private practice, I continued to learn from experienced practitioners.

It would be foolish to argue that training and experience aren’t important.

But here’s the thing: I still don’t see average health outcomes declining as a result of the rise in NPs and PAs. And even if I did, it wouldn’t matter. The rise in nonphysician care will not be undone, at least any time soon.

I will make three points: First, I will bolster two of my old arguments as to why we shouldn’t be worried about non-MD clinicians, then I will propose some ideas to increase confidence in NP and PA care.
 

Health care does not equal health

On the matter of how much clinicians affect outcomes, a recently published randomized controlled trial performed in India found that subsidizing insurance care led to increased utilization of hospital services but had no significant effect on health outcomes. This follows the RAND and Oregon Health Insurance studies in the United States, which largely reported similar results.

It’s about the delta

Logos trumps pathos. Sure, my physician colleagues can tell scary anecdotes of bad outcomes caused by an inexperienced NP or PA. I would counter that by saying I have sat on our hospital’s peer review committee for 2 decades, including the era before NPs or PAs were practicing, and I have plenty of stories of physician errors. These include, of course, my own errors.

Logos: We must consider the difference between non–MD-led care and MD-led care.

My arguments from 2020 remain relevant today. Most medical problems are not engineering puzzles. Many, perhaps most, patients fall into an easy protocol – say, chest pain, dyspnea, or atrial fibrillation. With basic training, a motivated serious person quickly gains skill in recognizing and treating everyday problems.

And just 2 years on, technology further levels the playing field. Consider radiology in 2022 – it’s easy to take for granted the speed of the CT scan, the fidelity of the MRI, and the easy access to both in the U.S. hospital system. Less experienced clinicians have never had more tools to assist with diagnostics and therapeutics.

The expansion of team-based care has also mitigated the effects of inexperience. It took Americans longer than Canadians to figure out how helpful pharmacists could be. Pharmacists in my hospital now help us dose complicated medicines and protect us against prescribing errors.

Then there is the immediate access to online information. Gone are the days when you had to memorize long-QT syndromes. Book knowledge – that I spent years acquiring – now comes in seconds. The other day an NP corrected me. I asked, Are you sure? Boom, she took out her phone and showed me the evidence.

In sum, if it were even possible to measure the clinical competence of care from NP and PA versus physicians, there would be two bell-shaped curves with a tremendous amount of overlap. And that overlap would steadily increase as a given NP or PA gathered experience. (The NP in our electrophysiology division has more than 25 years’ experience in heart rhythm care, and it is common for colleagues to call her before one of us docs. Rightly so.)
 

Three basic proposals regarding NP and PA care

To ensure quality of care, I have three proposals.

It has always seemed strange to me that an NP or PA can flip from one field to another without a period of training. I can’t just change practice from electrophysiology to dermatology without doing a residency. But NPs and PAs can.

My first proposal would be that NPs and PAs spend a substantial period of training in a field before practice – a legit apprenticeship. The duration of this period is a matter of debate, but it ought to be standardized.

My second proposal is that, if physicians are required to pass certification exams, so should NPs. (PAs have an exam every 10 years.) The exam should be the same as (or very similar to) the physician exam, and it should be specific to their field of practice.

While I have argued (and still feel) that the American Board of Internal Medicine brand of certification is dubious, the fact remains that physicians must maintain proficiency in their field. Requiring NPs and PAs to do the same would help foster specialization. And while I can’t cite empirical evidence, specialization seems super-important. We have NPs at my hospital who have been in the same area for years, and they exude clinical competence.

Finally, I have come to believe that the best way for nearly any clinician to practice medicine is as part of a team. (The exception being primary care in rural areas where there are clinician shortages.)

On the matter of team care, I’ve practiced for a long time, but nearly every day I run situations by a colleague; often this person is an NP. The economist Friedrich Hayek proposed that dispersed knowledge always outpaces the wisdom of any individual. That notion pertains well to the increasing complexities and specialization of modern medical practice.

A person who commits to learning one area of medicine, enjoys helping people, asks often for help, and has the support of colleagues is set up to be a successful clinician – whether the letters after their name are APRN, PA, DO, or MD.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. He did not report any relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years ago, I argued that independent care from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) would not have ill effects on health outcomes. To the surprise of no one, NPs and PAs embraced the argument; physicians clobbered it.

My case had three pegs: One was that medicine isn’t rocket science and clinicians control a lot less than we think we do. The second peg was that technology levels the playing field of clinical care. High-sensitivity troponin assays, for instance, make missing MI a lot less likely. The third peg was empirical: Studies have found little difference in MD versus non–MD-led care. Looking back, I now see empiricism as the weakest part of the argument because the studies had so many limitations.

I update this viewpoint now because health care is increasingly delivered by NPs and PAs. And there are two concerning trends regarding NP education and experience. First is that nurses are turning to advanced practitioner training earlier in their careers – without gathering much bedside experience. And these training programs are increasingly likely to be online, with minimal hands-on clinical tutoring. 

Education and experience pop in my head often. Not every day, but many days I think back to my lucky 7 years in Indiana learning under the supervision of master clinicians – at a time when trainees were allowed the leeway to make decisions ... and mistakes. Then, when I joined private practice, I continued to learn from experienced practitioners.

It would be foolish to argue that training and experience aren’t important.

But here’s the thing: I still don’t see average health outcomes declining as a result of the rise in NPs and PAs. And even if I did, it wouldn’t matter. The rise in nonphysician care will not be undone, at least any time soon.

I will make three points: First, I will bolster two of my old arguments as to why we shouldn’t be worried about non-MD clinicians, then I will propose some ideas to increase confidence in NP and PA care.
 

Health care does not equal health

On the matter of how much clinicians affect outcomes, a recently published randomized controlled trial performed in India found that subsidizing insurance care led to increased utilization of hospital services but had no significant effect on health outcomes. This follows the RAND and Oregon Health Insurance studies in the United States, which largely reported similar results.

It’s about the delta

Logos trumps pathos. Sure, my physician colleagues can tell scary anecdotes of bad outcomes caused by an inexperienced NP or PA. I would counter that by saying I have sat on our hospital’s peer review committee for 2 decades, including the era before NPs or PAs were practicing, and I have plenty of stories of physician errors. These include, of course, my own errors.

Logos: We must consider the difference between non–MD-led care and MD-led care.

My arguments from 2020 remain relevant today. Most medical problems are not engineering puzzles. Many, perhaps most, patients fall into an easy protocol – say, chest pain, dyspnea, or atrial fibrillation. With basic training, a motivated serious person quickly gains skill in recognizing and treating everyday problems.

And just 2 years on, technology further levels the playing field. Consider radiology in 2022 – it’s easy to take for granted the speed of the CT scan, the fidelity of the MRI, and the easy access to both in the U.S. hospital system. Less experienced clinicians have never had more tools to assist with diagnostics and therapeutics.

The expansion of team-based care has also mitigated the effects of inexperience. It took Americans longer than Canadians to figure out how helpful pharmacists could be. Pharmacists in my hospital now help us dose complicated medicines and protect us against prescribing errors.

Then there is the immediate access to online information. Gone are the days when you had to memorize long-QT syndromes. Book knowledge – that I spent years acquiring – now comes in seconds. The other day an NP corrected me. I asked, Are you sure? Boom, she took out her phone and showed me the evidence.

In sum, if it were even possible to measure the clinical competence of care from NP and PA versus physicians, there would be two bell-shaped curves with a tremendous amount of overlap. And that overlap would steadily increase as a given NP or PA gathered experience. (The NP in our electrophysiology division has more than 25 years’ experience in heart rhythm care, and it is common for colleagues to call her before one of us docs. Rightly so.)
 

Three basic proposals regarding NP and PA care

To ensure quality of care, I have three proposals.

It has always seemed strange to me that an NP or PA can flip from one field to another without a period of training. I can’t just change practice from electrophysiology to dermatology without doing a residency. But NPs and PAs can.

My first proposal would be that NPs and PAs spend a substantial period of training in a field before practice – a legit apprenticeship. The duration of this period is a matter of debate, but it ought to be standardized.

My second proposal is that, if physicians are required to pass certification exams, so should NPs. (PAs have an exam every 10 years.) The exam should be the same as (or very similar to) the physician exam, and it should be specific to their field of practice.

While I have argued (and still feel) that the American Board of Internal Medicine brand of certification is dubious, the fact remains that physicians must maintain proficiency in their field. Requiring NPs and PAs to do the same would help foster specialization. And while I can’t cite empirical evidence, specialization seems super-important. We have NPs at my hospital who have been in the same area for years, and they exude clinical competence.

Finally, I have come to believe that the best way for nearly any clinician to practice medicine is as part of a team. (The exception being primary care in rural areas where there are clinician shortages.)

On the matter of team care, I’ve practiced for a long time, but nearly every day I run situations by a colleague; often this person is an NP. The economist Friedrich Hayek proposed that dispersed knowledge always outpaces the wisdom of any individual. That notion pertains well to the increasing complexities and specialization of modern medical practice.

A person who commits to learning one area of medicine, enjoys helping people, asks often for help, and has the support of colleagues is set up to be a successful clinician – whether the letters after their name are APRN, PA, DO, or MD.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. He did not report any relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years ago, I argued that independent care from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) would not have ill effects on health outcomes. To the surprise of no one, NPs and PAs embraced the argument; physicians clobbered it.

My case had three pegs: One was that medicine isn’t rocket science and clinicians control a lot less than we think we do. The second peg was that technology levels the playing field of clinical care. High-sensitivity troponin assays, for instance, make missing MI a lot less likely. The third peg was empirical: Studies have found little difference in MD versus non–MD-led care. Looking back, I now see empiricism as the weakest part of the argument because the studies had so many limitations.

I update this viewpoint now because health care is increasingly delivered by NPs and PAs. And there are two concerning trends regarding NP education and experience. First is that nurses are turning to advanced practitioner training earlier in their careers – without gathering much bedside experience. And these training programs are increasingly likely to be online, with minimal hands-on clinical tutoring. 

Education and experience pop in my head often. Not every day, but many days I think back to my lucky 7 years in Indiana learning under the supervision of master clinicians – at a time when trainees were allowed the leeway to make decisions ... and mistakes. Then, when I joined private practice, I continued to learn from experienced practitioners.

It would be foolish to argue that training and experience aren’t important.

But here’s the thing: I still don’t see average health outcomes declining as a result of the rise in NPs and PAs. And even if I did, it wouldn’t matter. The rise in nonphysician care will not be undone, at least any time soon.

I will make three points: First, I will bolster two of my old arguments as to why we shouldn’t be worried about non-MD clinicians, then I will propose some ideas to increase confidence in NP and PA care.
 

Health care does not equal health

On the matter of how much clinicians affect outcomes, a recently published randomized controlled trial performed in India found that subsidizing insurance care led to increased utilization of hospital services but had no significant effect on health outcomes. This follows the RAND and Oregon Health Insurance studies in the United States, which largely reported similar results.

It’s about the delta

Logos trumps pathos. Sure, my physician colleagues can tell scary anecdotes of bad outcomes caused by an inexperienced NP or PA. I would counter that by saying I have sat on our hospital’s peer review committee for 2 decades, including the era before NPs or PAs were practicing, and I have plenty of stories of physician errors. These include, of course, my own errors.

Logos: We must consider the difference between non–MD-led care and MD-led care.

My arguments from 2020 remain relevant today. Most medical problems are not engineering puzzles. Many, perhaps most, patients fall into an easy protocol – say, chest pain, dyspnea, or atrial fibrillation. With basic training, a motivated serious person quickly gains skill in recognizing and treating everyday problems.

And just 2 years on, technology further levels the playing field. Consider radiology in 2022 – it’s easy to take for granted the speed of the CT scan, the fidelity of the MRI, and the easy access to both in the U.S. hospital system. Less experienced clinicians have never had more tools to assist with diagnostics and therapeutics.

The expansion of team-based care has also mitigated the effects of inexperience. It took Americans longer than Canadians to figure out how helpful pharmacists could be. Pharmacists in my hospital now help us dose complicated medicines and protect us against prescribing errors.

Then there is the immediate access to online information. Gone are the days when you had to memorize long-QT syndromes. Book knowledge – that I spent years acquiring – now comes in seconds. The other day an NP corrected me. I asked, Are you sure? Boom, she took out her phone and showed me the evidence.

In sum, if it were even possible to measure the clinical competence of care from NP and PA versus physicians, there would be two bell-shaped curves with a tremendous amount of overlap. And that overlap would steadily increase as a given NP or PA gathered experience. (The NP in our electrophysiology division has more than 25 years’ experience in heart rhythm care, and it is common for colleagues to call her before one of us docs. Rightly so.)
 

Three basic proposals regarding NP and PA care

To ensure quality of care, I have three proposals.

It has always seemed strange to me that an NP or PA can flip from one field to another without a period of training. I can’t just change practice from electrophysiology to dermatology without doing a residency. But NPs and PAs can.

My first proposal would be that NPs and PAs spend a substantial period of training in a field before practice – a legit apprenticeship. The duration of this period is a matter of debate, but it ought to be standardized.

My second proposal is that, if physicians are required to pass certification exams, so should NPs. (PAs have an exam every 10 years.) The exam should be the same as (or very similar to) the physician exam, and it should be specific to their field of practice.

While I have argued (and still feel) that the American Board of Internal Medicine brand of certification is dubious, the fact remains that physicians must maintain proficiency in their field. Requiring NPs and PAs to do the same would help foster specialization. And while I can’t cite empirical evidence, specialization seems super-important. We have NPs at my hospital who have been in the same area for years, and they exude clinical competence.

Finally, I have come to believe that the best way for nearly any clinician to practice medicine is as part of a team. (The exception being primary care in rural areas where there are clinician shortages.)

On the matter of team care, I’ve practiced for a long time, but nearly every day I run situations by a colleague; often this person is an NP. The economist Friedrich Hayek proposed that dispersed knowledge always outpaces the wisdom of any individual. That notion pertains well to the increasing complexities and specialization of modern medical practice.

A person who commits to learning one area of medicine, enjoys helping people, asks often for help, and has the support of colleagues is set up to be a successful clinician – whether the letters after their name are APRN, PA, DO, or MD.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. He did not report any relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Depending on the data you’re looking at, 40%-60% of physicians are burned out.

Research studies and the eye test reveal the painfully obvious: Colleagues are tired, winded, spent, and at times way past burned out. People aren’t asking me if they’re burned out. They know they’re burned out; heck, they can even recite the Maslach burnout inventory, forward and backward, in a mask, or while completing a COVID quarantine. A fair share of people know the key steps to prevent burnout and promote recovery.

What I’m starting to see more of is, “Why should I even bother to recover from this? Why pick myself up again just to get another occupational stress injury (burnout, demoralization, moral injury, etc.)?” In other words, it’s not just simply about negating burnout; it’s about supporting and facilitating the motivation to work.

We’ve been through so much with COVID that it might be challenging to remember when you saw a truly engaged work environment. No doubt, we have outstanding professionals across medicine who answer the bell every day. However, if you’ve been looking closely, many teams/units have lost a bit of the zip and pep. The synergy and trust aren’t as smooth, and at noon, everyone counts the hours to the end of the shift.

You may be thinking, Well, of course, they are; we’re still amid a pandemic, and people have been through hell. Your observation would be correct, except I’ve personally seen some teams weather the pandemic storm and still remain engaged (some even more involved).

The No. 1 consult result for the GW Resiliency and Well-Being Center, where I work, has been on lectures for burnout. The R&WC has given so many of these lectures that my dreams take the form of a PowerPoint presentation. Overall the talks have gone very well. We’ve added skills sections on practices of whole-person care. We’ve blitzed the daylights out of restorative sleep, yet I know we are still searching for the correct narrative.

Motivated staff, faculty, and students will genuinely take in the information and follow the recommendations; however, they still struggle to find that drive and zest for work. Yes, moving from burnout to neutral is reasonable but likely won’t move the needle of your professional or personal life. We need to have the emotional energy and the clear desire to utilize that energy for a meaningful purpose.

Talking about burnout in specific ways is straightforward and, in my opinion, much easier than talking about engagement. Part of the challenge when trying to discuss engagement is that people can feel invalidated or that you’re telling them to be stoic. Or worse yet, that the problem of burnout primarily lies with them. It’s essential to recognize the role of an organizational factor in burnout (approximately 80%, depending on the study); still, even if you address burnout, people may not be miserable, but it doesn’t mean they will stay at their current job (please cue intro music for the Great Resignation).

Engagement models have existed for some time and certainly have gained much more attention in health care settings over the past 2 decades. Engagement can be described as having three components: dedication, vigor, and absorption. When a person is filling all three of these components over time, presto – you get the much-sought-after state of the supremely engaged professional.

These models definitely give us excellent starting points to approach engagement from a pre-COVID era. In COVID and beyond, I’m not sure how these models will stand up in a hybrid work environment, where autonomy and flexibility could be more valued than ever. Personally, COVID revealed some things I was missing in my work pre-COVID:

• Time to think and process. This was one of the great things about being a consultation-liaison psychiatrist; it was literally feast or famine.
• Doing what I’m talented at and really enjoy.
• Time is short, and I want to be more present in the life of my family.
• Growth and curiosity are vitally important to me. These have to be part of my daily ritual and practice.

The list above isn’t exhaustive, but I’ve found them to be my own personal recipe for being engaged. Over the next series of articles, I’m going to focus on engagement and factors related to key resilience. These articles will be informed by a front-line view from my colleagues, and hopefully start to separate the myth from reality on the subject of health professional engagement and resilience.

Everyone be safe and well!

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Depending on the data you’re looking at, 40%-60% of physicians are burned out.

Research studies and the eye test reveal the painfully obvious: Colleagues are tired, winded, spent, and at times way past burned out. People aren’t asking me if they’re burned out. They know they’re burned out; heck, they can even recite the Maslach burnout inventory, forward and backward, in a mask, or while completing a COVID quarantine. A fair share of people know the key steps to prevent burnout and promote recovery.

What I’m starting to see more of is, “Why should I even bother to recover from this? Why pick myself up again just to get another occupational stress injury (burnout, demoralization, moral injury, etc.)?” In other words, it’s not just simply about negating burnout; it’s about supporting and facilitating the motivation to work.

We’ve been through so much with COVID that it might be challenging to remember when you saw a truly engaged work environment. No doubt, we have outstanding professionals across medicine who answer the bell every day. However, if you’ve been looking closely, many teams/units have lost a bit of the zip and pep. The synergy and trust aren’t as smooth, and at noon, everyone counts the hours to the end of the shift.

You may be thinking, Well, of course, they are; we’re still amid a pandemic, and people have been through hell. Your observation would be correct, except I’ve personally seen some teams weather the pandemic storm and still remain engaged (some even more involved).

The No. 1 consult result for the GW Resiliency and Well-Being Center, where I work, has been on lectures for burnout. The R&WC has given so many of these lectures that my dreams take the form of a PowerPoint presentation. Overall the talks have gone very well. We’ve added skills sections on practices of whole-person care. We’ve blitzed the daylights out of restorative sleep, yet I know we are still searching for the correct narrative.

Motivated staff, faculty, and students will genuinely take in the information and follow the recommendations; however, they still struggle to find that drive and zest for work. Yes, moving from burnout to neutral is reasonable but likely won’t move the needle of your professional or personal life. We need to have the emotional energy and the clear desire to utilize that energy for a meaningful purpose.

Talking about burnout in specific ways is straightforward and, in my opinion, much easier than talking about engagement. Part of the challenge when trying to discuss engagement is that people can feel invalidated or that you’re telling them to be stoic. Or worse yet, that the problem of burnout primarily lies with them. It’s essential to recognize the role of an organizational factor in burnout (approximately 80%, depending on the study); still, even if you address burnout, people may not be miserable, but it doesn’t mean they will stay at their current job (please cue intro music for the Great Resignation).

Engagement models have existed for some time and certainly have gained much more attention in health care settings over the past 2 decades. Engagement can be described as having three components: dedication, vigor, and absorption. When a person is filling all three of these components over time, presto – you get the much-sought-after state of the supremely engaged professional.

These models definitely give us excellent starting points to approach engagement from a pre-COVID era. In COVID and beyond, I’m not sure how these models will stand up in a hybrid work environment, where autonomy and flexibility could be more valued than ever. Personally, COVID revealed some things I was missing in my work pre-COVID:

• Time to think and process. This was one of the great things about being a consultation-liaison psychiatrist; it was literally feast or famine.
• Doing what I’m talented at and really enjoy.
• Time is short, and I want to be more present in the life of my family.
• Growth and curiosity are vitally important to me. These have to be part of my daily ritual and practice.

The list above isn’t exhaustive, but I’ve found them to be my own personal recipe for being engaged. Over the next series of articles, I’m going to focus on engagement and factors related to key resilience. These articles will be informed by a front-line view from my colleagues, and hopefully start to separate the myth from reality on the subject of health professional engagement and resilience.

Everyone be safe and well!

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Depending on the data you’re looking at, 40%-60% of physicians are burned out.

Research studies and the eye test reveal the painfully obvious: Colleagues are tired, winded, spent, and at times way past burned out. People aren’t asking me if they’re burned out. They know they’re burned out; heck, they can even recite the Maslach burnout inventory, forward and backward, in a mask, or while completing a COVID quarantine. A fair share of people know the key steps to prevent burnout and promote recovery.

What I’m starting to see more of is, “Why should I even bother to recover from this? Why pick myself up again just to get another occupational stress injury (burnout, demoralization, moral injury, etc.)?” In other words, it’s not just simply about negating burnout; it’s about supporting and facilitating the motivation to work.

We’ve been through so much with COVID that it might be challenging to remember when you saw a truly engaged work environment. No doubt, we have outstanding professionals across medicine who answer the bell every day. However, if you’ve been looking closely, many teams/units have lost a bit of the zip and pep. The synergy and trust aren’t as smooth, and at noon, everyone counts the hours to the end of the shift.

You may be thinking, Well, of course, they are; we’re still amid a pandemic, and people have been through hell. Your observation would be correct, except I’ve personally seen some teams weather the pandemic storm and still remain engaged (some even more involved).

The No. 1 consult result for the GW Resiliency and Well-Being Center, where I work, has been on lectures for burnout. The R&WC has given so many of these lectures that my dreams take the form of a PowerPoint presentation. Overall the talks have gone very well. We’ve added skills sections on practices of whole-person care. We’ve blitzed the daylights out of restorative sleep, yet I know we are still searching for the correct narrative.

Motivated staff, faculty, and students will genuinely take in the information and follow the recommendations; however, they still struggle to find that drive and zest for work. Yes, moving from burnout to neutral is reasonable but likely won’t move the needle of your professional or personal life. We need to have the emotional energy and the clear desire to utilize that energy for a meaningful purpose.

Talking about burnout in specific ways is straightforward and, in my opinion, much easier than talking about engagement. Part of the challenge when trying to discuss engagement is that people can feel invalidated or that you’re telling them to be stoic. Or worse yet, that the problem of burnout primarily lies with them. It’s essential to recognize the role of an organizational factor in burnout (approximately 80%, depending on the study); still, even if you address burnout, people may not be miserable, but it doesn’t mean they will stay at their current job (please cue intro music for the Great Resignation).

Engagement models have existed for some time and certainly have gained much more attention in health care settings over the past 2 decades. Engagement can be described as having three components: dedication, vigor, and absorption. When a person is filling all three of these components over time, presto – you get the much-sought-after state of the supremely engaged professional.

These models definitely give us excellent starting points to approach engagement from a pre-COVID era. In COVID and beyond, I’m not sure how these models will stand up in a hybrid work environment, where autonomy and flexibility could be more valued than ever. Personally, COVID revealed some things I was missing in my work pre-COVID:

• Time to think and process. This was one of the great things about being a consultation-liaison psychiatrist; it was literally feast or famine.
• Doing what I’m talented at and really enjoy.
• Time is short, and I want to be more present in the life of my family.
• Growth and curiosity are vitally important to me. These have to be part of my daily ritual and practice.

The list above isn’t exhaustive, but I’ve found them to be my own personal recipe for being engaged. Over the next series of articles, I’m going to focus on engagement and factors related to key resilience. These articles will be informed by a front-line view from my colleagues, and hopefully start to separate the myth from reality on the subject of health professional engagement and resilience.

Everyone be safe and well!

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The widely held notion that consuming small to moderate amounts of alcohol is good for cardiovascular health is not supported by the data, the World Heart Federation says in a new policy brief.

In fact, the evidence is clear that any level of drinking can contribute to loss of a healthy life, the organization says.

“Over the past several decades, the prevalence of cardiovascular disease has nearly doubled, and alcohol has played a major role in the incidence of much of it,” the WHF said in the brief.

“The portrayal of alcohol as necessary for a vibrant social life has diverted attention from the harms of alcohol use, as have the frequent and widely publicized claims that moderate drinking, such as a glass of red wine a day, can offer protection against cardiovascular disease,” Monika Arora, PhD, member of the WHF advocacy committee and coauthor of the brief, said in a news release.

“These claims are at best misinformed and at worst an attempt by the alcohol industry to mislead the public about the danger of their product,” Dr. Arora added.

The WHF conclusions follow a report in the Lancet based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD), which found that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

In 2019, nearly 2.4 million deaths were attributed to alcohol, accounting for 4.3% of all deaths globally and 12.6% of deaths in men 15 to 49 years of age.

Even small amounts of alcohol have been shown to raise the risk for cardiovascular disease, including coronary disease, stroke, heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, and aneurysm, the WHF notes.

Studies that claim otherwise are largely based on purely observational research, which fails to account for relevant cofactors, the organization writes.

Based on their summary of the evidence to date, there is no reliable correlation between moderate alcohol consumption and a lower risk for cardiovascular disease.

Alcohol use is also a “major avoidable risk factor” for cancer, digestive diseases, intentional and unintentional injuries, and several infectious diseases, the WHF says.

Alcohol use also has significant economic and social costs, which include costs to individuals and health systems, productivity losses, as well as the increased risk for violence, homelessness, and criminal activity.

The WHF policy brief calls for “urgent and decisive action” to tackle the unprecedented rise in alcohol-related death and disability worldwide.

Recommended actions include boosting restrictions on alcohol availability; advancing and enforcing drinking and driving countermeasures; increasing access to screening, brief interventions, and treatment for alcohol use disorder; enforcing bans on alcohol advertising; establishing a uniform minimum legal drinking age; and mandating health warnings on alcohol products.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The widely held notion that consuming small to moderate amounts of alcohol is good for cardiovascular health is not supported by the data, the World Heart Federation says in a new policy brief.

In fact, the evidence is clear that any level of drinking can contribute to loss of a healthy life, the organization says.

“Over the past several decades, the prevalence of cardiovascular disease has nearly doubled, and alcohol has played a major role in the incidence of much of it,” the WHF said in the brief.

“The portrayal of alcohol as necessary for a vibrant social life has diverted attention from the harms of alcohol use, as have the frequent and widely publicized claims that moderate drinking, such as a glass of red wine a day, can offer protection against cardiovascular disease,” Monika Arora, PhD, member of the WHF advocacy committee and coauthor of the brief, said in a news release.

“These claims are at best misinformed and at worst an attempt by the alcohol industry to mislead the public about the danger of their product,” Dr. Arora added.

The WHF conclusions follow a report in the Lancet based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD), which found that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

In 2019, nearly 2.4 million deaths were attributed to alcohol, accounting for 4.3% of all deaths globally and 12.6% of deaths in men 15 to 49 years of age.

Even small amounts of alcohol have been shown to raise the risk for cardiovascular disease, including coronary disease, stroke, heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, and aneurysm, the WHF notes.

Studies that claim otherwise are largely based on purely observational research, which fails to account for relevant cofactors, the organization writes.

Based on their summary of the evidence to date, there is no reliable correlation between moderate alcohol consumption and a lower risk for cardiovascular disease.

Alcohol use is also a “major avoidable risk factor” for cancer, digestive diseases, intentional and unintentional injuries, and several infectious diseases, the WHF says.

Alcohol use also has significant economic and social costs, which include costs to individuals and health systems, productivity losses, as well as the increased risk for violence, homelessness, and criminal activity.

The WHF policy brief calls for “urgent and decisive action” to tackle the unprecedented rise in alcohol-related death and disability worldwide.

Recommended actions include boosting restrictions on alcohol availability; advancing and enforcing drinking and driving countermeasures; increasing access to screening, brief interventions, and treatment for alcohol use disorder; enforcing bans on alcohol advertising; establishing a uniform minimum legal drinking age; and mandating health warnings on alcohol products.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The widely held notion that consuming small to moderate amounts of alcohol is good for cardiovascular health is not supported by the data, the World Heart Federation says in a new policy brief.

In fact, the evidence is clear that any level of drinking can contribute to loss of a healthy life, the organization says.

“Over the past several decades, the prevalence of cardiovascular disease has nearly doubled, and alcohol has played a major role in the incidence of much of it,” the WHF said in the brief.

“The portrayal of alcohol as necessary for a vibrant social life has diverted attention from the harms of alcohol use, as have the frequent and widely publicized claims that moderate drinking, such as a glass of red wine a day, can offer protection against cardiovascular disease,” Monika Arora, PhD, member of the WHF advocacy committee and coauthor of the brief, said in a news release.

“These claims are at best misinformed and at worst an attempt by the alcohol industry to mislead the public about the danger of their product,” Dr. Arora added.

The WHF conclusions follow a report in the Lancet based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD), which found that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

In 2019, nearly 2.4 million deaths were attributed to alcohol, accounting for 4.3% of all deaths globally and 12.6% of deaths in men 15 to 49 years of age.

Even small amounts of alcohol have been shown to raise the risk for cardiovascular disease, including coronary disease, stroke, heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, and aneurysm, the WHF notes.

Studies that claim otherwise are largely based on purely observational research, which fails to account for relevant cofactors, the organization writes.

Based on their summary of the evidence to date, there is no reliable correlation between moderate alcohol consumption and a lower risk for cardiovascular disease.

Alcohol use is also a “major avoidable risk factor” for cancer, digestive diseases, intentional and unintentional injuries, and several infectious diseases, the WHF says.

Alcohol use also has significant economic and social costs, which include costs to individuals and health systems, productivity losses, as well as the increased risk for violence, homelessness, and criminal activity.

The WHF policy brief calls for “urgent and decisive action” to tackle the unprecedented rise in alcohol-related death and disability worldwide.

Recommended actions include boosting restrictions on alcohol availability; advancing and enforcing drinking and driving countermeasures; increasing access to screening, brief interventions, and treatment for alcohol use disorder; enforcing bans on alcohol advertising; establishing a uniform minimum legal drinking age; and mandating health warnings on alcohol products.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, it was hard to imagine that the situation could get worse for doctors.

But 2021 presented a new set of challenges. As quarantines lifted and physicians tried to get back to work, they were forced to deal with reduced staff, continuing COVID stress, and pandemic-related anxieties about family and loved ones.

olm26250/Thinkstock

Medscape’s National Burnout and Depression Report 2022 asked more than 13,000 physicians from 29 specialties to share details about their lives and struggles with burnout and depression in 2021. The results paint a picture of physicians trying to fulfill their mission to care for patients, but struggling to maintain their own well-being amid a global pandemic.
 

Burnout bump

In 2021’s report, 42% of physicians said they were burned out. In 2022, that number increased to 47%. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, increasing from 43% to 60%. Critical care (56%), ob.gyn. (53%), and infectious disease and family medicine (both at 51%) rounded out the top five specialties with doctors experiencing burnout in 2021.

Burnout has typically been a greater problem for women than men physicians, and the pandemic hasn’t changed that. “There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” says Carol A. Bernstein, MD, psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York. And indeed, 56% of women and 41% of men reported burnout in the 2022 survey.

The causes, however, weren’t especially pandemic related – or at least not directly. As in previous surveys, the major contributing factor to burnout was too much paperwork (60%), such as charting and other bureaucratic tasks. Treating COVID-19 patients was cited as the major source of stress by 10% of respondents. About 34% said too many hours at work was the biggest contributing factor to burnout.
 

The nature of the beast

What is burnout like for these doctors? One described the conditions that lead to burnout like this: “I barely spend enough time with most patients, just running from one to the next; and then after work, I spend hours documenting, charting, dealing with reports. I feel like an overpaid clerk.” Another said: “Where’s the relationships with patients that used to make this worthwhile?” Others fingered staffing shortages at work or an overwhelming home life: “Staff calls in sick; we’re all running around trying to find things and get things done. It never ends.”

Of those who do experience burnout, the problem reaches beyond the workplace, with 54% saying that their burnout has a strong/severe impact on life and 68% reporting that burnout affects their relationships. One respondent said: “I’m always tired; I have trouble concentrating, no time for the children, more arguments with my hubby.” Another put it this way: “Home is just as busy and chaotic as work. I can never relax.”

It doesn’t help matters that physicians are likely to think they’re the only professionals experiencing job burnout. For example, only 36% of respondents believe teachers experience comparable burnout, yet more than 41% of teachers leave the profession within 5 years of starting – often because of burnout.

When it comes to methods for coping with burnout, exercise is the clear favorite, with 63% of respondents saying exercise helps maintain their mental health. About 41% talk with family members or close friends. However, less healthy coping mechanisms were cited as well, such as isolating themselves from others (45%), sleeping (41%), and eating junk food (35%) or drinking alcohol (24%).

When it comes to trying to alleviate burnout, 29% have tried meditation or similar stress-reduction techniques, while others have reduced their work hours (29%) or changed their work settings (19%).
 

‘Now I feel like there’s no hope’

About a fifth of physicians (21%) said they suffered from clinical depression, and 64% reported feeling “blue, down, or sad.” One physician characterized their depression this way: “I used to think my life would be great. Now I feel like there’s no hope, this will never get better, I’ll never be happy.”

Of doctors reporting depression, 53% said their illness did not affect their interactions with patients, while 34% said depression caused them to be more easily exasperated by patients.

When asked about seeking help for depression, about half (49%) said they believed they could deal with emotional stress on their own. Unfortunately, fear of medical boards finding out keeps 43% of physicians from reaching out for help, according to the survey.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, it was hard to imagine that the situation could get worse for doctors.

But 2021 presented a new set of challenges. As quarantines lifted and physicians tried to get back to work, they were forced to deal with reduced staff, continuing COVID stress, and pandemic-related anxieties about family and loved ones.

olm26250/Thinkstock

Medscape’s National Burnout and Depression Report 2022 asked more than 13,000 physicians from 29 specialties to share details about their lives and struggles with burnout and depression in 2021. The results paint a picture of physicians trying to fulfill their mission to care for patients, but struggling to maintain their own well-being amid a global pandemic.
 

Burnout bump

In 2021’s report, 42% of physicians said they were burned out. In 2022, that number increased to 47%. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, increasing from 43% to 60%. Critical care (56%), ob.gyn. (53%), and infectious disease and family medicine (both at 51%) rounded out the top five specialties with doctors experiencing burnout in 2021.

Burnout has typically been a greater problem for women than men physicians, and the pandemic hasn’t changed that. “There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” says Carol A. Bernstein, MD, psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York. And indeed, 56% of women and 41% of men reported burnout in the 2022 survey.

The causes, however, weren’t especially pandemic related – or at least not directly. As in previous surveys, the major contributing factor to burnout was too much paperwork (60%), such as charting and other bureaucratic tasks. Treating COVID-19 patients was cited as the major source of stress by 10% of respondents. About 34% said too many hours at work was the biggest contributing factor to burnout.
 

The nature of the beast

What is burnout like for these doctors? One described the conditions that lead to burnout like this: “I barely spend enough time with most patients, just running from one to the next; and then after work, I spend hours documenting, charting, dealing with reports. I feel like an overpaid clerk.” Another said: “Where’s the relationships with patients that used to make this worthwhile?” Others fingered staffing shortages at work or an overwhelming home life: “Staff calls in sick; we’re all running around trying to find things and get things done. It never ends.”

Of those who do experience burnout, the problem reaches beyond the workplace, with 54% saying that their burnout has a strong/severe impact on life and 68% reporting that burnout affects their relationships. One respondent said: “I’m always tired; I have trouble concentrating, no time for the children, more arguments with my hubby.” Another put it this way: “Home is just as busy and chaotic as work. I can never relax.”

It doesn’t help matters that physicians are likely to think they’re the only professionals experiencing job burnout. For example, only 36% of respondents believe teachers experience comparable burnout, yet more than 41% of teachers leave the profession within 5 years of starting – often because of burnout.

When it comes to methods for coping with burnout, exercise is the clear favorite, with 63% of respondents saying exercise helps maintain their mental health. About 41% talk with family members or close friends. However, less healthy coping mechanisms were cited as well, such as isolating themselves from others (45%), sleeping (41%), and eating junk food (35%) or drinking alcohol (24%).

When it comes to trying to alleviate burnout, 29% have tried meditation or similar stress-reduction techniques, while others have reduced their work hours (29%) or changed their work settings (19%).
 

‘Now I feel like there’s no hope’

About a fifth of physicians (21%) said they suffered from clinical depression, and 64% reported feeling “blue, down, or sad.” One physician characterized their depression this way: “I used to think my life would be great. Now I feel like there’s no hope, this will never get better, I’ll never be happy.”

Of doctors reporting depression, 53% said their illness did not affect their interactions with patients, while 34% said depression caused them to be more easily exasperated by patients.

When asked about seeking help for depression, about half (49%) said they believed they could deal with emotional stress on their own. Unfortunately, fear of medical boards finding out keeps 43% of physicians from reaching out for help, according to the survey.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, it was hard to imagine that the situation could get worse for doctors.

But 2021 presented a new set of challenges. As quarantines lifted and physicians tried to get back to work, they were forced to deal with reduced staff, continuing COVID stress, and pandemic-related anxieties about family and loved ones.

olm26250/Thinkstock

Medscape’s National Burnout and Depression Report 2022 asked more than 13,000 physicians from 29 specialties to share details about their lives and struggles with burnout and depression in 2021. The results paint a picture of physicians trying to fulfill their mission to care for patients, but struggling to maintain their own well-being amid a global pandemic.
 

Burnout bump

In 2021’s report, 42% of physicians said they were burned out. In 2022, that number increased to 47%. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, increasing from 43% to 60%. Critical care (56%), ob.gyn. (53%), and infectious disease and family medicine (both at 51%) rounded out the top five specialties with doctors experiencing burnout in 2021.

Burnout has typically been a greater problem for women than men physicians, and the pandemic hasn’t changed that. “There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” says Carol A. Bernstein, MD, psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York. And indeed, 56% of women and 41% of men reported burnout in the 2022 survey.

The causes, however, weren’t especially pandemic related – or at least not directly. As in previous surveys, the major contributing factor to burnout was too much paperwork (60%), such as charting and other bureaucratic tasks. Treating COVID-19 patients was cited as the major source of stress by 10% of respondents. About 34% said too many hours at work was the biggest contributing factor to burnout.
 

The nature of the beast

What is burnout like for these doctors? One described the conditions that lead to burnout like this: “I barely spend enough time with most patients, just running from one to the next; and then after work, I spend hours documenting, charting, dealing with reports. I feel like an overpaid clerk.” Another said: “Where’s the relationships with patients that used to make this worthwhile?” Others fingered staffing shortages at work or an overwhelming home life: “Staff calls in sick; we’re all running around trying to find things and get things done. It never ends.”

Of those who do experience burnout, the problem reaches beyond the workplace, with 54% saying that their burnout has a strong/severe impact on life and 68% reporting that burnout affects their relationships. One respondent said: “I’m always tired; I have trouble concentrating, no time for the children, more arguments with my hubby.” Another put it this way: “Home is just as busy and chaotic as work. I can never relax.”

It doesn’t help matters that physicians are likely to think they’re the only professionals experiencing job burnout. For example, only 36% of respondents believe teachers experience comparable burnout, yet more than 41% of teachers leave the profession within 5 years of starting – often because of burnout.

When it comes to methods for coping with burnout, exercise is the clear favorite, with 63% of respondents saying exercise helps maintain their mental health. About 41% talk with family members or close friends. However, less healthy coping mechanisms were cited as well, such as isolating themselves from others (45%), sleeping (41%), and eating junk food (35%) or drinking alcohol (24%).

When it comes to trying to alleviate burnout, 29% have tried meditation or similar stress-reduction techniques, while others have reduced their work hours (29%) or changed their work settings (19%).
 

‘Now I feel like there’s no hope’

About a fifth of physicians (21%) said they suffered from clinical depression, and 64% reported feeling “blue, down, or sad.” One physician characterized their depression this way: “I used to think my life would be great. Now I feel like there’s no hope, this will never get better, I’ll never be happy.”

Of doctors reporting depression, 53% said their illness did not affect their interactions with patients, while 34% said depression caused them to be more easily exasperated by patients.

When asked about seeking help for depression, about half (49%) said they believed they could deal with emotional stress on their own. Unfortunately, fear of medical boards finding out keeps 43% of physicians from reaching out for help, according to the survey.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two expert analyses appearing in the same issue of the Journal of Thoracic Oncology arrive at opposite conclusions regarding the value for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) of combining first-generation endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with either chemotherapy or vascular EGF (VEGF) monoclonal antibodies. One affirms single-agent EGFR TKI treatment, such as with osimertinib, as the current standard of care for first-line advanced metastatic EGFR-positive mNSCLC, and the other affirms clear benefits for first-generation EGFR TKIs combined with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies.

In the analysis supporting combination therapy for mNSCLC, Sara Moore, MD, and Paul Wheatley-Price MD, wrote that while targeted therapy with EGFR TKIs is highly effective initially, resistance inevitably develops.

Recent data, they stated, have demonstrated that combination strategies can delay development of resistance and improve outcomes for mNSCLC populations. Combining first-generation EGFR TKIs with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies has led to consistent improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in some cases. In the NEJ009 trial, the combination of chemotherapy (carboplatin and pemetrexed, with pemetrexed maintenance) plus gefitinib versus gefitinib alone improved response rate (84% vs. 67%, P < 0.001), PFS (median, 20.9 months vs. 11.2 months; P < .001), and OS (median, 50.9 months vs. 38.8 months; P = .021). An increase in adverse events in the chemotherapy arm led to a decrease in quality of life.

Another clinical trial (by Noronha and colleagues) conducted in India of the same combination found benefit for combination therapy in response rate (75% vs. 63%), PFS (median, 16 months vs. 8 months), and OS (not reached vs. 17 months). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were higher with the combination (51% vs. 25%) with quality of life was not yet reported.

While both trials have been criticized owing to a lack of standard T790M resistance testing and low use of osimertinib in subsequent lines of therapy, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price pointed out: “Even with the use of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, patients may still be exposed to chemotherapy with later lines of treatment. Therefore, combination therapy does not expose patients to new toxicity, it simply changes when they will be exposed to that toxicity during their treatment course.”

The importance of using combination therapy in the first-line setting, they stated, is underscored by the consistent drop-off in patients who receive second-line combination therapy. In the phase 3 FLAURA trial of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, of the patients who discontinued osimertinib, the most common reason for not receiving subsequent therapy was death (60% went on to receive further systemic therapy). This highlights the need to use the most effective treatments up front, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price wrote.

The four large trials of VEGF-targeted therapy with either monoclonal antibodies or TKIs added to first-generation EGFR TKIs have consistently shown improved PFS. Increased toxicities led to discontinuation of VEGF-targeted therapy in 20%-30%.

In the RELAY trial, however, despite more toxicities, quality of life was not diminished. In general, the authors concluded that long-term detriments to quality of life have not been demonstrated. Ongoing studies of osimertinib in combination with VEGF inhibition include a phase 1/2 trial with bevacizumab in previously untreated patients showing an 80% response rate (median PFS, 18.4 months) with no unexpected toxicity.

Chemotherapy-based treatment for mNSCLC with third-generation EGFR TKIs, in appropriately selected patients, the authors concluded, “can offer an additional standard-of-care option as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant lung cancer.”

Since the introduction of EGFR TKIs, Sophie Stock-Martineau, MD and Frances A. Shepherd, MD noted in their analysis, researchers have aimed to improve their efficacy through combining them with other agents. The authors review research on the addition of chemo- or immunotherapy and agents targeting major resistance mechanisms such as MET. Their review of the same NEJ009 trial focuses, however, on the 65.3% (EGFR TKI plus chemotherapy) versus 31.0% (gefitinib alone) grade 3 adverse event rate, and the 51% versus 25% grade 3 adverse event rate in a similar trial by Noronha and colleagues. The review by Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd further found that, while adding antiangiogenic agents to an EGFR TKI “mildly” prolongs PFS, survival benefits have not been demonstrated. The added costs, not just in toxicity, were a “far from negligible” $120,000 above the cost of bevacizumab alone for 16 treatments. Data from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors added to EGFR TKIs reveal heightened toxicities and limited efficacy. Trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies with an EGFR TKI showed no PFS or OS benefit and were terminated early. Similarly, evidence to date shows no benefit beyond that shown for EGFR TKI monotherapy with the addition of a MET inhibitor.

“Adding virtually all agents to EGFR TKIs has been associated with more toxicity to patients and a significant financial burden to the health care system,” Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd concluded, further observing that combinations, given their heightened toxicity profiles, could potentially also worsen quality of life.

No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors of either study.

Two expert analyses appearing in the same issue of the Journal of Thoracic Oncology arrive at opposite conclusions regarding the value for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) of combining first-generation endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with either chemotherapy or vascular EGF (VEGF) monoclonal antibodies. One affirms single-agent EGFR TKI treatment, such as with osimertinib, as the current standard of care for first-line advanced metastatic EGFR-positive mNSCLC, and the other affirms clear benefits for first-generation EGFR TKIs combined with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies.

In the analysis supporting combination therapy for mNSCLC, Sara Moore, MD, and Paul Wheatley-Price MD, wrote that while targeted therapy with EGFR TKIs is highly effective initially, resistance inevitably develops.

Recent data, they stated, have demonstrated that combination strategies can delay development of resistance and improve outcomes for mNSCLC populations. Combining first-generation EGFR TKIs with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies has led to consistent improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in some cases. In the NEJ009 trial, the combination of chemotherapy (carboplatin and pemetrexed, with pemetrexed maintenance) plus gefitinib versus gefitinib alone improved response rate (84% vs. 67%, P < 0.001), PFS (median, 20.9 months vs. 11.2 months; P < .001), and OS (median, 50.9 months vs. 38.8 months; P = .021). An increase in adverse events in the chemotherapy arm led to a decrease in quality of life.

Another clinical trial (by Noronha and colleagues) conducted in India of the same combination found benefit for combination therapy in response rate (75% vs. 63%), PFS (median, 16 months vs. 8 months), and OS (not reached vs. 17 months). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were higher with the combination (51% vs. 25%) with quality of life was not yet reported.

While both trials have been criticized owing to a lack of standard T790M resistance testing and low use of osimertinib in subsequent lines of therapy, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price pointed out: “Even with the use of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, patients may still be exposed to chemotherapy with later lines of treatment. Therefore, combination therapy does not expose patients to new toxicity, it simply changes when they will be exposed to that toxicity during their treatment course.”

The importance of using combination therapy in the first-line setting, they stated, is underscored by the consistent drop-off in patients who receive second-line combination therapy. In the phase 3 FLAURA trial of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, of the patients who discontinued osimertinib, the most common reason for not receiving subsequent therapy was death (60% went on to receive further systemic therapy). This highlights the need to use the most effective treatments up front, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price wrote.

The four large trials of VEGF-targeted therapy with either monoclonal antibodies or TKIs added to first-generation EGFR TKIs have consistently shown improved PFS. Increased toxicities led to discontinuation of VEGF-targeted therapy in 20%-30%.

In the RELAY trial, however, despite more toxicities, quality of life was not diminished. In general, the authors concluded that long-term detriments to quality of life have not been demonstrated. Ongoing studies of osimertinib in combination with VEGF inhibition include a phase 1/2 trial with bevacizumab in previously untreated patients showing an 80% response rate (median PFS, 18.4 months) with no unexpected toxicity.

Chemotherapy-based treatment for mNSCLC with third-generation EGFR TKIs, in appropriately selected patients, the authors concluded, “can offer an additional standard-of-care option as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant lung cancer.”

Since the introduction of EGFR TKIs, Sophie Stock-Martineau, MD and Frances A. Shepherd, MD noted in their analysis, researchers have aimed to improve their efficacy through combining them with other agents. The authors review research on the addition of chemo- or immunotherapy and agents targeting major resistance mechanisms such as MET. Their review of the same NEJ009 trial focuses, however, on the 65.3% (EGFR TKI plus chemotherapy) versus 31.0% (gefitinib alone) grade 3 adverse event rate, and the 51% versus 25% grade 3 adverse event rate in a similar trial by Noronha and colleagues. The review by Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd further found that, while adding antiangiogenic agents to an EGFR TKI “mildly” prolongs PFS, survival benefits have not been demonstrated. The added costs, not just in toxicity, were a “far from negligible” $120,000 above the cost of bevacizumab alone for 16 treatments. Data from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors added to EGFR TKIs reveal heightened toxicities and limited efficacy. Trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies with an EGFR TKI showed no PFS or OS benefit and were terminated early. Similarly, evidence to date shows no benefit beyond that shown for EGFR TKI monotherapy with the addition of a MET inhibitor.

“Adding virtually all agents to EGFR TKIs has been associated with more toxicity to patients and a significant financial burden to the health care system,” Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd concluded, further observing that combinations, given their heightened toxicity profiles, could potentially also worsen quality of life.

No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors of either study.

Two expert analyses appearing in the same issue of the Journal of Thoracic Oncology arrive at opposite conclusions regarding the value for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) of combining first-generation endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with either chemotherapy or vascular EGF (VEGF) monoclonal antibodies. One affirms single-agent EGFR TKI treatment, such as with osimertinib, as the current standard of care for first-line advanced metastatic EGFR-positive mNSCLC, and the other affirms clear benefits for first-generation EGFR TKIs combined with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies.

In the analysis supporting combination therapy for mNSCLC, Sara Moore, MD, and Paul Wheatley-Price MD, wrote that while targeted therapy with EGFR TKIs is highly effective initially, resistance inevitably develops.

Recent data, they stated, have demonstrated that combination strategies can delay development of resistance and improve outcomes for mNSCLC populations. Combining first-generation EGFR TKIs with either chemotherapy or VEGF monoclonal antibodies has led to consistent improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in some cases. In the NEJ009 trial, the combination of chemotherapy (carboplatin and pemetrexed, with pemetrexed maintenance) plus gefitinib versus gefitinib alone improved response rate (84% vs. 67%, P < 0.001), PFS (median, 20.9 months vs. 11.2 months; P < .001), and OS (median, 50.9 months vs. 38.8 months; P = .021). An increase in adverse events in the chemotherapy arm led to a decrease in quality of life.

Another clinical trial (by Noronha and colleagues) conducted in India of the same combination found benefit for combination therapy in response rate (75% vs. 63%), PFS (median, 16 months vs. 8 months), and OS (not reached vs. 17 months). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were higher with the combination (51% vs. 25%) with quality of life was not yet reported.

While both trials have been criticized owing to a lack of standard T790M resistance testing and low use of osimertinib in subsequent lines of therapy, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price pointed out: “Even with the use of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, patients may still be exposed to chemotherapy with later lines of treatment. Therefore, combination therapy does not expose patients to new toxicity, it simply changes when they will be exposed to that toxicity during their treatment course.”

The importance of using combination therapy in the first-line setting, they stated, is underscored by the consistent drop-off in patients who receive second-line combination therapy. In the phase 3 FLAURA trial of first-line osimertinib monotherapy, of the patients who discontinued osimertinib, the most common reason for not receiving subsequent therapy was death (60% went on to receive further systemic therapy). This highlights the need to use the most effective treatments up front, Dr. Moore and Dr. Wheatley-Price wrote.

The four large trials of VEGF-targeted therapy with either monoclonal antibodies or TKIs added to first-generation EGFR TKIs have consistently shown improved PFS. Increased toxicities led to discontinuation of VEGF-targeted therapy in 20%-30%.

In the RELAY trial, however, despite more toxicities, quality of life was not diminished. In general, the authors concluded that long-term detriments to quality of life have not been demonstrated. Ongoing studies of osimertinib in combination with VEGF inhibition include a phase 1/2 trial with bevacizumab in previously untreated patients showing an 80% response rate (median PFS, 18.4 months) with no unexpected toxicity.

Chemotherapy-based treatment for mNSCLC with third-generation EGFR TKIs, in appropriately selected patients, the authors concluded, “can offer an additional standard-of-care option as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant lung cancer.”

Since the introduction of EGFR TKIs, Sophie Stock-Martineau, MD and Frances A. Shepherd, MD noted in their analysis, researchers have aimed to improve their efficacy through combining them with other agents. The authors review research on the addition of chemo- or immunotherapy and agents targeting major resistance mechanisms such as MET. Their review of the same NEJ009 trial focuses, however, on the 65.3% (EGFR TKI plus chemotherapy) versus 31.0% (gefitinib alone) grade 3 adverse event rate, and the 51% versus 25% grade 3 adverse event rate in a similar trial by Noronha and colleagues. The review by Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd further found that, while adding antiangiogenic agents to an EGFR TKI “mildly” prolongs PFS, survival benefits have not been demonstrated. The added costs, not just in toxicity, were a “far from negligible” $120,000 above the cost of bevacizumab alone for 16 treatments. Data from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors added to EGFR TKIs reveal heightened toxicities and limited efficacy. Trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies with an EGFR TKI showed no PFS or OS benefit and were terminated early. Similarly, evidence to date shows no benefit beyond that shown for EGFR TKI monotherapy with the addition of a MET inhibitor.

“Adding virtually all agents to EGFR TKIs has been associated with more toxicity to patients and a significant financial burden to the health care system,” Dr. Stock-Martineau and Dr. Shepherd concluded, further observing that combinations, given their heightened toxicity profiles, could potentially also worsen quality of life.

No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors of either study.

Emergency department visits for atrial fibrillation (AFib) appear to go up on days around some annual events in the United States that many people commemorate by consuming alcohol in excess – think Christmas, New Year’s Day, and Super Bowl Sunday.

The novel finding seemed especially true for people without a previous AFib diagnosis, suggesting that alcohol intake, and especially binge drinking, “may acutely enhance the risk” of new-onset AFib, propose researchers in their Jan. 12 report for the inaugural issue of Nature Cardiovascular Research.

Leveraging an international database of breathalyzer test results, the group saw jumps in alcohol intake across several days surrounding eight “recurrent, nationally recognized events,” which also included U.S. Independence Day and the FIFA World Cup.

They then compared the timing of those events to ED visits linked to acute alcohol ingestion and, separately, to ED visits coded for AFib in 10 years of data that cover all of California.

Collectively, the eight annual occasions for heavy alcohol use corresponded to spikes in both kinds of ED visit. Their relationship to AFib-related visits overall grew in strength when the analysis was restricted to new AFib diagnoses.

The researchers acknowledge the limitations of their observational study. Still, the findings represent “the first evidence that acute exposure to alcohol can lead to a given atrial fib episode in a short period of time, even among those without an established AFib diagnosis,” senior author Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

“The observation that this was detectable in the general population is a warning to those who drink heavily that any one episode of excessive alcohol consumption could land them in the ED with atrial fibrillation,” he said.

It’s “definitely speculation,” but such ED visits could represent an opportunity for individuals to link their new arrhythmia with a specific episode of excessive drinking, strengthening the message that the two are likely connected, Dr. Marcus observed. The experience could potentially inspire some to “reduce or eliminate” their alcohol intake in an effort to avoid future AFib.

The group obtained data from 2014 to 2016 on more than 1.2 million breath alcohol measurements from about 36,000 people in 59 countries, half residing in the United States, who used commercially available breathalyzer devices from one manufacturer (BACtrack).  

The 8 days marking recurrent nationally recognized events, and the days before and after them, were associated with mean blood-alcohol concentrations in the top fifth percentile for the year.

The same eight occasions marked significant bumps in ED visits related to acute alcohol ingestion in records from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), which documented almost 1.2 million such visits from 2005 to 2015.

Collectively in adjusted analysis, the eight nationally recognized events, compared with other days of the year, accounted for 2,640 excess alcohol-related ED visits per 100,000 person-years across all of California (P < .001).

Separately, ED visits coded for a diagnosis of AFib concentrated significantly around those same 8 days, on which there was an excess of 719 such AFib-related visits per 100,000 person-years (P = .008).

The analysis was replicated after exclusion of OSHPD records from anyone with a previous AFib-related ED visit or hospitalization, or previous outpatient procedure related to AFib, such as ablation or cardioversion. It saw 1,757 excess ED visits per 100,000 person-years (P < .001) for what was considered new-onset AFib in association with the eight nationally recognized events, compared with the rest of the year.  

The implication, that a bout of alcohol use leading to an ED visit can acutely raise the risk for a first episode of AFib, was subjected to a “negative control analysis” that focused on ED visits for supraventricular tachycardia. It showed no significant relationships with the eight nationally recognized events.

“We think that helps demonstrate that it’s not just more ED visits, more palpitations, or more heart-related visits per se” associated with acute alcohol use, Dr. Marcus said, “but that it’s something fairly specific to AFib.”

The authors declare no competing interests. Dr. Marcus has previously reported research with Medtronic, Eight Sleep, and Baylis; consulting for InCarda Therapeutics and Johnson & Johnson; and equity in InCarda Therapeutics as cofounder.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergency department visits for atrial fibrillation (AFib) appear to go up on days around some annual events in the United States that many people commemorate by consuming alcohol in excess – think Christmas, New Year’s Day, and Super Bowl Sunday.

The novel finding seemed especially true for people without a previous AFib diagnosis, suggesting that alcohol intake, and especially binge drinking, “may acutely enhance the risk” of new-onset AFib, propose researchers in their Jan. 12 report for the inaugural issue of Nature Cardiovascular Research.

Leveraging an international database of breathalyzer test results, the group saw jumps in alcohol intake across several days surrounding eight “recurrent, nationally recognized events,” which also included U.S. Independence Day and the FIFA World Cup.

They then compared the timing of those events to ED visits linked to acute alcohol ingestion and, separately, to ED visits coded for AFib in 10 years of data that cover all of California.

Collectively, the eight annual occasions for heavy alcohol use corresponded to spikes in both kinds of ED visit. Their relationship to AFib-related visits overall grew in strength when the analysis was restricted to new AFib diagnoses.

The researchers acknowledge the limitations of their observational study. Still, the findings represent “the first evidence that acute exposure to alcohol can lead to a given atrial fib episode in a short period of time, even among those without an established AFib diagnosis,” senior author Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

“The observation that this was detectable in the general population is a warning to those who drink heavily that any one episode of excessive alcohol consumption could land them in the ED with atrial fibrillation,” he said.

It’s “definitely speculation,” but such ED visits could represent an opportunity for individuals to link their new arrhythmia with a specific episode of excessive drinking, strengthening the message that the two are likely connected, Dr. Marcus observed. The experience could potentially inspire some to “reduce or eliminate” their alcohol intake in an effort to avoid future AFib.

The group obtained data from 2014 to 2016 on more than 1.2 million breath alcohol measurements from about 36,000 people in 59 countries, half residing in the United States, who used commercially available breathalyzer devices from one manufacturer (BACtrack).  

The 8 days marking recurrent nationally recognized events, and the days before and after them, were associated with mean blood-alcohol concentrations in the top fifth percentile for the year.

The same eight occasions marked significant bumps in ED visits related to acute alcohol ingestion in records from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), which documented almost 1.2 million such visits from 2005 to 2015.

Collectively in adjusted analysis, the eight nationally recognized events, compared with other days of the year, accounted for 2,640 excess alcohol-related ED visits per 100,000 person-years across all of California (P < .001).

Separately, ED visits coded for a diagnosis of AFib concentrated significantly around those same 8 days, on which there was an excess of 719 such AFib-related visits per 100,000 person-years (P = .008).

The analysis was replicated after exclusion of OSHPD records from anyone with a previous AFib-related ED visit or hospitalization, or previous outpatient procedure related to AFib, such as ablation or cardioversion. It saw 1,757 excess ED visits per 100,000 person-years (P < .001) for what was considered new-onset AFib in association with the eight nationally recognized events, compared with the rest of the year.  

The implication, that a bout of alcohol use leading to an ED visit can acutely raise the risk for a first episode of AFib, was subjected to a “negative control analysis” that focused on ED visits for supraventricular tachycardia. It showed no significant relationships with the eight nationally recognized events.

“We think that helps demonstrate that it’s not just more ED visits, more palpitations, or more heart-related visits per se” associated with acute alcohol use, Dr. Marcus said, “but that it’s something fairly specific to AFib.”

The authors declare no competing interests. Dr. Marcus has previously reported research with Medtronic, Eight Sleep, and Baylis; consulting for InCarda Therapeutics and Johnson & Johnson; and equity in InCarda Therapeutics as cofounder.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergency department visits for atrial fibrillation (AFib) appear to go up on days around some annual events in the United States that many people commemorate by consuming alcohol in excess – think Christmas, New Year’s Day, and Super Bowl Sunday.

The novel finding seemed especially true for people without a previous AFib diagnosis, suggesting that alcohol intake, and especially binge drinking, “may acutely enhance the risk” of new-onset AFib, propose researchers in their Jan. 12 report for the inaugural issue of Nature Cardiovascular Research.

Leveraging an international database of breathalyzer test results, the group saw jumps in alcohol intake across several days surrounding eight “recurrent, nationally recognized events,” which also included U.S. Independence Day and the FIFA World Cup.

They then compared the timing of those events to ED visits linked to acute alcohol ingestion and, separately, to ED visits coded for AFib in 10 years of data that cover all of California.

Collectively, the eight annual occasions for heavy alcohol use corresponded to spikes in both kinds of ED visit. Their relationship to AFib-related visits overall grew in strength when the analysis was restricted to new AFib diagnoses.

The researchers acknowledge the limitations of their observational study. Still, the findings represent “the first evidence that acute exposure to alcohol can lead to a given atrial fib episode in a short period of time, even among those without an established AFib diagnosis,” senior author Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

“The observation that this was detectable in the general population is a warning to those who drink heavily that any one episode of excessive alcohol consumption could land them in the ED with atrial fibrillation,” he said.

It’s “definitely speculation,” but such ED visits could represent an opportunity for individuals to link their new arrhythmia with a specific episode of excessive drinking, strengthening the message that the two are likely connected, Dr. Marcus observed. The experience could potentially inspire some to “reduce or eliminate” their alcohol intake in an effort to avoid future AFib.

The group obtained data from 2014 to 2016 on more than 1.2 million breath alcohol measurements from about 36,000 people in 59 countries, half residing in the United States, who used commercially available breathalyzer devices from one manufacturer (BACtrack).  

The 8 days marking recurrent nationally recognized events, and the days before and after them, were associated with mean blood-alcohol concentrations in the top fifth percentile for the year.

The same eight occasions marked significant bumps in ED visits related to acute alcohol ingestion in records from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), which documented almost 1.2 million such visits from 2005 to 2015.

Collectively in adjusted analysis, the eight nationally recognized events, compared with other days of the year, accounted for 2,640 excess alcohol-related ED visits per 100,000 person-years across all of California (P < .001).

Separately, ED visits coded for a diagnosis of AFib concentrated significantly around those same 8 days, on which there was an excess of 719 such AFib-related visits per 100,000 person-years (P = .008).

The analysis was replicated after exclusion of OSHPD records from anyone with a previous AFib-related ED visit or hospitalization, or previous outpatient procedure related to AFib, such as ablation or cardioversion. It saw 1,757 excess ED visits per 100,000 person-years (P < .001) for what was considered new-onset AFib in association with the eight nationally recognized events, compared with the rest of the year.  

The implication, that a bout of alcohol use leading to an ED visit can acutely raise the risk for a first episode of AFib, was subjected to a “negative control analysis” that focused on ED visits for supraventricular tachycardia. It showed no significant relationships with the eight nationally recognized events.

“We think that helps demonstrate that it’s not just more ED visits, more palpitations, or more heart-related visits per se” associated with acute alcohol use, Dr. Marcus said, “but that it’s something fairly specific to AFib.”

The authors declare no competing interests. Dr. Marcus has previously reported research with Medtronic, Eight Sleep, and Baylis; consulting for InCarda Therapeutics and Johnson & Johnson; and equity in InCarda Therapeutics as cofounder.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Abraxane, a chemotherapy treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, advanced non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, is on allocation through early March because of manufacturing delays, forcing physicians to find alternatives for a drug once lauded for being easier to tolerate.

Abraxane (Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a paclitaxel albumin-bound injectable. It is different from alternative chemotherapy treatments like Taxol (paclitaxel) because it doesn’t use the solvents that can make Taxol difficult to tolerate. It was described as a “next-generation taxane” because it didn’t rely on solvents. It was approved in 2005 for metastatic breast cancer, then in 2012 for advanced non–small cell lung cancer, in 2013 for late-stage pancreatic cancer and in 2019 for people with PD-L1–positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

The shortage, which was announced on Oct. 5, 2021, by the Food and Drug Administration, has led to some difficult decisions for patients and physicians. How long the shortage will last isn’t clear.

“I printed out [an] allotment sheet 2 days ago, and all it says [for Abraxane] is allocated,” said Kathy Oubre, MS, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Hammond, La. “Everyone is keeping what they’ve got for their own patients, so there really isn’t anything available.”

The Pontchartrain Cancer Center sent two patients to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, for continued treatment with Abraxane, but that option is costly and time consuming for patients. The two patients had the means to travel, but Ms. Oubre said that many others cannot afford to travel for treatment. “Everyone has patients who are living paycheck to paycheck who certainly couldn’t afford to do that. There are going to be patients across the nation that are not going to be able to have care as a result of these things.”

The supply problems are causing difficult decisions for physicians, who may have to switch a patient from an unavailable drug to an alternative that isn’t as effective, Ms. Oubre said. “I can’t imagine the stress and the sadness that the physicians have to feel when they have to go explain that to a patient. That runs counter to everything they are as physicians.”

Other strategies include chemo holidays and rounding down doses in patients with metastatic cancer, according to Camille Hill, PharmD, vice president of oncology pharmacy services, West Cancer Center, Germantown, Tenn.

Shortages and allocations are growing at an alarming rate, Ms. Oubre said. In her 15 years of working in the industry, “I don’t recall it ever being this challenging.” During a Zoom interview, she held up a lengthy list of drugs on allocation or unavailable that her pharmacy group purchasing organization sent her the previous week. “I don’t ever recall getting this kind of list. Every 3 days, I’m getting this. If it were just that one product, I can live with that. We figure it out. But it’s bigger than that.”

Worker shortages are exacerbating the issue. Ms. Oubre received a letter from a drug company describing its employee issues, which included chemists, plant workers, and loading dock staff. On top of that, delivery companies are experiencing staff shortages, which can result in more delays and complicate matters further. “It’s just compounding. These things can get really difficult very quickly. I don’t want to say we’re in crisis, and we’re not rationing care. We’re not in those buckets yet. But I would say that if these things don’t get better, it’s the first time in my work career that we are having those conversations of: ‘How we are going to plan for that it does come to that?’ ” she said.

“In general, with the pandemic, we have seen all sorts of just disruptions to the supply chain. So, I think you just do your best, you find alternatives for those patients that you can, and you come up with strategies. I don’t know that for Abraxane, or any other product, that I’d be particularly confident that we may not see another shortage,” Dr. Hill said.

Abraxane, a chemotherapy treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, advanced non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, is on allocation through early March because of manufacturing delays, forcing physicians to find alternatives for a drug once lauded for being easier to tolerate.

Abraxane (Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a paclitaxel albumin-bound injectable. It is different from alternative chemotherapy treatments like Taxol (paclitaxel) because it doesn’t use the solvents that can make Taxol difficult to tolerate. It was described as a “next-generation taxane” because it didn’t rely on solvents. It was approved in 2005 for metastatic breast cancer, then in 2012 for advanced non–small cell lung cancer, in 2013 for late-stage pancreatic cancer and in 2019 for people with PD-L1–positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

The shortage, which was announced on Oct. 5, 2021, by the Food and Drug Administration, has led to some difficult decisions for patients and physicians. How long the shortage will last isn’t clear.

“I printed out [an] allotment sheet 2 days ago, and all it says [for Abraxane] is allocated,” said Kathy Oubre, MS, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Hammond, La. “Everyone is keeping what they’ve got for their own patients, so there really isn’t anything available.”

The Pontchartrain Cancer Center sent two patients to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, for continued treatment with Abraxane, but that option is costly and time consuming for patients. The two patients had the means to travel, but Ms. Oubre said that many others cannot afford to travel for treatment. “Everyone has patients who are living paycheck to paycheck who certainly couldn’t afford to do that. There are going to be patients across the nation that are not going to be able to have care as a result of these things.”

The supply problems are causing difficult decisions for physicians, who may have to switch a patient from an unavailable drug to an alternative that isn’t as effective, Ms. Oubre said. “I can’t imagine the stress and the sadness that the physicians have to feel when they have to go explain that to a patient. That runs counter to everything they are as physicians.”

Other strategies include chemo holidays and rounding down doses in patients with metastatic cancer, according to Camille Hill, PharmD, vice president of oncology pharmacy services, West Cancer Center, Germantown, Tenn.

Shortages and allocations are growing at an alarming rate, Ms. Oubre said. In her 15 years of working in the industry, “I don’t recall it ever being this challenging.” During a Zoom interview, she held up a lengthy list of drugs on allocation or unavailable that her pharmacy group purchasing organization sent her the previous week. “I don’t ever recall getting this kind of list. Every 3 days, I’m getting this. If it were just that one product, I can live with that. We figure it out. But it’s bigger than that.”

Worker shortages are exacerbating the issue. Ms. Oubre received a letter from a drug company describing its employee issues, which included chemists, plant workers, and loading dock staff. On top of that, delivery companies are experiencing staff shortages, which can result in more delays and complicate matters further. “It’s just compounding. These things can get really difficult very quickly. I don’t want to say we’re in crisis, and we’re not rationing care. We’re not in those buckets yet. But I would say that if these things don’t get better, it’s the first time in my work career that we are having those conversations of: ‘How we are going to plan for that it does come to that?’ ” she said.

“In general, with the pandemic, we have seen all sorts of just disruptions to the supply chain. So, I think you just do your best, you find alternatives for those patients that you can, and you come up with strategies. I don’t know that for Abraxane, or any other product, that I’d be particularly confident that we may not see another shortage,” Dr. Hill said.

Abraxane, a chemotherapy treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, advanced non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, is on allocation through early March because of manufacturing delays, forcing physicians to find alternatives for a drug once lauded for being easier to tolerate.

Abraxane (Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a paclitaxel albumin-bound injectable. It is different from alternative chemotherapy treatments like Taxol (paclitaxel) because it doesn’t use the solvents that can make Taxol difficult to tolerate. It was described as a “next-generation taxane” because it didn’t rely on solvents. It was approved in 2005 for metastatic breast cancer, then in 2012 for advanced non–small cell lung cancer, in 2013 for late-stage pancreatic cancer and in 2019 for people with PD-L1–positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

The shortage, which was announced on Oct. 5, 2021, by the Food and Drug Administration, has led to some difficult decisions for patients and physicians. How long the shortage will last isn’t clear.

“I printed out [an] allotment sheet 2 days ago, and all it says [for Abraxane] is allocated,” said Kathy Oubre, MS, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Hammond, La. “Everyone is keeping what they’ve got for their own patients, so there really isn’t anything available.”

The Pontchartrain Cancer Center sent two patients to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, for continued treatment with Abraxane, but that option is costly and time consuming for patients. The two patients had the means to travel, but Ms. Oubre said that many others cannot afford to travel for treatment. “Everyone has patients who are living paycheck to paycheck who certainly couldn’t afford to do that. There are going to be patients across the nation that are not going to be able to have care as a result of these things.”

The supply problems are causing difficult decisions for physicians, who may have to switch a patient from an unavailable drug to an alternative that isn’t as effective, Ms. Oubre said. “I can’t imagine the stress and the sadness that the physicians have to feel when they have to go explain that to a patient. That runs counter to everything they are as physicians.”

Other strategies include chemo holidays and rounding down doses in patients with metastatic cancer, according to Camille Hill, PharmD, vice president of oncology pharmacy services, West Cancer Center, Germantown, Tenn.

Shortages and allocations are growing at an alarming rate, Ms. Oubre said. In her 15 years of working in the industry, “I don’t recall it ever being this challenging.” During a Zoom interview, she held up a lengthy list of drugs on allocation or unavailable that her pharmacy group purchasing organization sent her the previous week. “I don’t ever recall getting this kind of list. Every 3 days, I’m getting this. If it were just that one product, I can live with that. We figure it out. But it’s bigger than that.”

Worker shortages are exacerbating the issue. Ms. Oubre received a letter from a drug company describing its employee issues, which included chemists, plant workers, and loading dock staff. On top of that, delivery companies are experiencing staff shortages, which can result in more delays and complicate matters further. “It’s just compounding. These things can get really difficult very quickly. I don’t want to say we’re in crisis, and we’re not rationing care. We’re not in those buckets yet. But I would say that if these things don’t get better, it’s the first time in my work career that we are having those conversations of: ‘How we are going to plan for that it does come to that?’ ” she said.

“In general, with the pandemic, we have seen all sorts of just disruptions to the supply chain. So, I think you just do your best, you find alternatives for those patients that you can, and you come up with strategies. I don’t know that for Abraxane, or any other product, that I’d be particularly confident that we may not see another shortage,” Dr. Hill said.

Postacute COVID syndrome (PACS), an ongoing inflammatory state following infection with SARS-CoV-2, is associated with greater risk of metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD), according to an analysis of patients at a single clinic in Canada published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

MAFLD, also known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), is considered an indicator of general health and is in turn linked to greater risk of cardiovascular complications and mortality. It may be a multisystem disorder with various underlying causes.

Postacute COVID syndrome (PACS), an ongoing inflammatory state following infection with SARS-CoV-2, is associated with greater risk of metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD), according to an analysis of patients at a single clinic in Canada published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

MAFLD, also known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), is considered an indicator of general health and is in turn linked to greater risk of cardiovascular complications and mortality. It may be a multisystem disorder with various underlying causes.

Postacute COVID syndrome (PACS), an ongoing inflammatory state following infection with SARS-CoV-2, is associated with greater risk of metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD), according to an analysis of patients at a single clinic in Canada published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

MAFLD, also known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), is considered an indicator of general health and is in turn linked to greater risk of cardiovascular complications and mortality. It may be a multisystem disorder with various underlying causes.

Two close colleagues at New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, world leaders in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) who were both promoted days after COVID-19 locked down the city in 2020, were too busy battling the pandemic’s impact on patients in the summer of 2021 to notice their latest shared career milestone.

On July 29, 2021, Sergio Giralt, MD, deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies and Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC, published their 100th peer-reviewed paper as coauthors. Listing hundreds of such articles on a CV is standard for top-tier physicians, but the pair had gone one better: 100 publications written together in 10 years.

Their centenary article hit scientific newsstands almost exactly a decade after their first joint paper, which appeared in September 2011, not long after they met.

Born in Cuba, Dr. Giralt grew up in Venezuela. From the age of 14, he knew that medicine was his path, and in 1984 he earned a medical degree from the Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas. Next came a research position at Harvard Medical School, a residency at the Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, and a fellowship at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC in 2010 as the new chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. There he was introduced to a new colleague, Dr. Perales. They soon learned that in addition to expertise in hematology, they had second language in common: Spanish.

Dr. Giralt said: “We both have a Spanish background and in a certain sense, there was an affinity there. ... We both have shared experiences.”

Dr. Perales was brought up in Belgium, a European nation with three official languages: French, Dutch, and German. He speaks five tongues in all and learned Spanish from his father, who came from Spain.

Courtesy MSKCC

Fluency in Spanish enables both physicians to take care of the many New Yorkers who are more comfortable in that language – especially when navigating cancer treatment. However, both Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales said that a second language is more than a professional tool. They described the enjoyable change of persona that happens when they switch to Spanish.

“People who are multilingual have different roles [as much as] different languages,” said Dr. Perales. “When I’m in Spanish, part of my brain is [thinking back to] summer vacations and hanging out with my cousins.”

When it comes to clinical science, however, English is the language of choice.
 

Global leaders in HSCT

Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales are known worldwide in the field of allogeneic HSCT, a potentially curative treatment for an elongating list of both malignant and nonmalignant diseases.

In 1973, MSKCC conducted the first bone-marrow transplant from an unrelated donor. Fifty years on, medical oncologists in the United States conduct approximately 8,500 allogeneic transplants each year, 72% to treat acute leukemias or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

However, stripping the immune system with intensive chemotherapy ‘conditioning,’ then rebuilding it with non-diseased donor hematopoietic cells is a hazardous undertaking. Older patients are less likely to survive the intensive conditioning, so historically have missed out. Also, even with a good human leukocyte antigen (HLA) match, the recipient needs often brutal immunosuppression.

Since Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales began their partnership in 2010, the goals of their work have not changed: to develop safer, lower-intensity transplantation suitable for older, more vulnerable patients and reduce fearsome posttransplant sequelae such as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

Dr. Giralt’s publication list spans more than 600 peer-reviewed papers, articles and book chapters, almost exclusively on HSCT. Dr. Perales has more than 300 publication credits on the topic.

The two paired up on their first paper just months after Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC. That article, published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, compared umbilical cord blood for HSCT with donor blood in 367 people with a variety of hematologic malignancies, including acute and chronic leukemias, MDS, and lymphoma.

Courtesy MSKCC

The MSKCC team found that transplant-related mortality in the first 180 days was higher for the cord blood (21%), but thereafter mortality and relapse were much lower than for donated blood, with the result that 2-year progression-free survival of 55% was similar. Dr. Perales, Dr. Giralt and their coauthors concluded that the data provided “strong support” for further work on cord blood as an alternative stem-cell source.

During their first decade of collaboration, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales worked on any promising avenue that could improve outcomes and the experience of HSCT recipients, including reduced-intensity conditioning regimens to allow older adults to benefit from curative HSCT and donor T-cell depletion by CD34 selection, to reduce graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

The CD34 protein is typically found on the surface of early stage and highly active stem cell types. Selecting these cell types using a range of techniques can eliminate many other potentially interfering or inactive cells. This enriches the transplant population with the most effective cells and can lower the risk of GVHD.

The 100th paper on which Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales were coauthors was published in Blood Advances on July 27, 2021. The retrospective study examined the fate of 58 MSKCC patients with a rare form of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, CLL with Richter’s transformation (CLL-RT). It was the largest such study to date of this rare disease.
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center had shown in 2006 that, despite chemotherapy, overall survival in patients with CLL-RT was approximately 8 months. HSCT improved survival dramatically (75% at 3 years; n = 7). However, with the advent of novel targeted drugs for CLL such as ibrutinib (Imbruvica), venetoclax (Venclexta), or idelalisib (Zydelig), the MSKCC team asked themselves: What was the role of reduced-intensive conditioning HSCT? Was it even safe? Among other findings, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales’ 100th paper showed that reduced-intensity HSCT remained a viable alternative after a CLL-RT patient progressed on a novel agent.

Impact of the pandemic

When COVID-19 hit, the team lost many research staff and developed a huge backlog, said Dr. Giralt. He and Dr. Perales realized that they needed to be “thoughtful and careful” about which studies to continue. “For example, the CD-34 selection trials we did not close because these are our workhorse trials,” Dr. Giralt said. “We have people we need to treat, and some of the patients that we need to treat can only be treated on trial.”

The team was also able to pivot some of their work into COVID 19 itself, and they collected crucial information on HSCT in recovered COVID-19 patients, as an example.

“We were living through a critical time, but that doesn’t mean we [aren’t] obligated to continue our mission, our research mission,” said Dr. Giralt. “It really is team science. The way we look at it ... there’s a common thread: We both like to do allogeneic transplant, and we both believe in trying to make CD-34 selection better. So we’re both very much [working on] how can we improve what we call ‘the Memorial way’ of doing transplants. Where we separate is, Miguel does primarily lymphoma. He doesn’t do myeloma [like me]. So in those two areas, we’re helping develop the junior faculty in a different way.”
 

Something more in common

Right from the start, Dr. Perales and Dr. Giralt also shared a commitment to mentoring. Since 2010, Dr. Perales has mentored 22 up-and-coming junior faculty, including 10 from Europe (8 from Spain) and 2 from Latin America.

“[It makes] the research enterprise much more productive but [these young scientists] really increase the visibility of the program,” said Dr. Giralt.

He cited Dr. Perales’ track record of mentoring as one of the reasons for his promotion to chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. In March 2020, Dr. Perales seamlessly stepped into Dr. Giralt’s shoes, while Dr. Giralt moved on to his present role as deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies.

Dr. Perales said: “The key aspect [of these promotions] is the fantastic working relationship that we’ve had over the years. ... I consider Sergio my mentor, but also a good friend and colleague. And so I think it’s this ability that we’ve had to work together and that relationship of trust, which has been key.”

“Sergio is somebody who lifts people up,” Dr. Perales added. “Many people will tell you that Sergio has helped them in their career. ... And I think that’s a lesson I’ve learned from him: training the next generation. And [that’s] not just in the U.S., but outside. I think that’s a key role that we have. And our responsibility.”

Asked to comment on their 100th-paper milestone, Dr. Perales firmly turned the spotlight from himself and Dr. Giralt to the junior investigators who have passed through the doors of the bone-marrow transplant program: “This body of work represents not just our collaboration but also the many contributions of our team at MSK ... and beyond MSK.”

This article was updated 1/26/22.

Two close colleagues at New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, world leaders in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) who were both promoted days after COVID-19 locked down the city in 2020, were too busy battling the pandemic’s impact on patients in the summer of 2021 to notice their latest shared career milestone.

On July 29, 2021, Sergio Giralt, MD, deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies and Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC, published their 100th peer-reviewed paper as coauthors. Listing hundreds of such articles on a CV is standard for top-tier physicians, but the pair had gone one better: 100 publications written together in 10 years.

Their centenary article hit scientific newsstands almost exactly a decade after their first joint paper, which appeared in September 2011, not long after they met.

Born in Cuba, Dr. Giralt grew up in Venezuela. From the age of 14, he knew that medicine was his path, and in 1984 he earned a medical degree from the Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas. Next came a research position at Harvard Medical School, a residency at the Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, and a fellowship at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC in 2010 as the new chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. There he was introduced to a new colleague, Dr. Perales. They soon learned that in addition to expertise in hematology, they had second language in common: Spanish.

Dr. Giralt said: “We both have a Spanish background and in a certain sense, there was an affinity there. ... We both have shared experiences.”

Dr. Perales was brought up in Belgium, a European nation with three official languages: French, Dutch, and German. He speaks five tongues in all and learned Spanish from his father, who came from Spain.

Courtesy MSKCC

Fluency in Spanish enables both physicians to take care of the many New Yorkers who are more comfortable in that language – especially when navigating cancer treatment. However, both Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales said that a second language is more than a professional tool. They described the enjoyable change of persona that happens when they switch to Spanish.

“People who are multilingual have different roles [as much as] different languages,” said Dr. Perales. “When I’m in Spanish, part of my brain is [thinking back to] summer vacations and hanging out with my cousins.”

When it comes to clinical science, however, English is the language of choice.
 

Global leaders in HSCT

Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales are known worldwide in the field of allogeneic HSCT, a potentially curative treatment for an elongating list of both malignant and nonmalignant diseases.

In 1973, MSKCC conducted the first bone-marrow transplant from an unrelated donor. Fifty years on, medical oncologists in the United States conduct approximately 8,500 allogeneic transplants each year, 72% to treat acute leukemias or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

However, stripping the immune system with intensive chemotherapy ‘conditioning,’ then rebuilding it with non-diseased donor hematopoietic cells is a hazardous undertaking. Older patients are less likely to survive the intensive conditioning, so historically have missed out. Also, even with a good human leukocyte antigen (HLA) match, the recipient needs often brutal immunosuppression.

Since Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales began their partnership in 2010, the goals of their work have not changed: to develop safer, lower-intensity transplantation suitable for older, more vulnerable patients and reduce fearsome posttransplant sequelae such as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

Dr. Giralt’s publication list spans more than 600 peer-reviewed papers, articles and book chapters, almost exclusively on HSCT. Dr. Perales has more than 300 publication credits on the topic.

The two paired up on their first paper just months after Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC. That article, published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, compared umbilical cord blood for HSCT with donor blood in 367 people with a variety of hematologic malignancies, including acute and chronic leukemias, MDS, and lymphoma.

Courtesy MSKCC

The MSKCC team found that transplant-related mortality in the first 180 days was higher for the cord blood (21%), but thereafter mortality and relapse were much lower than for donated blood, with the result that 2-year progression-free survival of 55% was similar. Dr. Perales, Dr. Giralt and their coauthors concluded that the data provided “strong support” for further work on cord blood as an alternative stem-cell source.

During their first decade of collaboration, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales worked on any promising avenue that could improve outcomes and the experience of HSCT recipients, including reduced-intensity conditioning regimens to allow older adults to benefit from curative HSCT and donor T-cell depletion by CD34 selection, to reduce graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

The CD34 protein is typically found on the surface of early stage and highly active stem cell types. Selecting these cell types using a range of techniques can eliminate many other potentially interfering or inactive cells. This enriches the transplant population with the most effective cells and can lower the risk of GVHD.

The 100th paper on which Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales were coauthors was published in Blood Advances on July 27, 2021. The retrospective study examined the fate of 58 MSKCC patients with a rare form of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, CLL with Richter’s transformation (CLL-RT). It was the largest such study to date of this rare disease.
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center had shown in 2006 that, despite chemotherapy, overall survival in patients with CLL-RT was approximately 8 months. HSCT improved survival dramatically (75% at 3 years; n = 7). However, with the advent of novel targeted drugs for CLL such as ibrutinib (Imbruvica), venetoclax (Venclexta), or idelalisib (Zydelig), the MSKCC team asked themselves: What was the role of reduced-intensive conditioning HSCT? Was it even safe? Among other findings, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales’ 100th paper showed that reduced-intensity HSCT remained a viable alternative after a CLL-RT patient progressed on a novel agent.

Impact of the pandemic

When COVID-19 hit, the team lost many research staff and developed a huge backlog, said Dr. Giralt. He and Dr. Perales realized that they needed to be “thoughtful and careful” about which studies to continue. “For example, the CD-34 selection trials we did not close because these are our workhorse trials,” Dr. Giralt said. “We have people we need to treat, and some of the patients that we need to treat can only be treated on trial.”

The team was also able to pivot some of their work into COVID 19 itself, and they collected crucial information on HSCT in recovered COVID-19 patients, as an example.

“We were living through a critical time, but that doesn’t mean we [aren’t] obligated to continue our mission, our research mission,” said Dr. Giralt. “It really is team science. The way we look at it ... there’s a common thread: We both like to do allogeneic transplant, and we both believe in trying to make CD-34 selection better. So we’re both very much [working on] how can we improve what we call ‘the Memorial way’ of doing transplants. Where we separate is, Miguel does primarily lymphoma. He doesn’t do myeloma [like me]. So in those two areas, we’re helping develop the junior faculty in a different way.”
 

Something more in common

Right from the start, Dr. Perales and Dr. Giralt also shared a commitment to mentoring. Since 2010, Dr. Perales has mentored 22 up-and-coming junior faculty, including 10 from Europe (8 from Spain) and 2 from Latin America.

“[It makes] the research enterprise much more productive but [these young scientists] really increase the visibility of the program,” said Dr. Giralt.

He cited Dr. Perales’ track record of mentoring as one of the reasons for his promotion to chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. In March 2020, Dr. Perales seamlessly stepped into Dr. Giralt’s shoes, while Dr. Giralt moved on to his present role as deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies.

Dr. Perales said: “The key aspect [of these promotions] is the fantastic working relationship that we’ve had over the years. ... I consider Sergio my mentor, but also a good friend and colleague. And so I think it’s this ability that we’ve had to work together and that relationship of trust, which has been key.”

“Sergio is somebody who lifts people up,” Dr. Perales added. “Many people will tell you that Sergio has helped them in their career. ... And I think that’s a lesson I’ve learned from him: training the next generation. And [that’s] not just in the U.S., but outside. I think that’s a key role that we have. And our responsibility.”

Asked to comment on their 100th-paper milestone, Dr. Perales firmly turned the spotlight from himself and Dr. Giralt to the junior investigators who have passed through the doors of the bone-marrow transplant program: “This body of work represents not just our collaboration but also the many contributions of our team at MSK ... and beyond MSK.”

This article was updated 1/26/22.

Two close colleagues at New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, world leaders in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) who were both promoted days after COVID-19 locked down the city in 2020, were too busy battling the pandemic’s impact on patients in the summer of 2021 to notice their latest shared career milestone.

On July 29, 2021, Sergio Giralt, MD, deputy division head of the division of hematologic malignancies and Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC, published their 100th peer-reviewed paper as coauthors. Listing hundreds of such articles on a CV is standard for top-tier physicians, but the pair had gone one better: 100 publications written together in 10 years.

Their centenary article hit scientific newsstands almost exactly a decade after their first joint paper, which appeared in September 2011, not long after they met.

Born in Cuba, Dr. Giralt grew up in Venezuela. From the age of 14, he knew that medicine was his path, and in 1984 he earned a medical degree from the Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas. Next came a research position at Harvard Medical School, a residency at the Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, and a fellowship at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC in 2010 as the new chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service. There he was introduced to a new colleague, Dr. Perales. They soon learned that in addition to expertise in hematology, they had second language in common: Spanish.

Dr. Giralt said: “We both have a Spanish background and in a certain sense, there was an affinity there. ... We both have shared experiences.”

Dr. Perales was brought up in Belgium, a European nation with three official languages: French, Dutch, and German. He speaks five tongues in all and learned Spanish from his father, who came from Spain.

Courtesy MSKCC

Fluency in Spanish enables both physicians to take care of the many New Yorkers who are more comfortable in that language – especially when navigating cancer treatment. However, both Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales said that a second language is more than a professional tool. They described the enjoyable change of persona that happens when they switch to Spanish.

“People who are multilingual have different roles [as much as] different languages,” said Dr. Perales. “When I’m in Spanish, part of my brain is [thinking back to] summer vacations and hanging out with my cousins.”

When it comes to clinical science, however, English is the language of choice.
 

Global leaders in HSCT

Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales are known worldwide in the field of allogeneic HSCT, a potentially curative treatment for an elongating list of both malignant and nonmalignant diseases.

In 1973, MSKCC conducted the first bone-marrow transplant from an unrelated donor. Fifty years on, medical oncologists in the United States conduct approximately 8,500 allogeneic transplants each year, 72% to treat acute leukemias or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

However, stripping the immune system with intensive chemotherapy ‘conditioning,’ then rebuilding it with non-diseased donor hematopoietic cells is a hazardous undertaking. Older patients are less likely to survive the intensive conditioning, so historically have missed out. Also, even with a good human leukocyte antigen (HLA) match, the recipient needs often brutal immunosuppression.

Since Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales began their partnership in 2010, the goals of their work have not changed: to develop safer, lower-intensity transplantation suitable for older, more vulnerable patients and reduce fearsome posttransplant sequelae such as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

Dr. Giralt’s publication list spans more than 600 peer-reviewed papers, articles and book chapters, almost exclusively on HSCT. Dr. Perales has more than 300 publication credits on the topic.

The two paired up on their first paper just months after Dr. Giralt arrived at MSKCC. That article, published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, compared umbilical cord blood for HSCT with donor blood in 367 people with a variety of hematologic malignancies, including acute and chronic leukemias, MDS, and lymphoma.

Courtesy MSKCC

The MSKCC team found that transplant-related mortality in the first 180 days was higher for the cord blood (21%), but thereafter mortality and relapse were much lower than for donated blood, with the result that 2-year progression-free survival of 55% was similar. Dr. Perales, Dr. Giralt and their coauthors concluded that the data provided “strong support” for further work on cord blood as an alternative stem-cell source.

During their first decade of collaboration, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales worked on any promising avenue that could improve outcomes and the experience of HSCT recipients, including reduced-intensity conditioning regimens to allow older adults to benefit from curative HSCT and donor T-cell depletion by CD34 selection, to reduce graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

The CD34 protein is typically found on the surface of early stage and highly active stem cell types. Selecting these cell types using a range of techniques can eliminate many other potentially interfering or inactive cells. This enriches the transplant population with the most effective cells and can lower the risk of GVHD.

The 100th paper on which Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales were coauthors was published in Blood Advances on July 27, 2021. The retrospective study examined the fate of 58 MSKCC patients with a rare form of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, CLL with Richter’s transformation (CLL-RT). It was the largest such study to date of this rare disease.
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center had shown in 2006 that, despite chemotherapy, overall survival in patients with CLL-RT was approximately 8 months. HSCT improved survival dramatically (75% at 3 years; n = 7). However, with the advent of novel targeted drugs for CLL such as ibrutinib (Imbruvica), venetoclax (Venclexta), or idelalisib (Zydelig), the MSKCC team asked themselves: What was the role of reduced-intensive conditioning HSCT? Was it even safe? Among other findings, Dr. Giralt and Dr. Perales’ 100th paper showed that reduced-intensity HSCT remained a viable alternative after a CLL-RT patient progressed on a novel agent.