Hematology News

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

Hypomethylating agents are generally considered to be agents of choice for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia who cannot tolerate the rigors of more intensive therapies, but HMAs also can serve as a bridge to transplant for children and young adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia.

That’s according to Himalee S. Sabnis, MD, MSc and colleagues at Emory University and the Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

In a scientific poster presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, the investigators reported results of a retrospective study of HMA use in patients with relapsed or refractory pediatric AML treated in their center.
 

Curative intent and palliation

They identified 25 patients (15 boys) with a median age of 8.3 years (range 1.4 to 21 years) with relapsed/refractory AML who received HMAs for curative intent prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), palliation, or in combination with donor leukocyte infusion (DLI).

Of the 21 patients with relapsed disease, 16 were in first relapse and 5 were in second relapse or greater. Four of the patients had primary refractory disease. The cytogenetic and molecular features were KMT2A rearrangements in six patients, monosomy 7/deletion 7 q in four patients, 8;21 translocation in three patients, and FLT3-ITD mutations in four patients.

The patients received a median of 5.3 HMA cycles each. Of the 133 total HMA cycles, 87 were with azacitidine, and 46 were with decitabine.

HMAs were used as monotherapy in 62% of cycles, and in combination with other therapies in 38%. Of the combinations, 16 were with donor leukocyte infusion, and 9 were gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg).

Of the 13 patients for whom HMAs were used as part of treatment plan with curative intent, 5 proceeded to HSCT, and 8 did not. Of the 5 patients, 1 died from transplant-related causes, and 4 were alive post transplant. Of the 8 patients who did not undergo transplant, 1 had chimeric antigen receptor T- cell (CAR T) therapy, and 7 experienced disease progression.

The mean duration of palliative care was 144 days, with patients receiving from one to nine cycles with an HMA, and no treatment interruptions due to toxicity.

Of 5 patients who received donor leukocyte infusions, 3 reached minimal residual disease negativity; all 3 of these patients had late relapses but remained long-term survivors, the investigators reported.

They concluded that “hypomethylating agents can be used effectively as a bridge to transplantation in relapsed and refractory AML with gemtuzumab ozogamicin being the most common agent for combination therapy. Palliation with HMAs is associated with low toxicity and high tolerability in relapsed/refractory AML. Use of HMAs with DLI can induce sustained remissions in some patients.”

The authors propose prospective clinical trials using HMAs in the relapsed/refractory pediatric AML setting in combination with gemtuzumab ozogamicin, alternative targeted agents, and chemotherapy.

HMAs in treatment-related AML

Shilpa Shahani, MD, a pediatric oncologist and assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., who was not involved in the study, has experience administering HMAs primarily in the adolescent and young adult population with AML.

“Azacitidine and decitabine are good for treatment-related leukemias,” she said in an interview. “They can be used otherwise for people who have relapsed disease and are trying to navigate other options.”

Although they are not standard first-line agents in younger patients, HMAs can play a useful role in therapy for relapsed or refractory disease, she said.

The authors and Dr. Shahani reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Hypomethylating agents are generally considered to be agents of choice for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia who cannot tolerate the rigors of more intensive therapies, but HMAs also can serve as a bridge to transplant for children and young adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia.

That’s according to Himalee S. Sabnis, MD, MSc and colleagues at Emory University and the Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

In a scientific poster presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, the investigators reported results of a retrospective study of HMA use in patients with relapsed or refractory pediatric AML treated in their center.
 

Curative intent and palliation

They identified 25 patients (15 boys) with a median age of 8.3 years (range 1.4 to 21 years) with relapsed/refractory AML who received HMAs for curative intent prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), palliation, or in combination with donor leukocyte infusion (DLI).

Of the 21 patients with relapsed disease, 16 were in first relapse and 5 were in second relapse or greater. Four of the patients had primary refractory disease. The cytogenetic and molecular features were KMT2A rearrangements in six patients, monosomy 7/deletion 7 q in four patients, 8;21 translocation in three patients, and FLT3-ITD mutations in four patients.

The patients received a median of 5.3 HMA cycles each. Of the 133 total HMA cycles, 87 were with azacitidine, and 46 were with decitabine.

HMAs were used as monotherapy in 62% of cycles, and in combination with other therapies in 38%. Of the combinations, 16 were with donor leukocyte infusion, and 9 were gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg).

Of the 13 patients for whom HMAs were used as part of treatment plan with curative intent, 5 proceeded to HSCT, and 8 did not. Of the 5 patients, 1 died from transplant-related causes, and 4 were alive post transplant. Of the 8 patients who did not undergo transplant, 1 had chimeric antigen receptor T- cell (CAR T) therapy, and 7 experienced disease progression.

The mean duration of palliative care was 144 days, with patients receiving from one to nine cycles with an HMA, and no treatment interruptions due to toxicity.

Of 5 patients who received donor leukocyte infusions, 3 reached minimal residual disease negativity; all 3 of these patients had late relapses but remained long-term survivors, the investigators reported.

They concluded that “hypomethylating agents can be used effectively as a bridge to transplantation in relapsed and refractory AML with gemtuzumab ozogamicin being the most common agent for combination therapy. Palliation with HMAs is associated with low toxicity and high tolerability in relapsed/refractory AML. Use of HMAs with DLI can induce sustained remissions in some patients.”

The authors propose prospective clinical trials using HMAs in the relapsed/refractory pediatric AML setting in combination with gemtuzumab ozogamicin, alternative targeted agents, and chemotherapy.

HMAs in treatment-related AML

Shilpa Shahani, MD, a pediatric oncologist and assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., who was not involved in the study, has experience administering HMAs primarily in the adolescent and young adult population with AML.

“Azacitidine and decitabine are good for treatment-related leukemias,” she said in an interview. “They can be used otherwise for people who have relapsed disease and are trying to navigate other options.”

Although they are not standard first-line agents in younger patients, HMAs can play a useful role in therapy for relapsed or refractory disease, she said.

The authors and Dr. Shahani reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Hypomethylating agents are generally considered to be agents of choice for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia who cannot tolerate the rigors of more intensive therapies, but HMAs also can serve as a bridge to transplant for children and young adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia.

That’s according to Himalee S. Sabnis, MD, MSc and colleagues at Emory University and the Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

In a scientific poster presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, the investigators reported results of a retrospective study of HMA use in patients with relapsed or refractory pediatric AML treated in their center.
 

Curative intent and palliation

They identified 25 patients (15 boys) with a median age of 8.3 years (range 1.4 to 21 years) with relapsed/refractory AML who received HMAs for curative intent prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), palliation, or in combination with donor leukocyte infusion (DLI).

Of the 21 patients with relapsed disease, 16 were in first relapse and 5 were in second relapse or greater. Four of the patients had primary refractory disease. The cytogenetic and molecular features were KMT2A rearrangements in six patients, monosomy 7/deletion 7 q in four patients, 8;21 translocation in three patients, and FLT3-ITD mutations in four patients.

The patients received a median of 5.3 HMA cycles each. Of the 133 total HMA cycles, 87 were with azacitidine, and 46 were with decitabine.

HMAs were used as monotherapy in 62% of cycles, and in combination with other therapies in 38%. Of the combinations, 16 were with donor leukocyte infusion, and 9 were gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg).

Of the 13 patients for whom HMAs were used as part of treatment plan with curative intent, 5 proceeded to HSCT, and 8 did not. Of the 5 patients, 1 died from transplant-related causes, and 4 were alive post transplant. Of the 8 patients who did not undergo transplant, 1 had chimeric antigen receptor T- cell (CAR T) therapy, and 7 experienced disease progression.

The mean duration of palliative care was 144 days, with patients receiving from one to nine cycles with an HMA, and no treatment interruptions due to toxicity.

Of 5 patients who received donor leukocyte infusions, 3 reached minimal residual disease negativity; all 3 of these patients had late relapses but remained long-term survivors, the investigators reported.

They concluded that “hypomethylating agents can be used effectively as a bridge to transplantation in relapsed and refractory AML with gemtuzumab ozogamicin being the most common agent for combination therapy. Palliation with HMAs is associated with low toxicity and high tolerability in relapsed/refractory AML. Use of HMAs with DLI can induce sustained remissions in some patients.”

The authors propose prospective clinical trials using HMAs in the relapsed/refractory pediatric AML setting in combination with gemtuzumab ozogamicin, alternative targeted agents, and chemotherapy.

HMAs in treatment-related AML

Shilpa Shahani, MD, a pediatric oncologist and assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., who was not involved in the study, has experience administering HMAs primarily in the adolescent and young adult population with AML.

“Azacitidine and decitabine are good for treatment-related leukemias,” she said in an interview. “They can be used otherwise for people who have relapsed disease and are trying to navigate other options.”

Although they are not standard first-line agents in younger patients, HMAs can play a useful role in therapy for relapsed or refractory disease, she said.

The authors and Dr. Shahani reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

For well over a year, the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest story in the world, costing millions of lives, impacting a presidential election, and quaking economies around the world.

But as vaccination rates increase and restrictions relax across the United States, relief is beginning to mix with reflection. Part of that contemplation means grappling with how the media depicted the crisis – in ways that were helpful, harmful, and somewhere in between.

“This story was so overwhelming, and the amount of journalism done about it was also overwhelming, and it’s going to be a while before we can do any kind of comprehensive overview of how journalism really performed,” said Maryn McKenna, an independent journalist and journalism professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in public and global health.
 

Some ‘heroically good’ reporting

The pandemic hit at a time when journalism was under a lot of pressure from external forces – undermined by politics, swimming through a sea of misinformation, and pressed by financial pressure to produce more stories more quickly, said Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, New York.

The pandemic drove enormous audiences to news outlets, as people searched for reliable information, and increased the appreciation many people felt for the work of journalists, she said.

“I think there’s been some heroically good reporting and some really empathetic reporting as well,” said Ms. Bell. She cites The New York Times stories honoring the nearly 100,000 people lost to COVID-19 in May 2020 and The Atlantic’s COVID Tracking Project as exceptionally good examples.

Journalism is part of a complex, and evolving, information ecosystem characterized by “traditional” television, radio, and newspapers but also social media, search engine results, niche online news outlets, and clickbait sites.

On the one hand, social media provided a way for physicians, nurses, and scientists to speak directly to the world about their experiences and research. On the other hand, it’s challenging to elevate the really good work of traditional media over all of the bad or unhelpful signals, said Ms. Bell.

But, at the end of the day, much of journalism is a business. There are incentives in the market for tabloids to do sensational coverage and for outlets to push misleading, clickbait headlines, Ms. Bell said.

“Sometimes we’ll criticize journalists for ‘getting it wrong,’ but they might be getting it right in their business model but getting it wrong in terms of what it’s doing for society,” she said.

“We need to do a self-examination, when or if the dust from this ever settles, [on] how much of the past year was viewed as a business opportunity and did that get in the way of informing the public adequately,” Ms. McKenna said.

Digital platforms and journalists also need to reflect on how narratives build on one another, particularly online, said Ms. Bell. If you search for side effects of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, for example, you will see a list of dozens of headlines that might give you the impression this is a major problem without the context that these effects are exceedingly rare, she notes.

There was also a personnel problem. Shrinking newsrooms over the last decade meant many outlets didn’t have dedicated science and health reporting, or very few staffers, if any. During the pandemic, suddenly general assignment and politics reporters had to be science and health reporters, too.

“You have a hard enough time with these issues if you’re a fairly seasoned science journalist,” said Gary Schwitzer, a former head of the health care news unit for CNN, journalism professor at the University of Minnesota, and founder of the watchdog site HealthNewsReview.org.

And outlets that had the staffing didn’t always put science reporters to full use, Ms. McKenna said. In March and April of 2020, major media outlets should have sent science reporters, not politics reporters, to President Donald Trump’s White House press briefings, which often included incorrect statements about COVID-19 science.

“I just don’t feel that the big outlets understood that that expertise would have made a difference,” she said.
 

New challenges, old problems

Some of the science journalism done during the pandemic has been some of the best ever seen in this country, said Mr. Schwitzer. But between the peaks of excellence, there is “the daily drumbeat coverage of dreck,” he added.

Many of the issues with this dreck coverage aren’t new or unique to the pandemic. For example, over the last year there have been far too many news stories based solely on weak information sources, like a drug company press release or a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint article that hasn’t been put into proper context, said Mr. Schwitzer.

A quality science story should always include an independent perspective, he said, but many COVID-19 stories missed that perspective. This isn’t a new issue for science coverage – at Health News Review, Mr. Schwitzer and his colleagues saw stories without appropriate independent sources every day for 15 years.

It’s also challenging to write about uncertainty without over- or underselling what scientists know about a particular phenomenon. “We know that the media in general tends to portray science as more certain than it is,” said Dominique Brossard, PhD, professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an expert on the intersection between science, media, and policy. This can lead to confusion when the science, and the advice based on that science, changes.

“The public has a really difficult time understanding what uncertainty means within science,” said Todd P. Newman, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who studies strategic communication within the context of science, technology, and the environment.

“I think the media generally has been good on the subject,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center, attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a prominent expert voice throughout the pandemic. “I think where they’ve been imperfect is they tend to be a little more dramatic in terms of how we’re doing.”

Dr. Offit isn’t the only expert to point to the drama of COVID-19 coverage. A study published in March 2021 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found 87% of stories by major U.S. media outlets leaned negative in the tone of their COVID-19 reporting, compared with 50% of stories from non-U.S. major outlets and 64% of articles in scientific journals. The negative emphasis persists even around positive developments, like vaccine trials and school re-openings.

John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD, said he is very proud of the way WebMD and Medscape ramped up production of video series and other content to give health care providers the most up-to-date guidance on a rapidly evolving medical situation.

“But I think as [we] started to make progress – especially in the last 6 months – the coverage was never balanced enough; any positive news was immediately proceeded by negative,” he said.

“You want to be honest, but you also don’t want to be alarmist – and that’s where I think the challenge is at times in the media,” said Dr. Whyte. “We didn’t put enough optimism in at times, especially in recent months.”

“Any good coverage on vaccines immediately [was] covered by ‘[we] might need boosters in the fall.’ Why can’t [we] have an opportunity to breathe for a little while and see the good news?” he asked.
 

Variants or scariants?

Negativity and fear shaped much of the coverage around variants and vaccines earlier this year. In February 2021, Zeynep Tufekci, PhD, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill school of information and library science, wrote in The Atlantic about how much reporting has not reflected “the truly amazing reality of these vaccines,” and has instead highlighted “a chorus of relentless pessimism.”

This felt especially true earlier in 2021, when lots of coverage repeatedly emphasized what vaccinated people still could not do.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, said New York Times editors told him earlier in the pandemic that he couldn’t use the word “scariant” in an opinion piece about the media’s overly fearful and sometimes inaccurate reporting around COVID-19 variants because they worried it would seem like the Times was coming after other media outlets.

“A variant is innocent until proven guilty,” said Dr. Topol. Had journalists approached the subject from that point of view, he said we would have seen “much more faithful reporting.”

Dr. Brossard and Dr. Newman worry that focusing on uncommon negative behavior, like people who break social distancing and mask rules by gathering at the beach or the bar, makes those actions seem more common than they actually are.

The evidence suggests that “if you show these kinds of things to people, you encourage them to do the same behavior,” said Dr. Brossard.

There have been other mistakes along the way, too. Early in the pandemic, many outlets pointed viewers to official government sources of information, some of which, like the White House press briefings in March and April of 2020, ended up being some of the most virulent spreaders of misinformation, said Ms. Bell.

Before that, a handful of journalists like Roxanne Khamsi were the few pushing back against the dominant media narrative in early 2020 that the novel coronavirus was less concerning than the seasonal flu.

“Science journalists have always been writing about studies that sometimes contradict each other, and what’s happened is that has only been condensed in time,” said Ms. Khamsi, a health care reporter for outlets like WIRED magazine and The New York Times and a former chief news editor for Nature Medicine.
 

Politics and misinformation

It’s impossible to talk about media coverage of COVID-19 without touching on politics and misinformation.

Coverage of the pandemic was politicized and polarized from the very beginning, said Sedona Chinn, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who researches the prevalence and effects of scientific disagreements in media.

By looking at network news transcripts and articles from national outlets like the Washington Post and The New York Times, Dr. Chinn and her colleagues were able to determine politicization of coverage by counting the mentions of politicians versus scientists in COVID-19 coverage and polarization by looking at how different or similar the language was surrounding mentions of Republicans and Democrats.

If the two parties were working together or on the same page, they reasoned, the language would be similar.

From mid-March through May 2020, Dr. Chinn and fellow researchers found politicians were featured more often than scientists in newspaper coverage and as frequently as scientists in network news coverage. They also found polarized language around Republicans and Democrats, particularly in stories describing duels between the (at the time) Republican national government and Democratic state and local leaders.

It’s possible that polarization in news coverage helped contribute to polarized attitudes around the virus, the authors write in the study, which was published in August 2020 in the journal Science Communication.

The politicization and polarization of the issue is mirrored in our fractured media environment, where people tend to read, listen, and watch outlets that align with their political leanings. If that trusted outlet features misinformation, the people who follow it are more likely to accept that false information as truth, said Matt Motta, PhD, a political scientist at Oklahoma State University whose research includes public opinion and science communication.

This is true across the political spectrum, he said. When it comes to COVID-19, however, right-wing media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart are more likely to promote conspiratorial tropes and misinformation about the pandemic, according to Dr. Motta and his collaborator Dominik Stecula, PhD, a political scientist at Colorado State University who studies the news media environment and its effects on society.

Across the media ecosystem, reporting on the “infodemic” accompanying the pandemic – the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation about the virus – has been a major challenge. Outlets may not be creating the misinformation, but they are the ones choosing to give it a platform, said Dr. Motta.

By repeating a false idea, even with the goal of debunking it, you can unintentionally cause the information to stick in people’s minds, said Dr. Brossard.

“Just because something is controversial doesn’t mean it’s worth covering,” said Dr. Motta. Using vaccines as an example, he said many reporters and scientists alike assume that if people have all the facts, they’ll land on the side of science.

“That is just fundamentally not how people think about the decision to get vaccinated,” he said. Instead, the choice is wrapped up with cultural factors, religious beliefs, political identity, and more.

The factors and challenges that shaped the media’s coverage of the pandemic aren’t going anywhere. Improving science and medical coverage in the future is a collective project for journalists, scientists, and everyone in between, said Dr. Newman.

“I call on scientists, too, to think really deeply about how they’re communicating – and especially how they’re communicating what they know and don’t know,” he said.

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

For well over a year, the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest story in the world, costing millions of lives, impacting a presidential election, and quaking economies around the world.

But as vaccination rates increase and restrictions relax across the United States, relief is beginning to mix with reflection. Part of that contemplation means grappling with how the media depicted the crisis – in ways that were helpful, harmful, and somewhere in between.

“This story was so overwhelming, and the amount of journalism done about it was also overwhelming, and it’s going to be a while before we can do any kind of comprehensive overview of how journalism really performed,” said Maryn McKenna, an independent journalist and journalism professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in public and global health.
 

Some ‘heroically good’ reporting

The pandemic hit at a time when journalism was under a lot of pressure from external forces – undermined by politics, swimming through a sea of misinformation, and pressed by financial pressure to produce more stories more quickly, said Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, New York.

The pandemic drove enormous audiences to news outlets, as people searched for reliable information, and increased the appreciation many people felt for the work of journalists, she said.

“I think there’s been some heroically good reporting and some really empathetic reporting as well,” said Ms. Bell. She cites The New York Times stories honoring the nearly 100,000 people lost to COVID-19 in May 2020 and The Atlantic’s COVID Tracking Project as exceptionally good examples.

Journalism is part of a complex, and evolving, information ecosystem characterized by “traditional” television, radio, and newspapers but also social media, search engine results, niche online news outlets, and clickbait sites.

On the one hand, social media provided a way for physicians, nurses, and scientists to speak directly to the world about their experiences and research. On the other hand, it’s challenging to elevate the really good work of traditional media over all of the bad or unhelpful signals, said Ms. Bell.

But, at the end of the day, much of journalism is a business. There are incentives in the market for tabloids to do sensational coverage and for outlets to push misleading, clickbait headlines, Ms. Bell said.

“Sometimes we’ll criticize journalists for ‘getting it wrong,’ but they might be getting it right in their business model but getting it wrong in terms of what it’s doing for society,” she said.

“We need to do a self-examination, when or if the dust from this ever settles, [on] how much of the past year was viewed as a business opportunity and did that get in the way of informing the public adequately,” Ms. McKenna said.

Digital platforms and journalists also need to reflect on how narratives build on one another, particularly online, said Ms. Bell. If you search for side effects of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, for example, you will see a list of dozens of headlines that might give you the impression this is a major problem without the context that these effects are exceedingly rare, she notes.

There was also a personnel problem. Shrinking newsrooms over the last decade meant many outlets didn’t have dedicated science and health reporting, or very few staffers, if any. During the pandemic, suddenly general assignment and politics reporters had to be science and health reporters, too.

“You have a hard enough time with these issues if you’re a fairly seasoned science journalist,” said Gary Schwitzer, a former head of the health care news unit for CNN, journalism professor at the University of Minnesota, and founder of the watchdog site HealthNewsReview.org.

And outlets that had the staffing didn’t always put science reporters to full use, Ms. McKenna said. In March and April of 2020, major media outlets should have sent science reporters, not politics reporters, to President Donald Trump’s White House press briefings, which often included incorrect statements about COVID-19 science.

“I just don’t feel that the big outlets understood that that expertise would have made a difference,” she said.
 

New challenges, old problems

Some of the science journalism done during the pandemic has been some of the best ever seen in this country, said Mr. Schwitzer. But between the peaks of excellence, there is “the daily drumbeat coverage of dreck,” he added.

Many of the issues with this dreck coverage aren’t new or unique to the pandemic. For example, over the last year there have been far too many news stories based solely on weak information sources, like a drug company press release or a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint article that hasn’t been put into proper context, said Mr. Schwitzer.

A quality science story should always include an independent perspective, he said, but many COVID-19 stories missed that perspective. This isn’t a new issue for science coverage – at Health News Review, Mr. Schwitzer and his colleagues saw stories without appropriate independent sources every day for 15 years.

It’s also challenging to write about uncertainty without over- or underselling what scientists know about a particular phenomenon. “We know that the media in general tends to portray science as more certain than it is,” said Dominique Brossard, PhD, professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an expert on the intersection between science, media, and policy. This can lead to confusion when the science, and the advice based on that science, changes.

“The public has a really difficult time understanding what uncertainty means within science,” said Todd P. Newman, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who studies strategic communication within the context of science, technology, and the environment.

“I think the media generally has been good on the subject,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center, attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a prominent expert voice throughout the pandemic. “I think where they’ve been imperfect is they tend to be a little more dramatic in terms of how we’re doing.”

Dr. Offit isn’t the only expert to point to the drama of COVID-19 coverage. A study published in March 2021 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found 87% of stories by major U.S. media outlets leaned negative in the tone of their COVID-19 reporting, compared with 50% of stories from non-U.S. major outlets and 64% of articles in scientific journals. The negative emphasis persists even around positive developments, like vaccine trials and school re-openings.

John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD, said he is very proud of the way WebMD and Medscape ramped up production of video series and other content to give health care providers the most up-to-date guidance on a rapidly evolving medical situation.

“But I think as [we] started to make progress – especially in the last 6 months – the coverage was never balanced enough; any positive news was immediately proceeded by negative,” he said.

“You want to be honest, but you also don’t want to be alarmist – and that’s where I think the challenge is at times in the media,” said Dr. Whyte. “We didn’t put enough optimism in at times, especially in recent months.”

“Any good coverage on vaccines immediately [was] covered by ‘[we] might need boosters in the fall.’ Why can’t [we] have an opportunity to breathe for a little while and see the good news?” he asked.
 

Variants or scariants?

Negativity and fear shaped much of the coverage around variants and vaccines earlier this year. In February 2021, Zeynep Tufekci, PhD, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill school of information and library science, wrote in The Atlantic about how much reporting has not reflected “the truly amazing reality of these vaccines,” and has instead highlighted “a chorus of relentless pessimism.”

This felt especially true earlier in 2021, when lots of coverage repeatedly emphasized what vaccinated people still could not do.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, said New York Times editors told him earlier in the pandemic that he couldn’t use the word “scariant” in an opinion piece about the media’s overly fearful and sometimes inaccurate reporting around COVID-19 variants because they worried it would seem like the Times was coming after other media outlets.

“A variant is innocent until proven guilty,” said Dr. Topol. Had journalists approached the subject from that point of view, he said we would have seen “much more faithful reporting.”

Dr. Brossard and Dr. Newman worry that focusing on uncommon negative behavior, like people who break social distancing and mask rules by gathering at the beach or the bar, makes those actions seem more common than they actually are.

The evidence suggests that “if you show these kinds of things to people, you encourage them to do the same behavior,” said Dr. Brossard.

There have been other mistakes along the way, too. Early in the pandemic, many outlets pointed viewers to official government sources of information, some of which, like the White House press briefings in March and April of 2020, ended up being some of the most virulent spreaders of misinformation, said Ms. Bell.

Before that, a handful of journalists like Roxanne Khamsi were the few pushing back against the dominant media narrative in early 2020 that the novel coronavirus was less concerning than the seasonal flu.

“Science journalists have always been writing about studies that sometimes contradict each other, and what’s happened is that has only been condensed in time,” said Ms. Khamsi, a health care reporter for outlets like WIRED magazine and The New York Times and a former chief news editor for Nature Medicine.
 

Politics and misinformation

It’s impossible to talk about media coverage of COVID-19 without touching on politics and misinformation.

Coverage of the pandemic was politicized and polarized from the very beginning, said Sedona Chinn, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who researches the prevalence and effects of scientific disagreements in media.

By looking at network news transcripts and articles from national outlets like the Washington Post and The New York Times, Dr. Chinn and her colleagues were able to determine politicization of coverage by counting the mentions of politicians versus scientists in COVID-19 coverage and polarization by looking at how different or similar the language was surrounding mentions of Republicans and Democrats.

If the two parties were working together or on the same page, they reasoned, the language would be similar.

From mid-March through May 2020, Dr. Chinn and fellow researchers found politicians were featured more often than scientists in newspaper coverage and as frequently as scientists in network news coverage. They also found polarized language around Republicans and Democrats, particularly in stories describing duels between the (at the time) Republican national government and Democratic state and local leaders.

It’s possible that polarization in news coverage helped contribute to polarized attitudes around the virus, the authors write in the study, which was published in August 2020 in the journal Science Communication.

The politicization and polarization of the issue is mirrored in our fractured media environment, where people tend to read, listen, and watch outlets that align with their political leanings. If that trusted outlet features misinformation, the people who follow it are more likely to accept that false information as truth, said Matt Motta, PhD, a political scientist at Oklahoma State University whose research includes public opinion and science communication.

This is true across the political spectrum, he said. When it comes to COVID-19, however, right-wing media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart are more likely to promote conspiratorial tropes and misinformation about the pandemic, according to Dr. Motta and his collaborator Dominik Stecula, PhD, a political scientist at Colorado State University who studies the news media environment and its effects on society.

Across the media ecosystem, reporting on the “infodemic” accompanying the pandemic – the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation about the virus – has been a major challenge. Outlets may not be creating the misinformation, but they are the ones choosing to give it a platform, said Dr. Motta.

By repeating a false idea, even with the goal of debunking it, you can unintentionally cause the information to stick in people’s minds, said Dr. Brossard.

“Just because something is controversial doesn’t mean it’s worth covering,” said Dr. Motta. Using vaccines as an example, he said many reporters and scientists alike assume that if people have all the facts, they’ll land on the side of science.

“That is just fundamentally not how people think about the decision to get vaccinated,” he said. Instead, the choice is wrapped up with cultural factors, religious beliefs, political identity, and more.

The factors and challenges that shaped the media’s coverage of the pandemic aren’t going anywhere. Improving science and medical coverage in the future is a collective project for journalists, scientists, and everyone in between, said Dr. Newman.

“I call on scientists, too, to think really deeply about how they’re communicating – and especially how they’re communicating what they know and don’t know,” he said.

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

For well over a year, the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest story in the world, costing millions of lives, impacting a presidential election, and quaking economies around the world.

But as vaccination rates increase and restrictions relax across the United States, relief is beginning to mix with reflection. Part of that contemplation means grappling with how the media depicted the crisis – in ways that were helpful, harmful, and somewhere in between.

“This story was so overwhelming, and the amount of journalism done about it was also overwhelming, and it’s going to be a while before we can do any kind of comprehensive overview of how journalism really performed,” said Maryn McKenna, an independent journalist and journalism professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in public and global health.
 

Some ‘heroically good’ reporting

The pandemic hit at a time when journalism was under a lot of pressure from external forces – undermined by politics, swimming through a sea of misinformation, and pressed by financial pressure to produce more stories more quickly, said Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, New York.

The pandemic drove enormous audiences to news outlets, as people searched for reliable information, and increased the appreciation many people felt for the work of journalists, she said.

“I think there’s been some heroically good reporting and some really empathetic reporting as well,” said Ms. Bell. She cites The New York Times stories honoring the nearly 100,000 people lost to COVID-19 in May 2020 and The Atlantic’s COVID Tracking Project as exceptionally good examples.

Journalism is part of a complex, and evolving, information ecosystem characterized by “traditional” television, radio, and newspapers but also social media, search engine results, niche online news outlets, and clickbait sites.

On the one hand, social media provided a way for physicians, nurses, and scientists to speak directly to the world about their experiences and research. On the other hand, it’s challenging to elevate the really good work of traditional media over all of the bad or unhelpful signals, said Ms. Bell.

But, at the end of the day, much of journalism is a business. There are incentives in the market for tabloids to do sensational coverage and for outlets to push misleading, clickbait headlines, Ms. Bell said.

“Sometimes we’ll criticize journalists for ‘getting it wrong,’ but they might be getting it right in their business model but getting it wrong in terms of what it’s doing for society,” she said.

“We need to do a self-examination, when or if the dust from this ever settles, [on] how much of the past year was viewed as a business opportunity and did that get in the way of informing the public adequately,” Ms. McKenna said.

Digital platforms and journalists also need to reflect on how narratives build on one another, particularly online, said Ms. Bell. If you search for side effects of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, for example, you will see a list of dozens of headlines that might give you the impression this is a major problem without the context that these effects are exceedingly rare, she notes.

There was also a personnel problem. Shrinking newsrooms over the last decade meant many outlets didn’t have dedicated science and health reporting, or very few staffers, if any. During the pandemic, suddenly general assignment and politics reporters had to be science and health reporters, too.

“You have a hard enough time with these issues if you’re a fairly seasoned science journalist,” said Gary Schwitzer, a former head of the health care news unit for CNN, journalism professor at the University of Minnesota, and founder of the watchdog site HealthNewsReview.org.

And outlets that had the staffing didn’t always put science reporters to full use, Ms. McKenna said. In March and April of 2020, major media outlets should have sent science reporters, not politics reporters, to President Donald Trump’s White House press briefings, which often included incorrect statements about COVID-19 science.

“I just don’t feel that the big outlets understood that that expertise would have made a difference,” she said.
 

New challenges, old problems

Some of the science journalism done during the pandemic has been some of the best ever seen in this country, said Mr. Schwitzer. But between the peaks of excellence, there is “the daily drumbeat coverage of dreck,” he added.

Many of the issues with this dreck coverage aren’t new or unique to the pandemic. For example, over the last year there have been far too many news stories based solely on weak information sources, like a drug company press release or a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint article that hasn’t been put into proper context, said Mr. Schwitzer.

A quality science story should always include an independent perspective, he said, but many COVID-19 stories missed that perspective. This isn’t a new issue for science coverage – at Health News Review, Mr. Schwitzer and his colleagues saw stories without appropriate independent sources every day for 15 years.

It’s also challenging to write about uncertainty without over- or underselling what scientists know about a particular phenomenon. “We know that the media in general tends to portray science as more certain than it is,” said Dominique Brossard, PhD, professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an expert on the intersection between science, media, and policy. This can lead to confusion when the science, and the advice based on that science, changes.

“The public has a really difficult time understanding what uncertainty means within science,” said Todd P. Newman, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who studies strategic communication within the context of science, technology, and the environment.

“I think the media generally has been good on the subject,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center, attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a prominent expert voice throughout the pandemic. “I think where they’ve been imperfect is they tend to be a little more dramatic in terms of how we’re doing.”

Dr. Offit isn’t the only expert to point to the drama of COVID-19 coverage. A study published in March 2021 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found 87% of stories by major U.S. media outlets leaned negative in the tone of their COVID-19 reporting, compared with 50% of stories from non-U.S. major outlets and 64% of articles in scientific journals. The negative emphasis persists even around positive developments, like vaccine trials and school re-openings.

John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD, said he is very proud of the way WebMD and Medscape ramped up production of video series and other content to give health care providers the most up-to-date guidance on a rapidly evolving medical situation.

“But I think as [we] started to make progress – especially in the last 6 months – the coverage was never balanced enough; any positive news was immediately proceeded by negative,” he said.

“You want to be honest, but you also don’t want to be alarmist – and that’s where I think the challenge is at times in the media,” said Dr. Whyte. “We didn’t put enough optimism in at times, especially in recent months.”

“Any good coverage on vaccines immediately [was] covered by ‘[we] might need boosters in the fall.’ Why can’t [we] have an opportunity to breathe for a little while and see the good news?” he asked.
 

Variants or scariants?

Negativity and fear shaped much of the coverage around variants and vaccines earlier this year. In February 2021, Zeynep Tufekci, PhD, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill school of information and library science, wrote in The Atlantic about how much reporting has not reflected “the truly amazing reality of these vaccines,” and has instead highlighted “a chorus of relentless pessimism.”

This felt especially true earlier in 2021, when lots of coverage repeatedly emphasized what vaccinated people still could not do.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, said New York Times editors told him earlier in the pandemic that he couldn’t use the word “scariant” in an opinion piece about the media’s overly fearful and sometimes inaccurate reporting around COVID-19 variants because they worried it would seem like the Times was coming after other media outlets.

“A variant is innocent until proven guilty,” said Dr. Topol. Had journalists approached the subject from that point of view, he said we would have seen “much more faithful reporting.”

Dr. Brossard and Dr. Newman worry that focusing on uncommon negative behavior, like people who break social distancing and mask rules by gathering at the beach or the bar, makes those actions seem more common than they actually are.

The evidence suggests that “if you show these kinds of things to people, you encourage them to do the same behavior,” said Dr. Brossard.

There have been other mistakes along the way, too. Early in the pandemic, many outlets pointed viewers to official government sources of information, some of which, like the White House press briefings in March and April of 2020, ended up being some of the most virulent spreaders of misinformation, said Ms. Bell.

Before that, a handful of journalists like Roxanne Khamsi were the few pushing back against the dominant media narrative in early 2020 that the novel coronavirus was less concerning than the seasonal flu.

“Science journalists have always been writing about studies that sometimes contradict each other, and what’s happened is that has only been condensed in time,” said Ms. Khamsi, a health care reporter for outlets like WIRED magazine and The New York Times and a former chief news editor for Nature Medicine.
 

Politics and misinformation

It’s impossible to talk about media coverage of COVID-19 without touching on politics and misinformation.

Coverage of the pandemic was politicized and polarized from the very beginning, said Sedona Chinn, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who researches the prevalence and effects of scientific disagreements in media.

By looking at network news transcripts and articles from national outlets like the Washington Post and The New York Times, Dr. Chinn and her colleagues were able to determine politicization of coverage by counting the mentions of politicians versus scientists in COVID-19 coverage and polarization by looking at how different or similar the language was surrounding mentions of Republicans and Democrats.

If the two parties were working together or on the same page, they reasoned, the language would be similar.

From mid-March through May 2020, Dr. Chinn and fellow researchers found politicians were featured more often than scientists in newspaper coverage and as frequently as scientists in network news coverage. They also found polarized language around Republicans and Democrats, particularly in stories describing duels between the (at the time) Republican national government and Democratic state and local leaders.

It’s possible that polarization in news coverage helped contribute to polarized attitudes around the virus, the authors write in the study, which was published in August 2020 in the journal Science Communication.

The politicization and polarization of the issue is mirrored in our fractured media environment, where people tend to read, listen, and watch outlets that align with their political leanings. If that trusted outlet features misinformation, the people who follow it are more likely to accept that false information as truth, said Matt Motta, PhD, a political scientist at Oklahoma State University whose research includes public opinion and science communication.

This is true across the political spectrum, he said. When it comes to COVID-19, however, right-wing media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart are more likely to promote conspiratorial tropes and misinformation about the pandemic, according to Dr. Motta and his collaborator Dominik Stecula, PhD, a political scientist at Colorado State University who studies the news media environment and its effects on society.

Across the media ecosystem, reporting on the “infodemic” accompanying the pandemic – the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation about the virus – has been a major challenge. Outlets may not be creating the misinformation, but they are the ones choosing to give it a platform, said Dr. Motta.

By repeating a false idea, even with the goal of debunking it, you can unintentionally cause the information to stick in people’s minds, said Dr. Brossard.

“Just because something is controversial doesn’t mean it’s worth covering,” said Dr. Motta. Using vaccines as an example, he said many reporters and scientists alike assume that if people have all the facts, they’ll land on the side of science.

“That is just fundamentally not how people think about the decision to get vaccinated,” he said. Instead, the choice is wrapped up with cultural factors, religious beliefs, political identity, and more.

The factors and challenges that shaped the media’s coverage of the pandemic aren’t going anywhere. Improving science and medical coverage in the future is a collective project for journalists, scientists, and everyone in between, said Dr. Newman.

“I call on scientists, too, to think really deeply about how they’re communicating – and especially how they’re communicating what they know and don’t know,” he said.

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

A novel therapeutic approach using aptamers – short single strands of DNA or RNA designed to selectively bind to a target – shows promise for treating von Willebrand Disease (VWD), and other congenital bleed disorders such as hemophilia A, investigators say.

In a proof-of-concept study using healthy volunteers, the experimental anti–von Willebrand factor (VWF) molecule BT200 appeared to decrease clearance of VWF and resulted in a twofold increase in endogenous levels of VWF and factor VIII at low doses.

BT200 is currently being explored in a phase 2 trial in patients with hemophilia A and VWD type 2B, Katarina Kovacevic, MPharm, from the Medical University of Vienna, reported at the European Hematology Association annual congress.

“We expect to see a half-life increase of 2 to 4 times of factor VIII products, which will allow us to have a longer time between treatments,” she said in an oral abstract presentation (Abstract S302).
 

Lab-made nucleotide strings

Aptamers are sometimes call “chemical antibodies” because of their high affinity and high specificity for extracellular targets, Dr. Kovacevic said. Unlike conventional humanized or human-derived antibodies, however, they are nonimmunogenic and are less costly to manufacture.

In a previous study from her center, a different anti-VWF aptamer labeled ARC1779 increased plasma levels of VWF, factor VIII, and platelet counts in patients with VWD type 2B.

However, the drug was inconvenient to use, requiring 72-hour infusions, she noted.

In a study published in Feb. 4, 2021 in Scientific Reports, Dr. Kovacevic and colleagues reported that BT200 blocks VWF and platelet function in patients with ischemic strokes, even in the presence of high levels of VWF in patients with left carotid artery atherosclerotic strokes.

The ability of the molecule to block VWF platelet binding may explain how the anti-VWF agent actually results in higher circulating levels of VWF, which also carries factor VIII, said Veronica H. Flood, MD, a VWD specialist at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin and associate professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

“It might inhibit clearance of the von Willebrand factor, so it’s almost like this was an incidental side effect,” she said in an interview. “Incidentally, this happens to also give you higher levels of the von Willebrand factor and the factor VIII, and with a longer half-life than anything we currently have, so it’s a super-creative strategy,” she said.

Dr. Flood was not involved in the study.
 

Long half-life

BT200 is a third-generation peglyated anti-VWF aptamer that has been shown in preclinical studies to have a long half-life in nonhuman primates. It inhibits the A1 domain of VWF to prevent it from binding to platelet glycoprotein 1b (GP1b).

In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial reported at the EHA congress, 88 healthy volunteers received single doses of BT200 ranging from 0.l8 mg to 48 mg by subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion, 8 received multiple doses, 8 were evaluated for possible interactions with desmopressin, and 8 were evaluated for bioavailability of the aptamer.

The investigators observed a dose-related increase in BT200 concentrations, with a mean plasma terminal elimination half life of between 118 and 284 hours (about 5-12 days). There was also a dose-dependent increase in bioavailability of the agents, reaching 90% at the highest dose level.

The ability of BT200 to inhibit the A1 domains of VWF also was dose dependent, with the largest effect seen with doses of 12 mg and higher. The molecule decreased VWF activity and ristocetin-induced platelet aggregation, and prolonged collagen adenosine diphosphate closure time.

At the highest doses, BT200 caused complete inhibition of VWF (P < .001), and volunteers developed clinical signs of mild mucosal bleeding.

But the aptamer also increased in a dose-dependent fashion VWF antigen levels and factor VIII clotting activity more than fourfold (P <.001).

“This resulted in increased thrombogenicity as measured by thrombin generation and enhanced clotting. In the absence of an increase in VWF propeptide levels, this effect is considered due to decreased clearance of VWF,” the investigators wrote in the study abstract.

They noted that they saw a clinically meaningful twofold increase in both VWF and factor VIII at doses lower than 6 mg.
 

‘Super-exciting strategy’

“This trial identified a novel mechanism of action for BT200: It decreases the clearance of VWF/FVIII, which can be exploited for congenital bleeding disorders. This built a solid foundation for an ongoing basket trial in patients with von Willebrand disease or hemophilia A, which already confirms the expected effect sizes,” Dr. Kovacevic and colleagues wrote.

“I will be interested to see what the clinical side effects are, because there may be some off-target effects, but in reality it is a super-exciting strategy, and there is really a dire need for longer half-life products for these patients,” Dr. Flood said.

The study was sponsored by Band Therapeutics, a division of Guardian Therapeutics. Dr. Kovacevic and Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A novel therapeutic approach using aptamers – short single strands of DNA or RNA designed to selectively bind to a target – shows promise for treating von Willebrand Disease (VWD), and other congenital bleed disorders such as hemophilia A, investigators say.

In a proof-of-concept study using healthy volunteers, the experimental anti–von Willebrand factor (VWF) molecule BT200 appeared to decrease clearance of VWF and resulted in a twofold increase in endogenous levels of VWF and factor VIII at low doses.

BT200 is currently being explored in a phase 2 trial in patients with hemophilia A and VWD type 2B, Katarina Kovacevic, MPharm, from the Medical University of Vienna, reported at the European Hematology Association annual congress.

“We expect to see a half-life increase of 2 to 4 times of factor VIII products, which will allow us to have a longer time between treatments,” she said in an oral abstract presentation (Abstract S302).
 

Lab-made nucleotide strings

Aptamers are sometimes call “chemical antibodies” because of their high affinity and high specificity for extracellular targets, Dr. Kovacevic said. Unlike conventional humanized or human-derived antibodies, however, they are nonimmunogenic and are less costly to manufacture.

In a previous study from her center, a different anti-VWF aptamer labeled ARC1779 increased plasma levels of VWF, factor VIII, and platelet counts in patients with VWD type 2B.

However, the drug was inconvenient to use, requiring 72-hour infusions, she noted.

In a study published in Feb. 4, 2021 in Scientific Reports, Dr. Kovacevic and colleagues reported that BT200 blocks VWF and platelet function in patients with ischemic strokes, even in the presence of high levels of VWF in patients with left carotid artery atherosclerotic strokes.

The ability of the molecule to block VWF platelet binding may explain how the anti-VWF agent actually results in higher circulating levels of VWF, which also carries factor VIII, said Veronica H. Flood, MD, a VWD specialist at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin and associate professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

“It might inhibit clearance of the von Willebrand factor, so it’s almost like this was an incidental side effect,” she said in an interview. “Incidentally, this happens to also give you higher levels of the von Willebrand factor and the factor VIII, and with a longer half-life than anything we currently have, so it’s a super-creative strategy,” she said.

Dr. Flood was not involved in the study.
 

Long half-life

BT200 is a third-generation peglyated anti-VWF aptamer that has been shown in preclinical studies to have a long half-life in nonhuman primates. It inhibits the A1 domain of VWF to prevent it from binding to platelet glycoprotein 1b (GP1b).

In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial reported at the EHA congress, 88 healthy volunteers received single doses of BT200 ranging from 0.l8 mg to 48 mg by subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion, 8 received multiple doses, 8 were evaluated for possible interactions with desmopressin, and 8 were evaluated for bioavailability of the aptamer.

The investigators observed a dose-related increase in BT200 concentrations, with a mean plasma terminal elimination half life of between 118 and 284 hours (about 5-12 days). There was also a dose-dependent increase in bioavailability of the agents, reaching 90% at the highest dose level.

The ability of BT200 to inhibit the A1 domains of VWF also was dose dependent, with the largest effect seen with doses of 12 mg and higher. The molecule decreased VWF activity and ristocetin-induced platelet aggregation, and prolonged collagen adenosine diphosphate closure time.

At the highest doses, BT200 caused complete inhibition of VWF (P < .001), and volunteers developed clinical signs of mild mucosal bleeding.

But the aptamer also increased in a dose-dependent fashion VWF antigen levels and factor VIII clotting activity more than fourfold (P <.001).

“This resulted in increased thrombogenicity as measured by thrombin generation and enhanced clotting. In the absence of an increase in VWF propeptide levels, this effect is considered due to decreased clearance of VWF,” the investigators wrote in the study abstract.

They noted that they saw a clinically meaningful twofold increase in both VWF and factor VIII at doses lower than 6 mg.
 

‘Super-exciting strategy’

“This trial identified a novel mechanism of action for BT200: It decreases the clearance of VWF/FVIII, which can be exploited for congenital bleeding disorders. This built a solid foundation for an ongoing basket trial in patients with von Willebrand disease or hemophilia A, which already confirms the expected effect sizes,” Dr. Kovacevic and colleagues wrote.

“I will be interested to see what the clinical side effects are, because there may be some off-target effects, but in reality it is a super-exciting strategy, and there is really a dire need for longer half-life products for these patients,” Dr. Flood said.

The study was sponsored by Band Therapeutics, a division of Guardian Therapeutics. Dr. Kovacevic and Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A novel therapeutic approach using aptamers – short single strands of DNA or RNA designed to selectively bind to a target – shows promise for treating von Willebrand Disease (VWD), and other congenital bleed disorders such as hemophilia A, investigators say.

In a proof-of-concept study using healthy volunteers, the experimental anti–von Willebrand factor (VWF) molecule BT200 appeared to decrease clearance of VWF and resulted in a twofold increase in endogenous levels of VWF and factor VIII at low doses.

BT200 is currently being explored in a phase 2 trial in patients with hemophilia A and VWD type 2B, Katarina Kovacevic, MPharm, from the Medical University of Vienna, reported at the European Hematology Association annual congress.

“We expect to see a half-life increase of 2 to 4 times of factor VIII products, which will allow us to have a longer time between treatments,” she said in an oral abstract presentation (Abstract S302).
 

Lab-made nucleotide strings

Aptamers are sometimes call “chemical antibodies” because of their high affinity and high specificity for extracellular targets, Dr. Kovacevic said. Unlike conventional humanized or human-derived antibodies, however, they are nonimmunogenic and are less costly to manufacture.

In a previous study from her center, a different anti-VWF aptamer labeled ARC1779 increased plasma levels of VWF, factor VIII, and platelet counts in patients with VWD type 2B.

However, the drug was inconvenient to use, requiring 72-hour infusions, she noted.

In a study published in Feb. 4, 2021 in Scientific Reports, Dr. Kovacevic and colleagues reported that BT200 blocks VWF and platelet function in patients with ischemic strokes, even in the presence of high levels of VWF in patients with left carotid artery atherosclerotic strokes.

The ability of the molecule to block VWF platelet binding may explain how the anti-VWF agent actually results in higher circulating levels of VWF, which also carries factor VIII, said Veronica H. Flood, MD, a VWD specialist at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin and associate professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

“It might inhibit clearance of the von Willebrand factor, so it’s almost like this was an incidental side effect,” she said in an interview. “Incidentally, this happens to also give you higher levels of the von Willebrand factor and the factor VIII, and with a longer half-life than anything we currently have, so it’s a super-creative strategy,” she said.

Dr. Flood was not involved in the study.
 

Long half-life

BT200 is a third-generation peglyated anti-VWF aptamer that has been shown in preclinical studies to have a long half-life in nonhuman primates. It inhibits the A1 domain of VWF to prevent it from binding to platelet glycoprotein 1b (GP1b).

In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial reported at the EHA congress, 88 healthy volunteers received single doses of BT200 ranging from 0.l8 mg to 48 mg by subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion, 8 received multiple doses, 8 were evaluated for possible interactions with desmopressin, and 8 were evaluated for bioavailability of the aptamer.

The investigators observed a dose-related increase in BT200 concentrations, with a mean plasma terminal elimination half life of between 118 and 284 hours (about 5-12 days). There was also a dose-dependent increase in bioavailability of the agents, reaching 90% at the highest dose level.

The ability of BT200 to inhibit the A1 domains of VWF also was dose dependent, with the largest effect seen with doses of 12 mg and higher. The molecule decreased VWF activity and ristocetin-induced platelet aggregation, and prolonged collagen adenosine diphosphate closure time.

At the highest doses, BT200 caused complete inhibition of VWF (P < .001), and volunteers developed clinical signs of mild mucosal bleeding.

But the aptamer also increased in a dose-dependent fashion VWF antigen levels and factor VIII clotting activity more than fourfold (P <.001).

“This resulted in increased thrombogenicity as measured by thrombin generation and enhanced clotting. In the absence of an increase in VWF propeptide levels, this effect is considered due to decreased clearance of VWF,” the investigators wrote in the study abstract.

They noted that they saw a clinically meaningful twofold increase in both VWF and factor VIII at doses lower than 6 mg.
 

‘Super-exciting strategy’

“This trial identified a novel mechanism of action for BT200: It decreases the clearance of VWF/FVIII, which can be exploited for congenital bleeding disorders. This built a solid foundation for an ongoing basket trial in patients with von Willebrand disease or hemophilia A, which already confirms the expected effect sizes,” Dr. Kovacevic and colleagues wrote.

“I will be interested to see what the clinical side effects are, because there may be some off-target effects, but in reality it is a super-exciting strategy, and there is really a dire need for longer half-life products for these patients,” Dr. Flood said.

The study was sponsored by Band Therapeutics, a division of Guardian Therapeutics. Dr. Kovacevic and Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Among older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), survival is significantly better when they undergo reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) before receiving an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) at first remission. This improvement in survival is seen regardless of key factors such as genotype and the status of minimal residual disease (MRD) after initial chemotherapy, results from two large randomized trials show.

“Two consecutive trials of more than 1,500 older AML patients above 60 years of age demonstrate a consistent benefit for RIC transplant in first remission,” said first author Nigel Russell, MD, of Guy’s Hospital, London, and Nottingham University, England. “This benefit is seen independent of their post-course 1 MRD status,” he added.

Dr. Russell presented the new data at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2021 Annual Meeting.

Commenting on the study, Charles Craddock, MD, said in an interview that the results “confirm the growing importance of RIC transplantation as a central treatment management strategy in high-risk AML and in this population high risk patients over 60.”

“[These findings] reinforce the evolving treatment paradigm that, in fit adults over 60 with AML, hematopoietic cell transplantation should be considered an essential component of their management plan,” said Dr. Craddock, academic director of the Center for Clinical Haematology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, England.

Patients with AML who are older than 60 years can achieve complete remission with intensive chemotherapy alone; however, relapse is common, and only about 20% survive for 5 years, Dr. Russell explained.

HCT significantly improves survival outcomes, and the development of RIC has made transplantation accessible to high-risk patients by making the procedure more tolerable with lower toxicity in comparison with conventional conditioning regimens.

However, there is ongoing debate over the prognostic effect of key factors in pretransplant conditioning that may be predictive of the risk for post-transplant relapse – in particular, the presence of MRD after the first course of conditioning, he explained.

To more closely investigate those factors and the rate of survival of older patients with AML who undergo RIC transplant, Dr. Russell and his colleagues evaluated results from the National Cancer Research Institute’s (NCRI) AML16 trial, which was conducted from 2006 to 2012, and interim results from the NCRI AML18 trial, which started in 2015 and is ongoing.

Both trials employed double induction of daunorubicin and clofarabine or, in the AML16 trial, AraC ± gemtuzumab, and in the AML18 trial, daunorubicin and AraC (DA) + gemtuzumab.

In AML18, patients who were MRD positive after course 1 were randomly assigned to undergo either an intensification randomization after either FLAG-Ida or DA+cladribine or DA alone.

In AML16, of 983 patients in first complete response, 144 (15%) subsequently underwent RIC transplant. The median follow-up for survival from complete response was 45 months.

In the AML18 trial, of 847 patients, 648 patients achieved complete response. Among them, 201 (31%) underwent transplant. The median follow-up of survival was 45 months.

The results of both trials showed greater benefit with RIC transplant versus chemotherapy alone.

In the AML16 trial, among patients aged 60 to 70 who received RIC, survival at 5 years was significantly improved compared with chemotherapy alone (37% vs. 19%; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.82; P < .001).

In AML16, the higher survival benefit in comparison with chemotherapy alone was observed in the RIC group across subgroups of risk level, as stratified according to in the multivariate Wheatley risk group score. Subgroup stratification was based on age, cytogenics, and other factors (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.83; P < .001).

Importantly, the survival benefits were significantly greater with RIC transplant regardless of MRD-negative or MRD-positive status after course 1 (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85; P < .001).

Allograft transplant was also more favorable regardless of FLT3 ITD or NPM1 mutation status (P for heterogeneity by genetic subgroups, 0.61).

In AML16, no groups were found to have benefited more with RIC. Consequently, the criteria for transplant in AML18 trial were based on patients’ health status and donor availability.

An interim analysis of the ongoing AML 18 trial further underscored an overall benefit of RIC transplant. Rates of 3-year survival from remission were 48% with RIC transplant, versus 37.4% with chemotherapy alone (P = .027). The benefit was independent of MRD status after conditioning course 1, similar to the AML16 results (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95; P = .02).

Although the rate of transplantation in the AML18 trial was higher among patients who were MRD positive in comparison with those who were MRD negative (36% vs. 24.8%), the rates of post-transplant survival were not significantly different between those who were MRD positive and those who were MRD negative after course 1 (51.1% vs. 46.6% at 3 years; P = .84).

The authors evaluated the effects of a second conditioning course on transplant outcomes among patients who did not initially achieve an MRD-negative complete remission.

They found that 60% of patients did convert from MRD-positive to MRD-negative status after course 2. Among those patients, the survival versus chemotherapy alone was substantially higher (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.92) compared to those who remained MRD-negative (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.32-1.72).

However, the authors note that, owing to a lack of heterogeneity, the results don’t necessarily mean that the patients who remained MRD positive did not also benefit from transplant.

“There was a significant benefit for transplant in those who converted to MRD negativity,” Dr. Russell said.

“With a hazard ratio of .32, this was far superior to those who remained MRD-positive post course 2,” he said.

“These results show that MRD status after course 1 is important information in terms of response to therapy and can alter your treatment strategy if you’re considering a transplant as an option for these patients,” Dr. Russell told this news organization.

In further commenting, Dr. Craddock said the research highlights the importance of randomized trials with regard to whether patients who are MRD-positive before transplant will benefit from an additional course of therapy to reduce the MRD load.

“Most get two courses, but the question is, if they are still MRD positive, should they get a third course, and if so, what should that look like?” he said.

“There are currently no randomized controlled trials to address that ongoing question, and they need to be done,” he added.

Dr. Russell has relationships with Pfizer, Astellas, and Jazz Pharma. Dr. Craddock has a relationship with Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Among older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), survival is significantly better when they undergo reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) before receiving an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) at first remission. This improvement in survival is seen regardless of key factors such as genotype and the status of minimal residual disease (MRD) after initial chemotherapy, results from two large randomized trials show.

“Two consecutive trials of more than 1,500 older AML patients above 60 years of age demonstrate a consistent benefit for RIC transplant in first remission,” said first author Nigel Russell, MD, of Guy’s Hospital, London, and Nottingham University, England. “This benefit is seen independent of their post-course 1 MRD status,” he added.

Dr. Russell presented the new data at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2021 Annual Meeting.

Commenting on the study, Charles Craddock, MD, said in an interview that the results “confirm the growing importance of RIC transplantation as a central treatment management strategy in high-risk AML and in this population high risk patients over 60.”

“[These findings] reinforce the evolving treatment paradigm that, in fit adults over 60 with AML, hematopoietic cell transplantation should be considered an essential component of their management plan,” said Dr. Craddock, academic director of the Center for Clinical Haematology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, England.

Patients with AML who are older than 60 years can achieve complete remission with intensive chemotherapy alone; however, relapse is common, and only about 20% survive for 5 years, Dr. Russell explained.

HCT significantly improves survival outcomes, and the development of RIC has made transplantation accessible to high-risk patients by making the procedure more tolerable with lower toxicity in comparison with conventional conditioning regimens.

However, there is ongoing debate over the prognostic effect of key factors in pretransplant conditioning that may be predictive of the risk for post-transplant relapse – in particular, the presence of MRD after the first course of conditioning, he explained.

To more closely investigate those factors and the rate of survival of older patients with AML who undergo RIC transplant, Dr. Russell and his colleagues evaluated results from the National Cancer Research Institute’s (NCRI) AML16 trial, which was conducted from 2006 to 2012, and interim results from the NCRI AML18 trial, which started in 2015 and is ongoing.

Both trials employed double induction of daunorubicin and clofarabine or, in the AML16 trial, AraC ± gemtuzumab, and in the AML18 trial, daunorubicin and AraC (DA) + gemtuzumab.

In AML18, patients who were MRD positive after course 1 were randomly assigned to undergo either an intensification randomization after either FLAG-Ida or DA+cladribine or DA alone.

In AML16, of 983 patients in first complete response, 144 (15%) subsequently underwent RIC transplant. The median follow-up for survival from complete response was 45 months.

In the AML18 trial, of 847 patients, 648 patients achieved complete response. Among them, 201 (31%) underwent transplant. The median follow-up of survival was 45 months.

The results of both trials showed greater benefit with RIC transplant versus chemotherapy alone.

In the AML16 trial, among patients aged 60 to 70 who received RIC, survival at 5 years was significantly improved compared with chemotherapy alone (37% vs. 19%; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.82; P < .001).

In AML16, the higher survival benefit in comparison with chemotherapy alone was observed in the RIC group across subgroups of risk level, as stratified according to in the multivariate Wheatley risk group score. Subgroup stratification was based on age, cytogenics, and other factors (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.83; P < .001).

Importantly, the survival benefits were significantly greater with RIC transplant regardless of MRD-negative or MRD-positive status after course 1 (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85; P < .001).

Allograft transplant was also more favorable regardless of FLT3 ITD or NPM1 mutation status (P for heterogeneity by genetic subgroups, 0.61).

In AML16, no groups were found to have benefited more with RIC. Consequently, the criteria for transplant in AML18 trial were based on patients’ health status and donor availability.

An interim analysis of the ongoing AML 18 trial further underscored an overall benefit of RIC transplant. Rates of 3-year survival from remission were 48% with RIC transplant, versus 37.4% with chemotherapy alone (P = .027). The benefit was independent of MRD status after conditioning course 1, similar to the AML16 results (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95; P = .02).

Although the rate of transplantation in the AML18 trial was higher among patients who were MRD positive in comparison with those who were MRD negative (36% vs. 24.8%), the rates of post-transplant survival were not significantly different between those who were MRD positive and those who were MRD negative after course 1 (51.1% vs. 46.6% at 3 years; P = .84).

The authors evaluated the effects of a second conditioning course on transplant outcomes among patients who did not initially achieve an MRD-negative complete remission.

They found that 60% of patients did convert from MRD-positive to MRD-negative status after course 2. Among those patients, the survival versus chemotherapy alone was substantially higher (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.92) compared to those who remained MRD-negative (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.32-1.72).

However, the authors note that, owing to a lack of heterogeneity, the results don’t necessarily mean that the patients who remained MRD positive did not also benefit from transplant.

“There was a significant benefit for transplant in those who converted to MRD negativity,” Dr. Russell said.

“With a hazard ratio of .32, this was far superior to those who remained MRD-positive post course 2,” he said.

“These results show that MRD status after course 1 is important information in terms of response to therapy and can alter your treatment strategy if you’re considering a transplant as an option for these patients,” Dr. Russell told this news organization.

In further commenting, Dr. Craddock said the research highlights the importance of randomized trials with regard to whether patients who are MRD-positive before transplant will benefit from an additional course of therapy to reduce the MRD load.

“Most get two courses, but the question is, if they are still MRD positive, should they get a third course, and if so, what should that look like?” he said.

“There are currently no randomized controlled trials to address that ongoing question, and they need to be done,” he added.

Dr. Russell has relationships with Pfizer, Astellas, and Jazz Pharma. Dr. Craddock has a relationship with Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Among older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), survival is significantly better when they undergo reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) before receiving an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) at first remission. This improvement in survival is seen regardless of key factors such as genotype and the status of minimal residual disease (MRD) after initial chemotherapy, results from two large randomized trials show.

“Two consecutive trials of more than 1,500 older AML patients above 60 years of age demonstrate a consistent benefit for RIC transplant in first remission,” said first author Nigel Russell, MD, of Guy’s Hospital, London, and Nottingham University, England. “This benefit is seen independent of their post-course 1 MRD status,” he added.

Dr. Russell presented the new data at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2021 Annual Meeting.

Commenting on the study, Charles Craddock, MD, said in an interview that the results “confirm the growing importance of RIC transplantation as a central treatment management strategy in high-risk AML and in this population high risk patients over 60.”

“[These findings] reinforce the evolving treatment paradigm that, in fit adults over 60 with AML, hematopoietic cell transplantation should be considered an essential component of their management plan,” said Dr. Craddock, academic director of the Center for Clinical Haematology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, England.

Patients with AML who are older than 60 years can achieve complete remission with intensive chemotherapy alone; however, relapse is common, and only about 20% survive for 5 years, Dr. Russell explained.

HCT significantly improves survival outcomes, and the development of RIC has made transplantation accessible to high-risk patients by making the procedure more tolerable with lower toxicity in comparison with conventional conditioning regimens.

However, there is ongoing debate over the prognostic effect of key factors in pretransplant conditioning that may be predictive of the risk for post-transplant relapse – in particular, the presence of MRD after the first course of conditioning, he explained.

To more closely investigate those factors and the rate of survival of older patients with AML who undergo RIC transplant, Dr. Russell and his colleagues evaluated results from the National Cancer Research Institute’s (NCRI) AML16 trial, which was conducted from 2006 to 2012, and interim results from the NCRI AML18 trial, which started in 2015 and is ongoing.

Both trials employed double induction of daunorubicin and clofarabine or, in the AML16 trial, AraC ± gemtuzumab, and in the AML18 trial, daunorubicin and AraC (DA) + gemtuzumab.

In AML18, patients who were MRD positive after course 1 were randomly assigned to undergo either an intensification randomization after either FLAG-Ida or DA+cladribine or DA alone.

In AML16, of 983 patients in first complete response, 144 (15%) subsequently underwent RIC transplant. The median follow-up for survival from complete response was 45 months.

In the AML18 trial, of 847 patients, 648 patients achieved complete response. Among them, 201 (31%) underwent transplant. The median follow-up of survival was 45 months.

The results of both trials showed greater benefit with RIC transplant versus chemotherapy alone.

In the AML16 trial, among patients aged 60 to 70 who received RIC, survival at 5 years was significantly improved compared with chemotherapy alone (37% vs. 19%; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.82; P < .001).

In AML16, the higher survival benefit in comparison with chemotherapy alone was observed in the RIC group across subgroups of risk level, as stratified according to in the multivariate Wheatley risk group score. Subgroup stratification was based on age, cytogenics, and other factors (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.83; P < .001).

Importantly, the survival benefits were significantly greater with RIC transplant regardless of MRD-negative or MRD-positive status after course 1 (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85; P < .001).

Allograft transplant was also more favorable regardless of FLT3 ITD or NPM1 mutation status (P for heterogeneity by genetic subgroups, 0.61).

In AML16, no groups were found to have benefited more with RIC. Consequently, the criteria for transplant in AML18 trial were based on patients’ health status and donor availability.

An interim analysis of the ongoing AML 18 trial further underscored an overall benefit of RIC transplant. Rates of 3-year survival from remission were 48% with RIC transplant, versus 37.4% with chemotherapy alone (P = .027). The benefit was independent of MRD status after conditioning course 1, similar to the AML16 results (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95; P = .02).

Although the rate of transplantation in the AML18 trial was higher among patients who were MRD positive in comparison with those who were MRD negative (36% vs. 24.8%), the rates of post-transplant survival were not significantly different between those who were MRD positive and those who were MRD negative after course 1 (51.1% vs. 46.6% at 3 years; P = .84).

The authors evaluated the effects of a second conditioning course on transplant outcomes among patients who did not initially achieve an MRD-negative complete remission.

They found that 60% of patients did convert from MRD-positive to MRD-negative status after course 2. Among those patients, the survival versus chemotherapy alone was substantially higher (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.92) compared to those who remained MRD-negative (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.32-1.72).

However, the authors note that, owing to a lack of heterogeneity, the results don’t necessarily mean that the patients who remained MRD positive did not also benefit from transplant.

“There was a significant benefit for transplant in those who converted to MRD negativity,” Dr. Russell said.

“With a hazard ratio of .32, this was far superior to those who remained MRD-positive post course 2,” he said.

“These results show that MRD status after course 1 is important information in terms of response to therapy and can alter your treatment strategy if you’re considering a transplant as an option for these patients,” Dr. Russell told this news organization.

In further commenting, Dr. Craddock said the research highlights the importance of randomized trials with regard to whether patients who are MRD-positive before transplant will benefit from an additional course of therapy to reduce the MRD load.

“Most get two courses, but the question is, if they are still MRD positive, should they get a third course, and if so, what should that look like?” he said.

“There are currently no randomized controlled trials to address that ongoing question, and they need to be done,” he added.

Dr. Russell has relationships with Pfizer, Astellas, and Jazz Pharma. Dr. Craddock has a relationship with Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

For many physicians and other professionals, aspirations of crafting a work of fiction are not uncommon — and with good reason. We are, after all, a generally well-disciplined bunch capable of completing complex tasks, and there is certainly no shortage of excitement and drama in medicine and surgery — ample fodder for thrilling stories. Nonetheless, writing a novel is a major commitment, and it requires persistence, patience, and dedicated time, especially for one with a busy medical career.

Getting started is not easy. Writing workshops are helpful, and in my case, I tried to mentor with some of the best. Before writing my novel, I attended workshops for aspiring novelists, given by noted physician authors Tess Gerritsen (Body Double, The Surgeon) and the late Michael Palmer (The Society, The Fifth Vial).

Writers are often advised to “write about what you know.” In my case, I combined my knowledge of medicine and my experience with the thoroughbred racing world to craft a thriller that one reviewer described as “Dick Francis meets Robin Cook.” For those who have never read the Dick Francis series, he was a renowned crime writer whose novels centered on horse racing in England. Having been an avid reader of both authors, that comparison was the ultimate compliment.

So against that backdrop, here is my distillation of 10 key points on the craft of writing a great thriller, based on my own experience in writing the novel Shedrow, along with some shared wisdom from a few legendary writers.

1. Start with the big “what if.” Any great story starts with that simple “what if” question. What if a series of high-profile executives in the managed care industry are serially murdered (Michael Palmer’s The Society)? What if a multimillion-dollar stallion dies suddenly under very mysterious circumstances on a supposedly secure farm in Kentucky (Dean DeLuke’s Shedrow)?

2. Put a MacGuffin to work in your story. Popularized by Alfred Hitchcock, the MacGuffin is that essential plot element that drives virtually all characters in the story, although it may be rather vague and meaningless to the story itself. In the iconic movie Pulp Fiction, the MacGuffin is the briefcase — everyone wants it, and we never do find out what’s in it.

3. Pacing is critical. Plot out the timeline of emotional highs and lows in a story. It should look like a rolling pattern of highs and lows that crescendo upward to the ultimate crisis. Take advantage of the fact that following any of those emotional peaks, you probably have the reader’s undivided attention. That would be a good time to provide backstory or fill in needed information for the reader – information that may be critical but perhaps not as exciting as what just transpired.

4. Torture your protagonists. Just when the reader thinks that the hero is finally home free, throw in another obstacle. Readers will empathize with the character and be drawn in by the unexpected hurdle.

5. Be original and surprise your readers. Create twists and turns that are totally unexpected, yet believable. This is easier said than done but will go a long way toward making your novel original, gripping, and unpredictable.

6. As a general rule, consider short sentences and short chapters. This is strictly a personal preference, but who can argue with James Patterson’s short chapters or with Robert Parker’s short and engaging sentences? Sentence length can be varied for effect, too, with shorter sentences serving to heighten action or increase tension.

7. Avoid the passive voice. Your readers want action. This is an important rule in almost any type of writing.

8. Keep descriptions brief. Long, drawn-out descriptions of the way characters look, or even setting descriptions, are easily overdone in a thriller. The thriller genre is very different from literary fiction in this regard. Stephen King advises writers to “just say what they see, then get on with the story.”

9. Sustain the reader’s interest throughout. Assess each chapter ending and determine whether the reader has been given enough reason to want to continue reading. Pose a question, end with a minor cliffhanger, or at least ensure that there is enough accumulated tension in the story.

10. Edit aggressively and cut out the fluff. Ernest Hemingway once confided to F. Scott Fitzgerald, “I write one page of masterpiece to 91 pages of shit. I try to put the shit in the wastebasket.”

Dr. DeLuke is professor emeritus of oral and facial surgery at Virginia Commonwealth University and author of the novel Shedrow.

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

For many physicians and other professionals, aspirations of crafting a work of fiction are not uncommon — and with good reason. We are, after all, a generally well-disciplined bunch capable of completing complex tasks, and there is certainly no shortage of excitement and drama in medicine and surgery — ample fodder for thrilling stories. Nonetheless, writing a novel is a major commitment, and it requires persistence, patience, and dedicated time, especially for one with a busy medical career.

Getting started is not easy. Writing workshops are helpful, and in my case, I tried to mentor with some of the best. Before writing my novel, I attended workshops for aspiring novelists, given by noted physician authors Tess Gerritsen (Body Double, The Surgeon) and the late Michael Palmer (The Society, The Fifth Vial).

Writers are often advised to “write about what you know.” In my case, I combined my knowledge of medicine and my experience with the thoroughbred racing world to craft a thriller that one reviewer described as “Dick Francis meets Robin Cook.” For those who have never read the Dick Francis series, he was a renowned crime writer whose novels centered on horse racing in England. Having been an avid reader of both authors, that comparison was the ultimate compliment.

So against that backdrop, here is my distillation of 10 key points on the craft of writing a great thriller, based on my own experience in writing the novel Shedrow, along with some shared wisdom from a few legendary writers.

1. Start with the big “what if.” Any great story starts with that simple “what if” question. What if a series of high-profile executives in the managed care industry are serially murdered (Michael Palmer’s The Society)? What if a multimillion-dollar stallion dies suddenly under very mysterious circumstances on a supposedly secure farm in Kentucky (Dean DeLuke’s Shedrow)?

2. Put a MacGuffin to work in your story. Popularized by Alfred Hitchcock, the MacGuffin is that essential plot element that drives virtually all characters in the story, although it may be rather vague and meaningless to the story itself. In the iconic movie Pulp Fiction, the MacGuffin is the briefcase — everyone wants it, and we never do find out what’s in it.

3. Pacing is critical. Plot out the timeline of emotional highs and lows in a story. It should look like a rolling pattern of highs and lows that crescendo upward to the ultimate crisis. Take advantage of the fact that following any of those emotional peaks, you probably have the reader’s undivided attention. That would be a good time to provide backstory or fill in needed information for the reader – information that may be critical but perhaps not as exciting as what just transpired.

4. Torture your protagonists. Just when the reader thinks that the hero is finally home free, throw in another obstacle. Readers will empathize with the character and be drawn in by the unexpected hurdle.

5. Be original and surprise your readers. Create twists and turns that are totally unexpected, yet believable. This is easier said than done but will go a long way toward making your novel original, gripping, and unpredictable.

6. As a general rule, consider short sentences and short chapters. This is strictly a personal preference, but who can argue with James Patterson’s short chapters or with Robert Parker’s short and engaging sentences? Sentence length can be varied for effect, too, with shorter sentences serving to heighten action or increase tension.

7. Avoid the passive voice. Your readers want action. This is an important rule in almost any type of writing.

8. Keep descriptions brief. Long, drawn-out descriptions of the way characters look, or even setting descriptions, are easily overdone in a thriller. The thriller genre is very different from literary fiction in this regard. Stephen King advises writers to “just say what they see, then get on with the story.”

9. Sustain the reader’s interest throughout. Assess each chapter ending and determine whether the reader has been given enough reason to want to continue reading. Pose a question, end with a minor cliffhanger, or at least ensure that there is enough accumulated tension in the story.

10. Edit aggressively and cut out the fluff. Ernest Hemingway once confided to F. Scott Fitzgerald, “I write one page of masterpiece to 91 pages of shit. I try to put the shit in the wastebasket.”

Dr. DeLuke is professor emeritus of oral and facial surgery at Virginia Commonwealth University and author of the novel Shedrow.

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

For many physicians and other professionals, aspirations of crafting a work of fiction are not uncommon — and with good reason. We are, after all, a generally well-disciplined bunch capable of completing complex tasks, and there is certainly no shortage of excitement and drama in medicine and surgery — ample fodder for thrilling stories. Nonetheless, writing a novel is a major commitment, and it requires persistence, patience, and dedicated time, especially for one with a busy medical career.

Getting started is not easy. Writing workshops are helpful, and in my case, I tried to mentor with some of the best. Before writing my novel, I attended workshops for aspiring novelists, given by noted physician authors Tess Gerritsen (Body Double, The Surgeon) and the late Michael Palmer (The Society, The Fifth Vial).

Writers are often advised to “write about what you know.” In my case, I combined my knowledge of medicine and my experience with the thoroughbred racing world to craft a thriller that one reviewer described as “Dick Francis meets Robin Cook.” For those who have never read the Dick Francis series, he was a renowned crime writer whose novels centered on horse racing in England. Having been an avid reader of both authors, that comparison was the ultimate compliment.

So against that backdrop, here is my distillation of 10 key points on the craft of writing a great thriller, based on my own experience in writing the novel Shedrow, along with some shared wisdom from a few legendary writers.

1. Start with the big “what if.” Any great story starts with that simple “what if” question. What if a series of high-profile executives in the managed care industry are serially murdered (Michael Palmer’s The Society)? What if a multimillion-dollar stallion dies suddenly under very mysterious circumstances on a supposedly secure farm in Kentucky (Dean DeLuke’s Shedrow)?

2. Put a MacGuffin to work in your story. Popularized by Alfred Hitchcock, the MacGuffin is that essential plot element that drives virtually all characters in the story, although it may be rather vague and meaningless to the story itself. In the iconic movie Pulp Fiction, the MacGuffin is the briefcase — everyone wants it, and we never do find out what’s in it.

3. Pacing is critical. Plot out the timeline of emotional highs and lows in a story. It should look like a rolling pattern of highs and lows that crescendo upward to the ultimate crisis. Take advantage of the fact that following any of those emotional peaks, you probably have the reader’s undivided attention. That would be a good time to provide backstory or fill in needed information for the reader – information that may be critical but perhaps not as exciting as what just transpired.

4. Torture your protagonists. Just when the reader thinks that the hero is finally home free, throw in another obstacle. Readers will empathize with the character and be drawn in by the unexpected hurdle.

5. Be original and surprise your readers. Create twists and turns that are totally unexpected, yet believable. This is easier said than done but will go a long way toward making your novel original, gripping, and unpredictable.

6. As a general rule, consider short sentences and short chapters. This is strictly a personal preference, but who can argue with James Patterson’s short chapters or with Robert Parker’s short and engaging sentences? Sentence length can be varied for effect, too, with shorter sentences serving to heighten action or increase tension.

7. Avoid the passive voice. Your readers want action. This is an important rule in almost any type of writing.

8. Keep descriptions brief. Long, drawn-out descriptions of the way characters look, or even setting descriptions, are easily overdone in a thriller. The thriller genre is very different from literary fiction in this regard. Stephen King advises writers to “just say what they see, then get on with the story.”

9. Sustain the reader’s interest throughout. Assess each chapter ending and determine whether the reader has been given enough reason to want to continue reading. Pose a question, end with a minor cliffhanger, or at least ensure that there is enough accumulated tension in the story.

10. Edit aggressively and cut out the fluff. Ernest Hemingway once confided to F. Scott Fitzgerald, “I write one page of masterpiece to 91 pages of shit. I try to put the shit in the wastebasket.”

Dr. DeLuke is professor emeritus of oral and facial surgery at Virginia Commonwealth University and author of the novel Shedrow.

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

Agents that reverse the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are highly effective in patients with severe bleeding, but mortality rates remain high despite their use, a meta-analysis shows.

Effective hemostasis was achieved in 78.5% of patients treated with a reversal agent, whereas failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with more than a threefold higher relative risk for death (relative risk, 3.63; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-5.16).

“This has implications in practice because it emphasizes the need for achieving effective hemostasis, if not with only one agent, trying other agents or treatment modalities, because it is a strong predictor of survival,” lead author Antonio Gómez-Outes, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The bad news, he said, is that the mortality rate was still significant, at 17.7%, and approximately half of patients with DOAC-related severe intracranial bleeding survived with long-term moderate/severe disability.

“The lesson is to prevent these bleeding events because once they appear, even if you give an antidote, the outcome is poor, particularly for intracranial bleeding,” said Dr. Gómez-Outes, division of pharmacology and clinical drug evaluation, Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices, Madrid.

To put this in context, mortality rates were close to 50% after intracranial bleeding a decade ago when there were no antidotes or reversal agents, he observed. “So to some extent, patient care has improved, and the outcome has improved, but there is a long road to improve regarding disability.”

More than 100,000 DOAC-related major bleeding cases occur each year in the United States and European Union, Dr. Gómez-Outes said, and about half are severe enough to require hospitalization and potentially the use of a reversal agent. These include idarucizumab (Praxbind) for dabigatran reversal and prothombin complex concentrates (4CCC) or andexanet alpha (Andexxa) for reversal of direct factor Xa inhibitors like rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban.

As reported in the June 22 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the meta-analysis comprised 4,735 patients (mean age, 77 years; 57% male) with severe DOAC-related bleeding who received 4PCC (n = 2,688), idarucizumab (n = 1,111), or andexanet (n = 936) in 60 studies between January 2010 and December 2020.

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) was the most common reason for use of a DOAC (82%), followed by venous thromboembolism (14%). Rivaroxaban was used in 36%, apixaban in 32%, dabigatran in 31%, and edoxaban in 1%.

The index bleeding event was intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in 55%. Anticoagulation was restarted in 57% of patients an average of 11 days after admission.

Mortality rates were 20.2% in patients with ICH and 15.4% in those with extracranial bleeding. There were no differences in death rates by reversal agent used, type of study, risk for bias, or study sponsorship in meta-regression analysis.

Rebleeding occurred in 13.2% of patients; 82.0% of these events were described as an ICH, and 78.0% occurred after anticoagulation was restarted.

The overall rate of thromboembolism was 4.6%. The risk was particularly high with andexanet, at 10.7%, and relatively low with idarucizumab (3.8%) and 4PCC (4.3%), the authors note.

“Our meta-analysis suggests specific reversal with andexanet is not superior to unspecific reversal with 4PCC, and that’s good news because many centers, in many countries, have no access to specific antidotes that are more costly,” Dr. Gómez-Outes said. “4PCC is an effective and relatively safe drug, so it’s still a good option for these patients.”

Labeling for andexanet includes a warning for thromboembolic events, but in the absence of direct comparisons, the findings should be interpreted with caution, he added. Further insights are expected from an ongoing randomized trial of andexanet and standard of care in 900 patients who present with acute ICH less than 15 hours after taking an oral factor Xa inhibitor. The preliminary completion date is set for 2023.

“The meta-analysis raises awareness about the rates of mortality and thromboembolism after reversal agent administration, although understanding the implications of these data is challenging,” Christopher Granger, MD, and Sean P. Pokomey, MD, MBA, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., say in an accompanying editorial.

The fact that failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with death is expected and might be related to the way hemostasis was defined, rather than the actual failure of the hemostatic treatments, they suggest. “The prothrombotic effects of each agent, including andexanet, need to be better understood, as clinicians work toward including reversal agents into algorithms for bleeding management.”

Effective hemostasis was defined in the studies through various methods as: “Excellent/good” using the Sarode and ANNEXA-4 scales; “yes” in the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scale; and with other scales and through clinical judgment.

Although the size of the meta-analysis dwarfs previous reviews, the editorialists and authors point out that 47 of the 60 studies were retrospective, only two had control groups, and 45 had a high risk for bias.

In general, there was also poor reporting of key clinical data, such as postbleeding anticoagulation management, and a limitation of the mortality analysis is that it was based in selected patients with effective hemostasis assessed within 48 hours, which may not capture early deaths, the authors note.

“The morbidity and mortality from ischemic strokes as a result of undertreatment of stroke prevention in patients with AFib continue to dwarf the bleeding related mortality among patients with AFib and on DOACs, and thus the number one priority is to treat nearly all patients with AFib with a DOAC,” Dr. Granger and Dr. Pokomey conclude. “The availability of reversal agents for DOACs should provide reassurance, with another tool in our armamentarium, to providers to prescribe OACs for stroke prevention.”

No funding/grant support was received to conduct the study. Coauthor Ramón Lecumberri has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. All other authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Granger has received research and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Boston Scientific, Apple, AstraZeneca, Novartis, AbbVie, Biomed, CeleCor, GSK, Novartis, Medtronic, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Philips, Rho, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Pokomey has received modest consulting support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen, and Zoll; modest research support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Janssen; and significant research support from the FDA.

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

Agents that reverse the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are highly effective in patients with severe bleeding, but mortality rates remain high despite their use, a meta-analysis shows.

Effective hemostasis was achieved in 78.5% of patients treated with a reversal agent, whereas failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with more than a threefold higher relative risk for death (relative risk, 3.63; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-5.16).

“This has implications in practice because it emphasizes the need for achieving effective hemostasis, if not with only one agent, trying other agents or treatment modalities, because it is a strong predictor of survival,” lead author Antonio Gómez-Outes, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The bad news, he said, is that the mortality rate was still significant, at 17.7%, and approximately half of patients with DOAC-related severe intracranial bleeding survived with long-term moderate/severe disability.

“The lesson is to prevent these bleeding events because once they appear, even if you give an antidote, the outcome is poor, particularly for intracranial bleeding,” said Dr. Gómez-Outes, division of pharmacology and clinical drug evaluation, Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices, Madrid.

To put this in context, mortality rates were close to 50% after intracranial bleeding a decade ago when there were no antidotes or reversal agents, he observed. “So to some extent, patient care has improved, and the outcome has improved, but there is a long road to improve regarding disability.”

More than 100,000 DOAC-related major bleeding cases occur each year in the United States and European Union, Dr. Gómez-Outes said, and about half are severe enough to require hospitalization and potentially the use of a reversal agent. These include idarucizumab (Praxbind) for dabigatran reversal and prothombin complex concentrates (4CCC) or andexanet alpha (Andexxa) for reversal of direct factor Xa inhibitors like rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban.

As reported in the June 22 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the meta-analysis comprised 4,735 patients (mean age, 77 years; 57% male) with severe DOAC-related bleeding who received 4PCC (n = 2,688), idarucizumab (n = 1,111), or andexanet (n = 936) in 60 studies between January 2010 and December 2020.

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) was the most common reason for use of a DOAC (82%), followed by venous thromboembolism (14%). Rivaroxaban was used in 36%, apixaban in 32%, dabigatran in 31%, and edoxaban in 1%.

The index bleeding event was intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in 55%. Anticoagulation was restarted in 57% of patients an average of 11 days after admission.

Mortality rates were 20.2% in patients with ICH and 15.4% in those with extracranial bleeding. There were no differences in death rates by reversal agent used, type of study, risk for bias, or study sponsorship in meta-regression analysis.

Rebleeding occurred in 13.2% of patients; 82.0% of these events were described as an ICH, and 78.0% occurred after anticoagulation was restarted.

The overall rate of thromboembolism was 4.6%. The risk was particularly high with andexanet, at 10.7%, and relatively low with idarucizumab (3.8%) and 4PCC (4.3%), the authors note.

“Our meta-analysis suggests specific reversal with andexanet is not superior to unspecific reversal with 4PCC, and that’s good news because many centers, in many countries, have no access to specific antidotes that are more costly,” Dr. Gómez-Outes said. “4PCC is an effective and relatively safe drug, so it’s still a good option for these patients.”

Labeling for andexanet includes a warning for thromboembolic events, but in the absence of direct comparisons, the findings should be interpreted with caution, he added. Further insights are expected from an ongoing randomized trial of andexanet and standard of care in 900 patients who present with acute ICH less than 15 hours after taking an oral factor Xa inhibitor. The preliminary completion date is set for 2023.

“The meta-analysis raises awareness about the rates of mortality and thromboembolism after reversal agent administration, although understanding the implications of these data is challenging,” Christopher Granger, MD, and Sean P. Pokomey, MD, MBA, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., say in an accompanying editorial.

The fact that failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with death is expected and might be related to the way hemostasis was defined, rather than the actual failure of the hemostatic treatments, they suggest. “The prothrombotic effects of each agent, including andexanet, need to be better understood, as clinicians work toward including reversal agents into algorithms for bleeding management.”

Effective hemostasis was defined in the studies through various methods as: “Excellent/good” using the Sarode and ANNEXA-4 scales; “yes” in the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scale; and with other scales and through clinical judgment.

Although the size of the meta-analysis dwarfs previous reviews, the editorialists and authors point out that 47 of the 60 studies were retrospective, only two had control groups, and 45 had a high risk for bias.

In general, there was also poor reporting of key clinical data, such as postbleeding anticoagulation management, and a limitation of the mortality analysis is that it was based in selected patients with effective hemostasis assessed within 48 hours, which may not capture early deaths, the authors note.

“The morbidity and mortality from ischemic strokes as a result of undertreatment of stroke prevention in patients with AFib continue to dwarf the bleeding related mortality among patients with AFib and on DOACs, and thus the number one priority is to treat nearly all patients with AFib with a DOAC,” Dr. Granger and Dr. Pokomey conclude. “The availability of reversal agents for DOACs should provide reassurance, with another tool in our armamentarium, to providers to prescribe OACs for stroke prevention.”

No funding/grant support was received to conduct the study. Coauthor Ramón Lecumberri has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. All other authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Granger has received research and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Boston Scientific, Apple, AstraZeneca, Novartis, AbbVie, Biomed, CeleCor, GSK, Novartis, Medtronic, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Philips, Rho, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Pokomey has received modest consulting support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen, and Zoll; modest research support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Janssen; and significant research support from the FDA.

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

Agents that reverse the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are highly effective in patients with severe bleeding, but mortality rates remain high despite their use, a meta-analysis shows.

Effective hemostasis was achieved in 78.5% of patients treated with a reversal agent, whereas failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with more than a threefold higher relative risk for death (relative risk, 3.63; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-5.16).

“This has implications in practice because it emphasizes the need for achieving effective hemostasis, if not with only one agent, trying other agents or treatment modalities, because it is a strong predictor of survival,” lead author Antonio Gómez-Outes, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The bad news, he said, is that the mortality rate was still significant, at 17.7%, and approximately half of patients with DOAC-related severe intracranial bleeding survived with long-term moderate/severe disability.

“The lesson is to prevent these bleeding events because once they appear, even if you give an antidote, the outcome is poor, particularly for intracranial bleeding,” said Dr. Gómez-Outes, division of pharmacology and clinical drug evaluation, Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices, Madrid.

To put this in context, mortality rates were close to 50% after intracranial bleeding a decade ago when there were no antidotes or reversal agents, he observed. “So to some extent, patient care has improved, and the outcome has improved, but there is a long road to improve regarding disability.”

More than 100,000 DOAC-related major bleeding cases occur each year in the United States and European Union, Dr. Gómez-Outes said, and about half are severe enough to require hospitalization and potentially the use of a reversal agent. These include idarucizumab (Praxbind) for dabigatran reversal and prothombin complex concentrates (4CCC) or andexanet alpha (Andexxa) for reversal of direct factor Xa inhibitors like rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban.

As reported in the June 22 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the meta-analysis comprised 4,735 patients (mean age, 77 years; 57% male) with severe DOAC-related bleeding who received 4PCC (n = 2,688), idarucizumab (n = 1,111), or andexanet (n = 936) in 60 studies between January 2010 and December 2020.

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) was the most common reason for use of a DOAC (82%), followed by venous thromboembolism (14%). Rivaroxaban was used in 36%, apixaban in 32%, dabigatran in 31%, and edoxaban in 1%.

The index bleeding event was intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in 55%. Anticoagulation was restarted in 57% of patients an average of 11 days after admission.

Mortality rates were 20.2% in patients with ICH and 15.4% in those with extracranial bleeding. There were no differences in death rates by reversal agent used, type of study, risk for bias, or study sponsorship in meta-regression analysis.

Rebleeding occurred in 13.2% of patients; 82.0% of these events were described as an ICH, and 78.0% occurred after anticoagulation was restarted.

The overall rate of thromboembolism was 4.6%. The risk was particularly high with andexanet, at 10.7%, and relatively low with idarucizumab (3.8%) and 4PCC (4.3%), the authors note.

“Our meta-analysis suggests specific reversal with andexanet is not superior to unspecific reversal with 4PCC, and that’s good news because many centers, in many countries, have no access to specific antidotes that are more costly,” Dr. Gómez-Outes said. “4PCC is an effective and relatively safe drug, so it’s still a good option for these patients.”

Labeling for andexanet includes a warning for thromboembolic events, but in the absence of direct comparisons, the findings should be interpreted with caution, he added. Further insights are expected from an ongoing randomized trial of andexanet and standard of care in 900 patients who present with acute ICH less than 15 hours after taking an oral factor Xa inhibitor. The preliminary completion date is set for 2023.

“The meta-analysis raises awareness about the rates of mortality and thromboembolism after reversal agent administration, although understanding the implications of these data is challenging,” Christopher Granger, MD, and Sean P. Pokomey, MD, MBA, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., say in an accompanying editorial.

The fact that failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with death is expected and might be related to the way hemostasis was defined, rather than the actual failure of the hemostatic treatments, they suggest. “The prothrombotic effects of each agent, including andexanet, need to be better understood, as clinicians work toward including reversal agents into algorithms for bleeding management.”

Effective hemostasis was defined in the studies through various methods as: “Excellent/good” using the Sarode and ANNEXA-4 scales; “yes” in the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scale; and with other scales and through clinical judgment.

Although the size of the meta-analysis dwarfs previous reviews, the editorialists and authors point out that 47 of the 60 studies were retrospective, only two had control groups, and 45 had a high risk for bias.

In general, there was also poor reporting of key clinical data, such as postbleeding anticoagulation management, and a limitation of the mortality analysis is that it was based in selected patients with effective hemostasis assessed within 48 hours, which may not capture early deaths, the authors note.

“The morbidity and mortality from ischemic strokes as a result of undertreatment of stroke prevention in patients with AFib continue to dwarf the bleeding related mortality among patients with AFib and on DOACs, and thus the number one priority is to treat nearly all patients with AFib with a DOAC,” Dr. Granger and Dr. Pokomey conclude. “The availability of reversal agents for DOACs should provide reassurance, with another tool in our armamentarium, to providers to prescribe OACs for stroke prevention.”

No funding/grant support was received to conduct the study. Coauthor Ramón Lecumberri has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. All other authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Granger has received research and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Boston Scientific, Apple, AstraZeneca, Novartis, AbbVie, Biomed, CeleCor, GSK, Novartis, Medtronic, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Philips, Rho, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Pokomey has received modest consulting support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen, and Zoll; modest research support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Janssen; and significant research support from the FDA.

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

Gerald E. Harmon, MD, a family physician in South Carolina whose patients sometimes leave produce in the back of his pickup truck, has practiced medicine during military deployments and during 15-hour shifts in the COVID-19 pandemic.

He has encountered “all manner of unexpected situations” and feels “more than prepared” to serve as president of the American Medical Association, he said.

At the same time, “I still find myself a little nervous about it,” Dr. Harmon said in an interview the day after he was sworn in as president. “I would be less than candid if I didn’t tell you that. I don’t mean intimidated. ... It’s almost like before an athletic event.”

Dr. Harmon was sworn in June 15 as the 176th president of the AMA during the virtual Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. He follows Susan R. Bailey, MD, an allergist from Fort Worth, Tex., in leading the organization, which has more than 270,000 members.
 

Advancing health equity

During his inaugural address, Dr. Harmon discussed the pandemic and the AMA’s plan to advance health equity.

COVID-19 “has revealed enormous gaps in how we care for people and communities in America, demonstrated in the disproportionate impact of this pandemic on communities of color and in the weaknesses of our underfunded and underresourced public health infrastructure,” Dr. Harmon said.

He described medical professionals as being “at war against seemingly formidable adversaries,” including the pandemic, the effects of prolonged isolation on emotional and behavioral health, and political and racial tension. There is an “immense battle to rid our health system – and society – of health disparities and racism,” he said. “As we face these battles, we must remember that our actions as physicians and as leaders will have far-reaching consequences.”

Other challenges before the AMA include vaccinating patients, recovering from the ongoing pandemic, removing unnecessary obstacles to care, ending an epidemic of drug overdoses, improving outcomes for patients with chronic disease, incorporating technology in ways that benefit doctors and patients, and preparing future physicians, Dr. Harmon noted.

“We are going to embed the principles of equity and racial justice within the AMA and throughout our health system,” added Dr. Harmon, who has been an AMA board member since 2013 and served as board chair from 2017 to 2018. He highlighted the AMA’s strategic plan, released in May 2021, to advance health equity and justice and improve the quality of care for people who have been marginalized.

“Meaningful progress won’t happen until we, as doctors, recognize how profoundly systemic racism influences the health of our patients, and until we commit to taking action within our own spheres of influence,” Dr. Harmon said. “As a family doctor in a very diverse state, I have treated people from all backgrounds, and have seen inequities up close, inequities that understandably lead to distrust.”

Commenting in an interview on JAMA’s controversial tweet and podcast related to structural racism from earlier this year that have been deleted and removed from JAMA’s website, Dr. Harmon said, JAMA maintains editorial independence from the AMA, but that direction from a journal oversight committee could lead to changes at the journal that could help prevent similar incidents.

“We’ll support whatever the journal oversight committee suggests,” Dr. Harmon said.

“We had public statements about [the podcast]. I do think that we’ll be able to move very quickly in a stronger direction to address the issue of systemic racism,” Dr. Harmon said. “The AMA has acknowledged that it is a public health threat. We have acknowledged that it is ... a political description versus a biologic construct. So, I would anticipate that you’ll find changes.”

The AMA began developing its strategic plan to advance equity several years ago, Dr. Harmon noted. “I think we are very well poised to move forward and attack this enemy of health disparity.”
 

AAFP president supporting Dr. Harmon’s inauguration

Among those congratulating Dr. Harmon on his inauguration was Ada Stewart, MD, a fellow family physician and South Carolina resident who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We are very excited that family physician Dr. Gerald Harmon will serve as president of the AMA this coming year,” Dr. Stewart said. “Family medicine encompasses the very essence of medicine – treating the whole person, in the context of family, community, and each individual’s unique circumstances. As a family physician, Dr. Harmon brings important perspectives from the front lines of primary care. His commitment to health equity and evidence-based care, as well as his concern for practice sustainability and physician well-being, will serve him well as he leads the house of medicine into the future.”

Dr. Harmon has practiced as a family medicine specialist in Georgetown, S.C., for more than 30 years. He is a member of the clinical faculty for the Tidelands Health Medical University of South Carolina family medicine residency program, advises a community health system, and is vice president of a multispecialty physician practice. In addition, Dr. Harmon is the medical director of a nonprofit hospice and volunteers as medical supervisor for his local school district.

Dr. Harmon received his undergraduate degree in physics and mathematics from the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and received his medical degree from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. He completed a residency training program in family medicine with the U.S. Air Force at Eglin (Fla.) AFB, Florida.

During a 35-year military career, Dr. Harmon served as chief surgeon for the National Guard Bureau and assistant surgeon general for the U.S. Air Force. He retired from the military as a major general.

Dr. Harmon and his wife, Linda, have three married children and eight grandchildren.

Every now and then, a bucket of tomatoes or even a half bushel of corn shows up in the back of Dr. Harmon’s pickup truck, with a note on the window thanking him. “That really touches you deeply,” Dr. Harmon said. “I practice that type of medicine and I’m honored to be able to do that every day.”

[email protected]

Gerald E. Harmon, MD, a family physician in South Carolina whose patients sometimes leave produce in the back of his pickup truck, has practiced medicine during military deployments and during 15-hour shifts in the COVID-19 pandemic.

He has encountered “all manner of unexpected situations” and feels “more than prepared” to serve as president of the American Medical Association, he said.

At the same time, “I still find myself a little nervous about it,” Dr. Harmon said in an interview the day after he was sworn in as president. “I would be less than candid if I didn’t tell you that. I don’t mean intimidated. ... It’s almost like before an athletic event.”

Dr. Harmon was sworn in June 15 as the 176th president of the AMA during the virtual Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. He follows Susan R. Bailey, MD, an allergist from Fort Worth, Tex., in leading the organization, which has more than 270,000 members.
 

Advancing health equity

During his inaugural address, Dr. Harmon discussed the pandemic and the AMA’s plan to advance health equity.

COVID-19 “has revealed enormous gaps in how we care for people and communities in America, demonstrated in the disproportionate impact of this pandemic on communities of color and in the weaknesses of our underfunded and underresourced public health infrastructure,” Dr. Harmon said.

He described medical professionals as being “at war against seemingly formidable adversaries,” including the pandemic, the effects of prolonged isolation on emotional and behavioral health, and political and racial tension. There is an “immense battle to rid our health system – and society – of health disparities and racism,” he said. “As we face these battles, we must remember that our actions as physicians and as leaders will have far-reaching consequences.”

Other challenges before the AMA include vaccinating patients, recovering from the ongoing pandemic, removing unnecessary obstacles to care, ending an epidemic of drug overdoses, improving outcomes for patients with chronic disease, incorporating technology in ways that benefit doctors and patients, and preparing future physicians, Dr. Harmon noted.

“We are going to embed the principles of equity and racial justice within the AMA and throughout our health system,” added Dr. Harmon, who has been an AMA board member since 2013 and served as board chair from 2017 to 2018. He highlighted the AMA’s strategic plan, released in May 2021, to advance health equity and justice and improve the quality of care for people who have been marginalized.

“Meaningful progress won’t happen until we, as doctors, recognize how profoundly systemic racism influences the health of our patients, and until we commit to taking action within our own spheres of influence,” Dr. Harmon said. “As a family doctor in a very diverse state, I have treated people from all backgrounds, and have seen inequities up close, inequities that understandably lead to distrust.”

Commenting in an interview on JAMA’s controversial tweet and podcast related to structural racism from earlier this year that have been deleted and removed from JAMA’s website, Dr. Harmon said, JAMA maintains editorial independence from the AMA, but that direction from a journal oversight committee could lead to changes at the journal that could help prevent similar incidents.

“We’ll support whatever the journal oversight committee suggests,” Dr. Harmon said.

“We had public statements about [the podcast]. I do think that we’ll be able to move very quickly in a stronger direction to address the issue of systemic racism,” Dr. Harmon said. “The AMA has acknowledged that it is a public health threat. We have acknowledged that it is ... a political description versus a biologic construct. So, I would anticipate that you’ll find changes.”

The AMA began developing its strategic plan to advance equity several years ago, Dr. Harmon noted. “I think we are very well poised to move forward and attack this enemy of health disparity.”
 

AAFP president supporting Dr. Harmon’s inauguration

Among those congratulating Dr. Harmon on his inauguration was Ada Stewart, MD, a fellow family physician and South Carolina resident who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We are very excited that family physician Dr. Gerald Harmon will serve as president of the AMA this coming year,” Dr. Stewart said. “Family medicine encompasses the very essence of medicine – treating the whole person, in the context of family, community, and each individual’s unique circumstances. As a family physician, Dr. Harmon brings important perspectives from the front lines of primary care. His commitment to health equity and evidence-based care, as well as his concern for practice sustainability and physician well-being, will serve him well as he leads the house of medicine into the future.”

Dr. Harmon has practiced as a family medicine specialist in Georgetown, S.C., for more than 30 years. He is a member of the clinical faculty for the Tidelands Health Medical University of South Carolina family medicine residency program, advises a community health system, and is vice president of a multispecialty physician practice. In addition, Dr. Harmon is the medical director of a nonprofit hospice and volunteers as medical supervisor for his local school district.

Dr. Harmon received his undergraduate degree in physics and mathematics from the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and received his medical degree from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. He completed a residency training program in family medicine with the U.S. Air Force at Eglin (Fla.) AFB, Florida.

During a 35-year military career, Dr. Harmon served as chief surgeon for the National Guard Bureau and assistant surgeon general for the U.S. Air Force. He retired from the military as a major general.

Dr. Harmon and his wife, Linda, have three married children and eight grandchildren.

Every now and then, a bucket of tomatoes or even a half bushel of corn shows up in the back of Dr. Harmon’s pickup truck, with a note on the window thanking him. “That really touches you deeply,” Dr. Harmon said. “I practice that type of medicine and I’m honored to be able to do that every day.”

[email protected]

Gerald E. Harmon, MD, a family physician in South Carolina whose patients sometimes leave produce in the back of his pickup truck, has practiced medicine during military deployments and during 15-hour shifts in the COVID-19 pandemic.

He has encountered “all manner of unexpected situations” and feels “more than prepared” to serve as president of the American Medical Association, he said.

At the same time, “I still find myself a little nervous about it,” Dr. Harmon said in an interview the day after he was sworn in as president. “I would be less than candid if I didn’t tell you that. I don’t mean intimidated. ... It’s almost like before an athletic event.”

Dr. Harmon was sworn in June 15 as the 176th president of the AMA during the virtual Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. He follows Susan R. Bailey, MD, an allergist from Fort Worth, Tex., in leading the organization, which has more than 270,000 members.
 

Advancing health equity

During his inaugural address, Dr. Harmon discussed the pandemic and the AMA’s plan to advance health equity.

COVID-19 “has revealed enormous gaps in how we care for people and communities in America, demonstrated in the disproportionate impact of this pandemic on communities of color and in the weaknesses of our underfunded and underresourced public health infrastructure,” Dr. Harmon said.

He described medical professionals as being “at war against seemingly formidable adversaries,” including the pandemic, the effects of prolonged isolation on emotional and behavioral health, and political and racial tension. There is an “immense battle to rid our health system – and society – of health disparities and racism,” he said. “As we face these battles, we must remember that our actions as physicians and as leaders will have far-reaching consequences.”

Other challenges before the AMA include vaccinating patients, recovering from the ongoing pandemic, removing unnecessary obstacles to care, ending an epidemic of drug overdoses, improving outcomes for patients with chronic disease, incorporating technology in ways that benefit doctors and patients, and preparing future physicians, Dr. Harmon noted.

“We are going to embed the principles of equity and racial justice within the AMA and throughout our health system,” added Dr. Harmon, who has been an AMA board member since 2013 and served as board chair from 2017 to 2018. He highlighted the AMA’s strategic plan, released in May 2021, to advance health equity and justice and improve the quality of care for people who have been marginalized.

“Meaningful progress won’t happen until we, as doctors, recognize how profoundly systemic racism influences the health of our patients, and until we commit to taking action within our own spheres of influence,” Dr. Harmon said. “As a family doctor in a very diverse state, I have treated people from all backgrounds, and have seen inequities up close, inequities that understandably lead to distrust.”

Commenting in an interview on JAMA’s controversial tweet and podcast related to structural racism from earlier this year that have been deleted and removed from JAMA’s website, Dr. Harmon said, JAMA maintains editorial independence from the AMA, but that direction from a journal oversight committee could lead to changes at the journal that could help prevent similar incidents.

“We’ll support whatever the journal oversight committee suggests,” Dr. Harmon said.

“We had public statements about [the podcast]. I do think that we’ll be able to move very quickly in a stronger direction to address the issue of systemic racism,” Dr. Harmon said. “The AMA has acknowledged that it is a public health threat. We have acknowledged that it is ... a political description versus a biologic construct. So, I would anticipate that you’ll find changes.”

The AMA began developing its strategic plan to advance equity several years ago, Dr. Harmon noted. “I think we are very well poised to move forward and attack this enemy of health disparity.”
 

AAFP president supporting Dr. Harmon’s inauguration

Among those congratulating Dr. Harmon on his inauguration was Ada Stewart, MD, a fellow family physician and South Carolina resident who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We are very excited that family physician Dr. Gerald Harmon will serve as president of the AMA this coming year,” Dr. Stewart said. “Family medicine encompasses the very essence of medicine – treating the whole person, in the context of family, community, and each individual’s unique circumstances. As a family physician, Dr. Harmon brings important perspectives from the front lines of primary care. His commitment to health equity and evidence-based care, as well as his concern for practice sustainability and physician well-being, will serve him well as he leads the house of medicine into the future.”

Dr. Harmon has practiced as a family medicine specialist in Georgetown, S.C., for more than 30 years. He is a member of the clinical faculty for the Tidelands Health Medical University of South Carolina family medicine residency program, advises a community health system, and is vice president of a multispecialty physician practice. In addition, Dr. Harmon is the medical director of a nonprofit hospice and volunteers as medical supervisor for his local school district.

Dr. Harmon received his undergraduate degree in physics and mathematics from the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and received his medical degree from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. He completed a residency training program in family medicine with the U.S. Air Force at Eglin (Fla.) AFB, Florida.

During a 35-year military career, Dr. Harmon served as chief surgeon for the National Guard Bureau and assistant surgeon general for the U.S. Air Force. He retired from the military as a major general.

Dr. Harmon and his wife, Linda, have three married children and eight grandchildren.

Every now and then, a bucket of tomatoes or even a half bushel of corn shows up in the back of Dr. Harmon’s pickup truck, with a note on the window thanking him. “That really touches you deeply,” Dr. Harmon said. “I practice that type of medicine and I’m honored to be able to do that every day.”

[email protected]

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act June 17 in a 7 to 2 vote, rejecting claims by the challengers that the requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate,  the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.

“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.

President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.

This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.

American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.

“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”

“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.

“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”

This article was updated June 17, 2021.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act June 17 in a 7 to 2 vote, rejecting claims by the challengers that the requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate,  the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.

“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.

President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.

This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.

American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.

“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”

“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.

“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”

This article was updated June 17, 2021.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act June 17 in a 7 to 2 vote, rejecting claims by the challengers that the requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate,  the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.

“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.

President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.

This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.

American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.

“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”

“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.

“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”

This article was updated June 17, 2021.

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

Even the youngest patients with relapsed or refractory B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) may be able to benefit from chimeric antigen reception T-cell (CAR T) therapy, investigators in an international consortium say.

Among 30 children aged under 2 years at the time of (B-ALL diagnosis, manufacturing of the CAR T product tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) was feasible in 28 patients, and treatment resulted in high rates of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, complete responses, event-free survival, and overall survival, reported Sara Ghorashian, MD from the University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, on behalf of the International BFM Resistant Disease Committee.

“The disease-related outcomes noted in this cohort of younger children predominantly with relapsed/refractory infant [mixed lineage leukemia]–rearranged ALL were at least as good as for the ELIANA study,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the European Hematology Association annual congress (Abstract S116).

The international, single-arm, open-label, ELIANA study was a phase 2 trial that included 97 patients aged 3-24 years with relapsed or refractory B-cell ALL, most of whom had previously undergone a hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Of those patients, 79 patients went on to receive a single infusion of the CAR T therapy.

“It’s fantastic data,” said Kevin J. Curran, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist specializing in stem cell transplants and cellular therapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“Pediatric leukemia, while it’s the most common malignancy that happens in children, when you get down to this really small group, this under 3-year-old group, it’s hard to get a cohort, and for them to put together 30 patients, and show these great results is groundbreaking,” he said in an interview.

“Most importantly, it gives hope to parents who have young children who have really difficult to treat leukemia,” he said.

Dr. Curran was not involved in the study.
 

Scarce data on ALL in infants

“Children under 3 years of age were excluded from the ELIANA study, yet in terms of having often highly aggressive disease, with traditionally poor outcomes with conventional therapy, the need for novel forms of therapy for children with relapsed infant ALL is important,” Dr. Ghorashian said.

Because there is a paucity of data on outcomes in the youngest children, some health authorities will not support the use of tisagenlecleucel in this age group, and there are concerns about difficulties with performing leukapheresis in children weighing less than 10 kg, she noted.

To gain a better understanding of outcomes, members of the International BFM (Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster) Study Group conducted a retrospective analysis of data on all patients assessed for tisagenlecleucel for B-ALL who were aged under 3 years at screening at 1 of 15 centers in Europe and Israel.

A total of 30 patients were screened and had T cells harvested. Of this group, three patients did not receive CAR T infusions, two because of manufacturing failures, and one because of progressive disease.

Of the 27 patients who received CAR T infusions, 26 were evaluable for disease outcomes (1 had yet to reach the 30-day post infusion at the time of data cutoff).

The median age at diagnosis was 4.4 months, and the median age at infusion was 17.4 months; 19 of the 30 children in the entire cohort were boys. Mixed lineage leukemia rearrangements were found in 24 children, and 21 had undergone a stem cell transplant.

The children had a median of two prior lines of therapy, not including transplant. Seven of the children had received inotuzumab (Besponsa) and 11 had received blinotumumab (Blincyto).
 

High success rate

Of the 27 patients infused, 17 had sufficient cells harvested in a single day, and the remainder required 2-4 days. As noted, the CAR T product was successfully manufactured in 28 patients, with a median dose of 2.3 x 10⁶/kg of patient weight.

The treatment failed for 2 of the 26 efficacy-evaluable patients, resulting in an MRD-negative rate of 92%.

Event-free survival at 6 months was 67%, similar to that in ELIANA (73%), and the 12-month event-free survival was 58%, which was superior to that in ELIANA (50%).

The 6-month and 12-month overall survival rates among the younger children were identical at 88%, compared with 90% and 76%, respectively, in ELIANA.

The 6- and 12-month probability of ongoing B-cell depletion, indicating CAR T persistence, were 77% and 68%, respectively. In ELIANA, the 6-month probability of B-cell depletion was 83%.

A total of 10 of the 27 patients received further therapy, including 3 who were given maintenance therapy for poor CAR T persistence, 2 who underwent chemotherapy for relapse, and 5 who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant.

Of six patients who experienced a relapse after having a complete response, two had CD19 relapse.
 

Low rate of serious CRS

At 30 days post infusion, grade 3 or greater cytokine release syndrome (CRS) had occurred in two patients, severe neurotoxicity occurred in one, and grade 3 or greater prolonged cytopenias occurred in eight patients.

The toxicity profile in this study was generally favorable in comparison with ELIANA, with shorter median duration of CRS, shorter median duration of CRS-related ICU stay, and a lower frequency of tocilizumab use. It should be noted, however, that the I-BFM investigators used American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy CRS consenus criteria, whereas the ELIANA investigators used University of Pennsylvania criteria.

“If the longer-term follow-up data are encouraging, it might suggest that the outcomes from tisagenlecleucel therapy are comparable to that of stem cell transplantation in high-risk relapsed infant ALL, without the associated late effects, and possibly supports CAR T-cell therapy eventually replace stem cell transplantation in this setting,” Dr. Ghorashian said.

Dr. Curran, who leads the CAR T effort at MSK Kids, the children’s division of MSKCC, agreed that the goal is for CAR T to replace stem cell transplants.

“I hope I put my clinical practice out of business with my research practice,” he said, but added that “I think we need to do more research in figuring out how to best use CAR T cells, either earlier, or as some data suggest, by treating patients with lower disease burden we would get better durability.

“Because obviously in kids’ cancer one relapse is too much, and we want to be able to raise that bar and provide hope and a cure for all of our children,” he said.

The study was sponsored by the I-BFM Resistant Disease Committee and member institutions. Dr. Ghorashian disclosed advisory board activity for Novartis, maker of tisagenlecleucel, and patents and royalties from UCL Business. Dr. Curran research funding and consulting fees from Novartis.

Even the youngest patients with relapsed or refractory B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) may be able to benefit from chimeric antigen reception T-cell (CAR T) therapy, investigators in an international consortium say.

Among 30 children aged under 2 years at the time of (B-ALL diagnosis, manufacturing of the CAR T product tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) was feasible in 28 patients, and treatment resulted in high rates of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, complete responses, event-free survival, and overall survival, reported Sara Ghorashian, MD from the University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, on behalf of the International BFM Resistant Disease Committee.

“The disease-related outcomes noted in this cohort of younger children predominantly with relapsed/refractory infant [mixed lineage leukemia]–rearranged ALL were at least as good as for the ELIANA study,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the European Hematology Association annual congress (Abstract S116).

The international, single-arm, open-label, ELIANA study was a phase 2 trial that included 97 patients aged 3-24 years with relapsed or refractory B-cell ALL, most of whom had previously undergone a hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Of those patients, 79 patients went on to receive a single infusion of the CAR T therapy.

“It’s fantastic data,” said Kevin J. Curran, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist specializing in stem cell transplants and cellular therapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“Pediatric leukemia, while it’s the most common malignancy that happens in children, when you get down to this really small group, this under 3-year-old group, it’s hard to get a cohort, and for them to put together 30 patients, and show these great results is groundbreaking,” he said in an interview.

“Most importantly, it gives hope to parents who have young children who have really difficult to treat leukemia,” he said.

Dr. Curran was not involved in the study.
 

Scarce data on ALL in infants

“Children under 3 years of age were excluded from the ELIANA study, yet in terms of having often highly aggressive disease, with traditionally poor outcomes with conventional therapy, the need for novel forms of therapy for children with relapsed infant ALL is important,” Dr. Ghorashian said.

Because there is a paucity of data on outcomes in the youngest children, some health authorities will not support the use of tisagenlecleucel in this age group, and there are concerns about difficulties with performing leukapheresis in children weighing less than 10 kg, she noted.

To gain a better understanding of outcomes, members of the International BFM (Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster) Study Group conducted a retrospective analysis of data on all patients assessed for tisagenlecleucel for B-ALL who were aged under 3 years at screening at 1 of 15 centers in Europe and Israel.

A total of 30 patients were screened and had T cells harvested. Of this group, three patients did not receive CAR T infusions, two because of manufacturing failures, and one because of progressive disease.

Of the 27 patients who received CAR T infusions, 26 were evaluable for disease outcomes (1 had yet to reach the 30-day post infusion at the time of data cutoff).

The median age at diagnosis was 4.4 months, and the median age at infusion was 17.4 months; 19 of the 30 children in the entire cohort were boys. Mixed lineage leukemia rearrangements were found in 24 children, and 21 had undergone a stem cell transplant.

The children had a median of two prior lines of therapy, not including transplant. Seven of the children had received inotuzumab (Besponsa) and 11 had received blinotumumab (Blincyto).
 

High success rate

Of the 27 patients infused, 17 had sufficient cells harvested in a single day, and the remainder required 2-4 days. As noted, the CAR T product was successfully manufactured in 28 patients, with a median dose of 2.3 x 10⁶/kg of patient weight.

The treatment failed for 2 of the 26 efficacy-evaluable patients, resulting in an MRD-negative rate of 92%.

Event-free survival at 6 months was 67%, similar to that in ELIANA (73%), and the 12-month event-free survival was 58%, which was superior to that in ELIANA (50%).

The 6-month and 12-month overall survival rates among the younger children were identical at 88%, compared with 90% and 76%, respectively, in ELIANA.

The 6- and 12-month probability of ongoing B-cell depletion, indicating CAR T persistence, were 77% and 68%, respectively. In ELIANA, the 6-month probability of B-cell depletion was 83%.

A total of 10 of the 27 patients received further therapy, including 3 who were given maintenance therapy for poor CAR T persistence, 2 who underwent chemotherapy for relapse, and 5 who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant.

Of six patients who experienced a relapse after having a complete response, two had CD19 relapse.
 

Low rate of serious CRS

At 30 days post infusion, grade 3 or greater cytokine release syndrome (CRS) had occurred in two patients, severe neurotoxicity occurred in one, and grade 3 or greater prolonged cytopenias occurred in eight patients.

The toxicity profile in this study was generally favorable in comparison with ELIANA, with shorter median duration of CRS, shorter median duration of CRS-related ICU stay, and a lower frequency of tocilizumab use. It should be noted, however, that the I-BFM investigators used American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy CRS consenus criteria, whereas the ELIANA investigators used University of Pennsylvania criteria.

“If the longer-term follow-up data are encouraging, it might suggest that the outcomes from tisagenlecleucel therapy are comparable to that of stem cell transplantation in high-risk relapsed infant ALL, without the associated late effects, and possibly supports CAR T-cell therapy eventually replace stem cell transplantation in this setting,” Dr. Ghorashian said.

Dr. Curran, who leads the CAR T effort at MSK Kids, the children’s division of MSKCC, agreed that the goal is for CAR T to replace stem cell transplants.

“I hope I put my clinical practice out of business with my research practice,” he said, but added that “I think we need to do more research in figuring out how to best use CAR T cells, either earlier, or as some data suggest, by treating patients with lower disease burden we would get better durability.

“Because obviously in kids’ cancer one relapse is too much, and we want to be able to raise that bar and provide hope and a cure for all of our children,” he said.

The study was sponsored by the I-BFM Resistant Disease Committee and member institutions. Dr. Ghorashian disclosed advisory board activity for Novartis, maker of tisagenlecleucel, and patents and royalties from UCL Business. Dr. Curran research funding and consulting fees from Novartis.

Even the youngest patients with relapsed or refractory B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) may be able to benefit from chimeric antigen reception T-cell (CAR T) therapy, investigators in an international consortium say.

Among 30 children aged under 2 years at the time of (B-ALL diagnosis, manufacturing of the CAR T product tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) was feasible in 28 patients, and treatment resulted in high rates of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, complete responses, event-free survival, and overall survival, reported Sara Ghorashian, MD from the University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, on behalf of the International BFM Resistant Disease Committee.

“The disease-related outcomes noted in this cohort of younger children predominantly with relapsed/refractory infant [mixed lineage leukemia]–rearranged ALL were at least as good as for the ELIANA study,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the European Hematology Association annual congress (Abstract S116).

The international, single-arm, open-label, ELIANA study was a phase 2 trial that included 97 patients aged 3-24 years with relapsed or refractory B-cell ALL, most of whom had previously undergone a hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Of those patients, 79 patients went on to receive a single infusion of the CAR T therapy.

“It’s fantastic data,” said Kevin J. Curran, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist specializing in stem cell transplants and cellular therapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“Pediatric leukemia, while it’s the most common malignancy that happens in children, when you get down to this really small group, this under 3-year-old group, it’s hard to get a cohort, and for them to put together 30 patients, and show these great results is groundbreaking,” he said in an interview.

“Most importantly, it gives hope to parents who have young children who have really difficult to treat leukemia,” he said.

Dr. Curran was not involved in the study.
 

Scarce data on ALL in infants

“Children under 3 years of age were excluded from the ELIANA study, yet in terms of having often highly aggressive disease, with traditionally poor outcomes with conventional therapy, the need for novel forms of therapy for children with relapsed infant ALL is important,” Dr. Ghorashian said.

Because there is a paucity of data on outcomes in the youngest children, some health authorities will not support the use of tisagenlecleucel in this age group, and there are concerns about difficulties with performing leukapheresis in children weighing less than 10 kg, she noted.

To gain a better understanding of outcomes, members of the International BFM (Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster) Study Group conducted a retrospective analysis of data on all patients assessed for tisagenlecleucel for B-ALL who were aged under 3 years at screening at 1 of 15 centers in Europe and Israel.

A total of 30 patients were screened and had T cells harvested. Of this group, three patients did not receive CAR T infusions, two because of manufacturing failures, and one because of progressive disease.

Of the 27 patients who received CAR T infusions, 26 were evaluable for disease outcomes (1 had yet to reach the 30-day post infusion at the time of data cutoff).

The median age at diagnosis was 4.4 months, and the median age at infusion was 17.4 months; 19 of the 30 children in the entire cohort were boys. Mixed lineage leukemia rearrangements were found in 24 children, and 21 had undergone a stem cell transplant.

The children had a median of two prior lines of therapy, not including transplant. Seven of the children had received inotuzumab (Besponsa) and 11 had received blinotumumab (Blincyto).
 

High success rate

Of the 27 patients infused, 17 had sufficient cells harvested in a single day, and the remainder required 2-4 days. As noted, the CAR T product was successfully manufactured in 28 patients, with a median dose of 2.3 x 10⁶/kg of patient weight.

The treatment failed for 2 of the 26 efficacy-evaluable patients, resulting in an MRD-negative rate of 92%.

Event-free survival at 6 months was 67%, similar to that in ELIANA (73%), and the 12-month event-free survival was 58%, which was superior to that in ELIANA (50%).

The 6-month and 12-month overall survival rates among the younger children were identical at 88%, compared with 90% and 76%, respectively, in ELIANA.

The 6- and 12-month probability of ongoing B-cell depletion, indicating CAR T persistence, were 77% and 68%, respectively. In ELIANA, the 6-month probability of B-cell depletion was 83%.

A total of 10 of the 27 patients received further therapy, including 3 who were given maintenance therapy for poor CAR T persistence, 2 who underwent chemotherapy for relapse, and 5 who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant.

Of six patients who experienced a relapse after having a complete response, two had CD19 relapse.
 

Low rate of serious CRS

At 30 days post infusion, grade 3 or greater cytokine release syndrome (CRS) had occurred in two patients, severe neurotoxicity occurred in one, and grade 3 or greater prolonged cytopenias occurred in eight patients.

The toxicity profile in this study was generally favorable in comparison with ELIANA, with shorter median duration of CRS, shorter median duration of CRS-related ICU stay, and a lower frequency of tocilizumab use. It should be noted, however, that the I-BFM investigators used American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy CRS consenus criteria, whereas the ELIANA investigators used University of Pennsylvania criteria.

“If the longer-term follow-up data are encouraging, it might suggest that the outcomes from tisagenlecleucel therapy are comparable to that of stem cell transplantation in high-risk relapsed infant ALL, without the associated late effects, and possibly supports CAR T-cell therapy eventually replace stem cell transplantation in this setting,” Dr. Ghorashian said.

Dr. Curran, who leads the CAR T effort at MSK Kids, the children’s division of MSKCC, agreed that the goal is for CAR T to replace stem cell transplants.

“I hope I put my clinical practice out of business with my research practice,” he said, but added that “I think we need to do more research in figuring out how to best use CAR T cells, either earlier, or as some data suggest, by treating patients with lower disease burden we would get better durability.

“Because obviously in kids’ cancer one relapse is too much, and we want to be able to raise that bar and provide hope and a cure for all of our children,” he said.

The study was sponsored by the I-BFM Resistant Disease Committee and member institutions. Dr. Ghorashian disclosed advisory board activity for Novartis, maker of tisagenlecleucel, and patents and royalties from UCL Business. Dr. Curran research funding and consulting fees from Novartis.