Hematology News

Patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas who are not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant have a generally poor prognosis and few treatment options, but an experimental combination of the antibody-drug conjugate naratuximab with rituximab showed promising efficacy and acceptable safety in these patients in a phase 2 trial.

Among patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) the combination was associated with a 44.7% overall response rate, including 31.6% complete responses, and two-thirds of patients had responses lasting more than 12 months, reported Moshe Yair Levy, MD, from Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A Sammons Cancer Center in Dallas.

“This is, in my viewpoint, very exciting therapy,” he said in a question-and-answer session following his presentation of the data in a late-breaking abstract session during the European Hematology Association annual congress. (Abstract LB1903).

Naratuximab emtansine is an investigational antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) consisting of a humanized monoclonal antibody against CD37, a surface marker on B lymphocytes that is highly expressed in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), conjugated to a cytotoxic derivative of maitansine.

CD37 is also an internalizable cell-surface antigen, making it an attractive candidate for an ADC approach.

In a phase 1 trial, naratuximab monotherapy showed a good safety profile and a 22% overall response rate, Dr. Levy noted.

“What they found is that, if you coadminister this ADC with rituximab, you’re actually going to get more internalization of the CD37 monoclonal, therefore more payload delivered to your target cells,” he said.

He reported results of a multicenter, adaptive phase 2 study of the combination in patients with DLBCL and other relapsed/refractory NHL.
 

DLBCL and others

The trial was divided into two parts, with the first consisting of a safety run-in phase with expansion in patients with confirmed diagnoses of relapsed/refractory NHL, including DLBCL, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and marginal zone lymphoma.

Patients with double- or triple-hit disease (with translocations in MYC plus either BCL2 and/or BCL6), bulky disease, or transformed lymphoma were eligible.

The second part consisted of two cohorts of patients with DLBCL treated with naratuximab and rituximab either weekly or every 3 weeks.

All patients in the study had received one to six prior lines of therapy, and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients with CNS lymphomas or prior anti-CD37 targeting therapy were excluded.

The safety population included 50 patients with DLBCL assigned to therapy every 3 weeks, 30 assigned to weekly therapy, and 20 patients with other NHL.
 

DLBCL efficacy

A total of 76 patients with DLBCL were evaluable for efficacy.

The ORR was 44% for patients in both the weekly and every 3 week cohorts, with 31.6% having complete responses.

Among 61 patients with nonbulky disease (longest diameter 7.5 cm or less), the ORR was 50.8%, and among 28 patients who had three or more prior lines of therapy the ORR was 46.4%, with 32.1% having a complete response.

Among responders followed for a median of 15 months, the median duration of response was not reached, and 66% had responses lasting beyond 12 months.

In the weekly dosing DLBCL cohort, 53.3% of patients discontinued treatment of both study drugs because of disease progression, as did 58% of those in the every 3 week cohort, and 30% of patients with other lymphomas. Only eight patients discontinued the combination because of treatment-emergent adverse events. Six patients had treatment-emergent adverse events leading to naratuximab dose reduction.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia, leukopenia, lymphopenia and thrombocytopenias. Dr. Levy commented that the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, which was not mandatory in the study, would likely have lowered the incidence of cytopenias.

There were 10 deaths during the study, 2 of which were considered to be treatment related, occurring in 1 patient each in the DLBCL dosing cohorts; 1 of the patients died from pneumonitis, and the other from left ventricular heart failure.

Other patients deaths were attributed to non–treatment-related cardiac arrest, acute renal failure, exacerbation of chronic heart failure, respiratory failure, multiorgan failure, lung infection, or colon adenocarcinoma.
 

Q 3 weeks suffices

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Kenny Lei, MD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong asked Dr. Levy what the half-life of naratuximab is, and what was the investigator’s rationale for testing a weekly dosing schedule.

“I think the reason they checked the two different regimens, the Q week and the Q 3-week group, is that they noted that [naratuximab] was cleared relatively quickly, and they wanted to see whether or not, by giving Q weekly, when you get a continuous CD37 site occupancy if they would have a better outcome. But as you saw, in the groups there was really no clinically relevant difference in outcome,” Dr. Levy said.

Andrew Davies, MD, PhD, from the University of Southampton (England), asked whether the neutropenia seen in the study was related to myeloid expression of the target of from the off-target deconjugated payload.

“I don’t know that I necessarily have the answer to that,” Dr. Levy replied. “Remember there is the CD20 monoclonal rituximab which we know can cause neutropenia, as well as the CD37 and the target payload. I don’t know if we have enough information to attribute it to one specific component of the therapy,” he said.

The study was funded by Debiopharm International. Dr. Levy disclosed speaker activities for multiple companies, not including Debiopharm. Dr. Lei and Dr. Davies had no disclosures relevant to the study.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas who are not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant have a generally poor prognosis and few treatment options, but an experimental combination of the antibody-drug conjugate naratuximab with rituximab showed promising efficacy and acceptable safety in these patients in a phase 2 trial.

Among patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) the combination was associated with a 44.7% overall response rate, including 31.6% complete responses, and two-thirds of patients had responses lasting more than 12 months, reported Moshe Yair Levy, MD, from Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A Sammons Cancer Center in Dallas.

“This is, in my viewpoint, very exciting therapy,” he said in a question-and-answer session following his presentation of the data in a late-breaking abstract session during the European Hematology Association annual congress. (Abstract LB1903).

Naratuximab emtansine is an investigational antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) consisting of a humanized monoclonal antibody against CD37, a surface marker on B lymphocytes that is highly expressed in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), conjugated to a cytotoxic derivative of maitansine.

CD37 is also an internalizable cell-surface antigen, making it an attractive candidate for an ADC approach.

In a phase 1 trial, naratuximab monotherapy showed a good safety profile and a 22% overall response rate, Dr. Levy noted.

“What they found is that, if you coadminister this ADC with rituximab, you’re actually going to get more internalization of the CD37 monoclonal, therefore more payload delivered to your target cells,” he said.

He reported results of a multicenter, adaptive phase 2 study of the combination in patients with DLBCL and other relapsed/refractory NHL.
 

DLBCL and others

The trial was divided into two parts, with the first consisting of a safety run-in phase with expansion in patients with confirmed diagnoses of relapsed/refractory NHL, including DLBCL, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and marginal zone lymphoma.

Patients with double- or triple-hit disease (with translocations in MYC plus either BCL2 and/or BCL6), bulky disease, or transformed lymphoma were eligible.

The second part consisted of two cohorts of patients with DLBCL treated with naratuximab and rituximab either weekly or every 3 weeks.

All patients in the study had received one to six prior lines of therapy, and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients with CNS lymphomas or prior anti-CD37 targeting therapy were excluded.

The safety population included 50 patients with DLBCL assigned to therapy every 3 weeks, 30 assigned to weekly therapy, and 20 patients with other NHL.
 

DLBCL efficacy

A total of 76 patients with DLBCL were evaluable for efficacy.

The ORR was 44% for patients in both the weekly and every 3 week cohorts, with 31.6% having complete responses.

Among 61 patients with nonbulky disease (longest diameter 7.5 cm or less), the ORR was 50.8%, and among 28 patients who had three or more prior lines of therapy the ORR was 46.4%, with 32.1% having a complete response.

Among responders followed for a median of 15 months, the median duration of response was not reached, and 66% had responses lasting beyond 12 months.

In the weekly dosing DLBCL cohort, 53.3% of patients discontinued treatment of both study drugs because of disease progression, as did 58% of those in the every 3 week cohort, and 30% of patients with other lymphomas. Only eight patients discontinued the combination because of treatment-emergent adverse events. Six patients had treatment-emergent adverse events leading to naratuximab dose reduction.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia, leukopenia, lymphopenia and thrombocytopenias. Dr. Levy commented that the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, which was not mandatory in the study, would likely have lowered the incidence of cytopenias.

There were 10 deaths during the study, 2 of which were considered to be treatment related, occurring in 1 patient each in the DLBCL dosing cohorts; 1 of the patients died from pneumonitis, and the other from left ventricular heart failure.

Other patients deaths were attributed to non–treatment-related cardiac arrest, acute renal failure, exacerbation of chronic heart failure, respiratory failure, multiorgan failure, lung infection, or colon adenocarcinoma.
 

Q 3 weeks suffices

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Kenny Lei, MD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong asked Dr. Levy what the half-life of naratuximab is, and what was the investigator’s rationale for testing a weekly dosing schedule.

“I think the reason they checked the two different regimens, the Q week and the Q 3-week group, is that they noted that [naratuximab] was cleared relatively quickly, and they wanted to see whether or not, by giving Q weekly, when you get a continuous CD37 site occupancy if they would have a better outcome. But as you saw, in the groups there was really no clinically relevant difference in outcome,” Dr. Levy said.

Andrew Davies, MD, PhD, from the University of Southampton (England), asked whether the neutropenia seen in the study was related to myeloid expression of the target of from the off-target deconjugated payload.

“I don’t know that I necessarily have the answer to that,” Dr. Levy replied. “Remember there is the CD20 monoclonal rituximab which we know can cause neutropenia, as well as the CD37 and the target payload. I don’t know if we have enough information to attribute it to one specific component of the therapy,” he said.

The study was funded by Debiopharm International. Dr. Levy disclosed speaker activities for multiple companies, not including Debiopharm. Dr. Lei and Dr. Davies had no disclosures relevant to the study.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas who are not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant have a generally poor prognosis and few treatment options, but an experimental combination of the antibody-drug conjugate naratuximab with rituximab showed promising efficacy and acceptable safety in these patients in a phase 2 trial.

Among patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) the combination was associated with a 44.7% overall response rate, including 31.6% complete responses, and two-thirds of patients had responses lasting more than 12 months, reported Moshe Yair Levy, MD, from Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A Sammons Cancer Center in Dallas.

“This is, in my viewpoint, very exciting therapy,” he said in a question-and-answer session following his presentation of the data in a late-breaking abstract session during the European Hematology Association annual congress. (Abstract LB1903).

Naratuximab emtansine is an investigational antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) consisting of a humanized monoclonal antibody against CD37, a surface marker on B lymphocytes that is highly expressed in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), conjugated to a cytotoxic derivative of maitansine.

CD37 is also an internalizable cell-surface antigen, making it an attractive candidate for an ADC approach.

In a phase 1 trial, naratuximab monotherapy showed a good safety profile and a 22% overall response rate, Dr. Levy noted.

“What they found is that, if you coadminister this ADC with rituximab, you’re actually going to get more internalization of the CD37 monoclonal, therefore more payload delivered to your target cells,” he said.

He reported results of a multicenter, adaptive phase 2 study of the combination in patients with DLBCL and other relapsed/refractory NHL.
 

DLBCL and others

The trial was divided into two parts, with the first consisting of a safety run-in phase with expansion in patients with confirmed diagnoses of relapsed/refractory NHL, including DLBCL, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and marginal zone lymphoma.

Patients with double- or triple-hit disease (with translocations in MYC plus either BCL2 and/or BCL6), bulky disease, or transformed lymphoma were eligible.

The second part consisted of two cohorts of patients with DLBCL treated with naratuximab and rituximab either weekly or every 3 weeks.

All patients in the study had received one to six prior lines of therapy, and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients with CNS lymphomas or prior anti-CD37 targeting therapy were excluded.

The safety population included 50 patients with DLBCL assigned to therapy every 3 weeks, 30 assigned to weekly therapy, and 20 patients with other NHL.
 

DLBCL efficacy

A total of 76 patients with DLBCL were evaluable for efficacy.

The ORR was 44% for patients in both the weekly and every 3 week cohorts, with 31.6% having complete responses.

Among 61 patients with nonbulky disease (longest diameter 7.5 cm or less), the ORR was 50.8%, and among 28 patients who had three or more prior lines of therapy the ORR was 46.4%, with 32.1% having a complete response.

Among responders followed for a median of 15 months, the median duration of response was not reached, and 66% had responses lasting beyond 12 months.

In the weekly dosing DLBCL cohort, 53.3% of patients discontinued treatment of both study drugs because of disease progression, as did 58% of those in the every 3 week cohort, and 30% of patients with other lymphomas. Only eight patients discontinued the combination because of treatment-emergent adverse events. Six patients had treatment-emergent adverse events leading to naratuximab dose reduction.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia, leukopenia, lymphopenia and thrombocytopenias. Dr. Levy commented that the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, which was not mandatory in the study, would likely have lowered the incidence of cytopenias.

There were 10 deaths during the study, 2 of which were considered to be treatment related, occurring in 1 patient each in the DLBCL dosing cohorts; 1 of the patients died from pneumonitis, and the other from left ventricular heart failure.

Other patients deaths were attributed to non–treatment-related cardiac arrest, acute renal failure, exacerbation of chronic heart failure, respiratory failure, multiorgan failure, lung infection, or colon adenocarcinoma.
 

Q 3 weeks suffices

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Kenny Lei, MD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong asked Dr. Levy what the half-life of naratuximab is, and what was the investigator’s rationale for testing a weekly dosing schedule.

“I think the reason they checked the two different regimens, the Q week and the Q 3-week group, is that they noted that [naratuximab] was cleared relatively quickly, and they wanted to see whether or not, by giving Q weekly, when you get a continuous CD37 site occupancy if they would have a better outcome. But as you saw, in the groups there was really no clinically relevant difference in outcome,” Dr. Levy said.

Andrew Davies, MD, PhD, from the University of Southampton (England), asked whether the neutropenia seen in the study was related to myeloid expression of the target of from the off-target deconjugated payload.

“I don’t know that I necessarily have the answer to that,” Dr. Levy replied. “Remember there is the CD20 monoclonal rituximab which we know can cause neutropenia, as well as the CD37 and the target payload. I don’t know if we have enough information to attribute it to one specific component of the therapy,” he said.

The study was funded by Debiopharm International. Dr. Levy disclosed speaker activities for multiple companies, not including Debiopharm. Dr. Lei and Dr. Davies had no disclosures relevant to the study.

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

For older, unfit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), first-line treatment with the all-oral combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) was associated with superior progression-free survival, compared with chlorambucil and obinutuzumab (Gazyva), results of the phase 3 GLOW trial showed.

Among 211 patients with CLL/SLL who were 65 or older, or younger patients with a high comorbidity burden, the median progression-free survival (PFS) after 27.7 months of follow-up was not reached for patients treated with a fixed duration combination of ibrutinib plus venetoclax (I+V), compared with 21 months for patients who received chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (Clb+O), reported Arnon P. Kater, MD, PhD, from Amsterdam University Medical Centers.

The oral combination was also associated with a higher rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) 3 months after the end of treatment, at 51.9% vs. 17.1% with Clb+O, he said in a late-breaking abstract presented during the European Hematology Association annual meeting (Abstract LB1902).

“Overall, the results from GLOW support a positive clinical profile of I+V as an all-oral, once-daily, fixed-duration regimen in older patients with newly diagnosed CLL,” he said.
 

A low bar

But the bar for success in the GLOW trial may have been set low, with the older combination of chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab used as the comparator, rather than a more contemporary regimen, said Clive S. Zent , MD, from the Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (New York) Medical Center, who was not involved in the study.

“Really, nobody in this country that I’m aware of, certainly not in academic medicine, would be using chlorambucil and obinutuzumab or rituximab for standard of care,” Dr. Zent said in an interview.

“This is like comparing a mule cart to a Tesla,” he said.

Apart from possibly providing a rationale for using ibrutinib and venetoclax in this population, the GLOW results do not add much beyond that already in the CAPTIVE MRD trial, he added.

“What we’re really interested in, is ibrutinib and venetoclax better than ibrutinib alone or venetoclax alone? And that has not been asked or answered yet,” he said.

Dr. Zent acknowledged that the combination works very well and is well tolerated, and the idea of fixed duration therapy is attractive, as are the long-term outcomes for many patients following cessation of therapy.

“But remember, if you take ibrutinib, you’ve got a 90% chance of going into remission, and an over 80% chance of being in remission 5 years later, so that’s pretty good as well,” he said.

Paolo P. Ghia, MD, from Univerista Vita-Salute San Raffaele in Milan, who has studied fixed-duration I+V in younger patients with CLL in the CAPTIVATE trial agreed that “in general, there is very little role for chemoimmunotherapy in CLL.”

But Dr. Ghia, who was not involved in the GLOW study, said in an interview that the results add to the growing body of evidence of the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib -venetoclax in a wide range of patients.

“Overall between the two studies [CAPTIVATE and GLOW] we have now over 400 patients who have been treated with the combination, and the message is rather similar in the two studies: you have a high frequency of undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and in the bone marrow, with a high concordance between the two tissues, and in particular we have a durability of the response,” he said.
 

GLOW details

Dr. Kater noted that ibrutinib and venetoclax have distinct and complementary modes of action, with ibrutinib mobilizing CLL cells out of their “protective lymphoid niches” and inhibiting their proliferation, as well as accelerating apoptosis by sensitizing cells to inhibition by the anti–B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) agent venetoclax. The combination leads to high levels of MRD negative by eliminating subpopulations of resting and dividing CLL cells.

The GLOW investigators enrolled 211 patients who were 65 or older, or were younger than 65 with a cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) score of greater than 6, or creatinine clearance rate of less than 70 mL/min, and no known deletion 17p (del17p) or TP53 mutation.

The patients all had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 0-2.

After stratification by immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) region genes and presence of deletion 11q (del11q), the patients were randomly assigned to either a three cycle run-in with ibrutinib 420 mg daily followed by ibrutinib plus venetoclax ramped up from 20 to 400 mg, or to chlorambucil 0.5 mg/kg on days and 15 for six cycles, and obinutuzumab 1,000 mg on days 1,2, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of cycles 2-6.

About one-third of patients in each study arm were 75 or older. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between the arms, except for a higher frequency of CIRS scores above 6 in the I+V arm, and a higher frequency of elevated lactate dehydrogenase in the Clb+O arm.
 

Superior PFS

As noted, the primary endpoint of PFS as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) after 27.7 months of follow-up had not been reached in I+V arm, compared with 21 months in the Clb+O arm, translating into a hazard ratio or progression with I+V of 0.21 (P < .0001). Investigator-assessed PFS was similar, with an HR of 2.07 (P < .0001).

PFS was superior with I+V across all subgroups, including age, baseline performance status. CIRS total score, Rai stage, bulky disease, elevated LDH at baseline, IGHV mutated or unmutated, and presence or absence of del(11q).

IRC-assessed combined complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) rates were 38.7% with I+V vs. 11.4% with Clb+O (P < .0001).

Responses were also more durable with the oral combination, with 90% of patients having a sustained IRC-assessed response at 24 months, compared with 41% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.

Rates of undetectable MRD by next-generation sequencing 3 months after the end of treatment were also significantly higher with I+V in both bone marrow (51.9% vs. 17.1%, respectively, P < .0001) and peripheral blood (54.7% vs. 39%, P = .0259). ­

One year post treatment 49% of patients assigned to I+V had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood, compared with 12% of patients assigned to Clb+O).
 

Safety

In all, 11 patients assigned to I+V discontinued treatment because of adverse events, compared with 2 in the Clb+O arm. Two patients in the I+V arm (1.9%) discontinued ibrutinib because of atrial fibrillation (AF). Serious adverse events in 5% or more of patients that were more frequent with I+V include infections (12.3% vs. 8.6% and AF (6.6% vs. o%). The tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) was not seen in the I+V arm, but occurred in 5.7% of patients in the Clb+O arm.

There were a total of 11 deaths in the I+V arm and 12 in the Clb+O arm during treatment or follow-up.

Causes of death were generally similar between the arms, with infections and cardiac events being the most common causes, Dr. Kater said.

Of the four deaths that occurred during ibrutinib lead-in, one was due to infection, one to metastatic carcinoma, and two due to cardiac disorders. Of the three that occurred in the I+V arm during treatment, two were from sudden death, and one from a nervous system disorder. Four patients in this arm died during follow-up, two from infections, one from sudden death, and one from progressive disease with Richter transformation.

In the Clb+O arm, one patient died during treatment from an infection and one died from hepatobiliary disease. Of the 10 that died during follow-up, 6 died from infections/infestations, 2 from cardiac disorders, and 1 each from nervous system and respiratory/thoracic/mediastinal disorder.

The study was supported by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Kater disclosed advisory board activity, research committee, and steering committee participation for Janssen, and similar relationships with others. Dr. Zent disclosed research funding to the University of Rochester from AstraZenca/Acerta and TG Therpeutics. Dr. Ghia disclosed consultancy, honoraria, travel expenses, and research funding from Janssen and others.

For older, unfit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), first-line treatment with the all-oral combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) was associated with superior progression-free survival, compared with chlorambucil and obinutuzumab (Gazyva), results of the phase 3 GLOW trial showed.

Among 211 patients with CLL/SLL who were 65 or older, or younger patients with a high comorbidity burden, the median progression-free survival (PFS) after 27.7 months of follow-up was not reached for patients treated with a fixed duration combination of ibrutinib plus venetoclax (I+V), compared with 21 months for patients who received chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (Clb+O), reported Arnon P. Kater, MD, PhD, from Amsterdam University Medical Centers.

The oral combination was also associated with a higher rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) 3 months after the end of treatment, at 51.9% vs. 17.1% with Clb+O, he said in a late-breaking abstract presented during the European Hematology Association annual meeting (Abstract LB1902).

“Overall, the results from GLOW support a positive clinical profile of I+V as an all-oral, once-daily, fixed-duration regimen in older patients with newly diagnosed CLL,” he said.
 

A low bar

But the bar for success in the GLOW trial may have been set low, with the older combination of chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab used as the comparator, rather than a more contemporary regimen, said Clive S. Zent , MD, from the Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (New York) Medical Center, who was not involved in the study.

“Really, nobody in this country that I’m aware of, certainly not in academic medicine, would be using chlorambucil and obinutuzumab or rituximab for standard of care,” Dr. Zent said in an interview.

“This is like comparing a mule cart to a Tesla,” he said.

Apart from possibly providing a rationale for using ibrutinib and venetoclax in this population, the GLOW results do not add much beyond that already in the CAPTIVE MRD trial, he added.

“What we’re really interested in, is ibrutinib and venetoclax better than ibrutinib alone or venetoclax alone? And that has not been asked or answered yet,” he said.

Dr. Zent acknowledged that the combination works very well and is well tolerated, and the idea of fixed duration therapy is attractive, as are the long-term outcomes for many patients following cessation of therapy.

“But remember, if you take ibrutinib, you’ve got a 90% chance of going into remission, and an over 80% chance of being in remission 5 years later, so that’s pretty good as well,” he said.

Paolo P. Ghia, MD, from Univerista Vita-Salute San Raffaele in Milan, who has studied fixed-duration I+V in younger patients with CLL in the CAPTIVATE trial agreed that “in general, there is very little role for chemoimmunotherapy in CLL.”

But Dr. Ghia, who was not involved in the GLOW study, said in an interview that the results add to the growing body of evidence of the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib -venetoclax in a wide range of patients.

“Overall between the two studies [CAPTIVATE and GLOW] we have now over 400 patients who have been treated with the combination, and the message is rather similar in the two studies: you have a high frequency of undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and in the bone marrow, with a high concordance between the two tissues, and in particular we have a durability of the response,” he said.
 

GLOW details

Dr. Kater noted that ibrutinib and venetoclax have distinct and complementary modes of action, with ibrutinib mobilizing CLL cells out of their “protective lymphoid niches” and inhibiting their proliferation, as well as accelerating apoptosis by sensitizing cells to inhibition by the anti–B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) agent venetoclax. The combination leads to high levels of MRD negative by eliminating subpopulations of resting and dividing CLL cells.

The GLOW investigators enrolled 211 patients who were 65 or older, or were younger than 65 with a cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) score of greater than 6, or creatinine clearance rate of less than 70 mL/min, and no known deletion 17p (del17p) or TP53 mutation.

The patients all had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 0-2.

After stratification by immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) region genes and presence of deletion 11q (del11q), the patients were randomly assigned to either a three cycle run-in with ibrutinib 420 mg daily followed by ibrutinib plus venetoclax ramped up from 20 to 400 mg, or to chlorambucil 0.5 mg/kg on days and 15 for six cycles, and obinutuzumab 1,000 mg on days 1,2, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of cycles 2-6.

About one-third of patients in each study arm were 75 or older. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between the arms, except for a higher frequency of CIRS scores above 6 in the I+V arm, and a higher frequency of elevated lactate dehydrogenase in the Clb+O arm.
 

Superior PFS

As noted, the primary endpoint of PFS as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) after 27.7 months of follow-up had not been reached in I+V arm, compared with 21 months in the Clb+O arm, translating into a hazard ratio or progression with I+V of 0.21 (P < .0001). Investigator-assessed PFS was similar, with an HR of 2.07 (P < .0001).

PFS was superior with I+V across all subgroups, including age, baseline performance status. CIRS total score, Rai stage, bulky disease, elevated LDH at baseline, IGHV mutated or unmutated, and presence or absence of del(11q).

IRC-assessed combined complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) rates were 38.7% with I+V vs. 11.4% with Clb+O (P < .0001).

Responses were also more durable with the oral combination, with 90% of patients having a sustained IRC-assessed response at 24 months, compared with 41% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.

Rates of undetectable MRD by next-generation sequencing 3 months after the end of treatment were also significantly higher with I+V in both bone marrow (51.9% vs. 17.1%, respectively, P < .0001) and peripheral blood (54.7% vs. 39%, P = .0259). ­

One year post treatment 49% of patients assigned to I+V had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood, compared with 12% of patients assigned to Clb+O).
 

Safety

In all, 11 patients assigned to I+V discontinued treatment because of adverse events, compared with 2 in the Clb+O arm. Two patients in the I+V arm (1.9%) discontinued ibrutinib because of atrial fibrillation (AF). Serious adverse events in 5% or more of patients that were more frequent with I+V include infections (12.3% vs. 8.6% and AF (6.6% vs. o%). The tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) was not seen in the I+V arm, but occurred in 5.7% of patients in the Clb+O arm.

There were a total of 11 deaths in the I+V arm and 12 in the Clb+O arm during treatment or follow-up.

Causes of death were generally similar between the arms, with infections and cardiac events being the most common causes, Dr. Kater said.

Of the four deaths that occurred during ibrutinib lead-in, one was due to infection, one to metastatic carcinoma, and two due to cardiac disorders. Of the three that occurred in the I+V arm during treatment, two were from sudden death, and one from a nervous system disorder. Four patients in this arm died during follow-up, two from infections, one from sudden death, and one from progressive disease with Richter transformation.

In the Clb+O arm, one patient died during treatment from an infection and one died from hepatobiliary disease. Of the 10 that died during follow-up, 6 died from infections/infestations, 2 from cardiac disorders, and 1 each from nervous system and respiratory/thoracic/mediastinal disorder.

The study was supported by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Kater disclosed advisory board activity, research committee, and steering committee participation for Janssen, and similar relationships with others. Dr. Zent disclosed research funding to the University of Rochester from AstraZenca/Acerta and TG Therpeutics. Dr. Ghia disclosed consultancy, honoraria, travel expenses, and research funding from Janssen and others.

For older, unfit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), first-line treatment with the all-oral combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) was associated with superior progression-free survival, compared with chlorambucil and obinutuzumab (Gazyva), results of the phase 3 GLOW trial showed.

Among 211 patients with CLL/SLL who were 65 or older, or younger patients with a high comorbidity burden, the median progression-free survival (PFS) after 27.7 months of follow-up was not reached for patients treated with a fixed duration combination of ibrutinib plus venetoclax (I+V), compared with 21 months for patients who received chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (Clb+O), reported Arnon P. Kater, MD, PhD, from Amsterdam University Medical Centers.

The oral combination was also associated with a higher rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) 3 months after the end of treatment, at 51.9% vs. 17.1% with Clb+O, he said in a late-breaking abstract presented during the European Hematology Association annual meeting (Abstract LB1902).

“Overall, the results from GLOW support a positive clinical profile of I+V as an all-oral, once-daily, fixed-duration regimen in older patients with newly diagnosed CLL,” he said.
 

A low bar

But the bar for success in the GLOW trial may have been set low, with the older combination of chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab used as the comparator, rather than a more contemporary regimen, said Clive S. Zent , MD, from the Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (New York) Medical Center, who was not involved in the study.

“Really, nobody in this country that I’m aware of, certainly not in academic medicine, would be using chlorambucil and obinutuzumab or rituximab for standard of care,” Dr. Zent said in an interview.

“This is like comparing a mule cart to a Tesla,” he said.

Apart from possibly providing a rationale for using ibrutinib and venetoclax in this population, the GLOW results do not add much beyond that already in the CAPTIVE MRD trial, he added.

“What we’re really interested in, is ibrutinib and venetoclax better than ibrutinib alone or venetoclax alone? And that has not been asked or answered yet,” he said.

Dr. Zent acknowledged that the combination works very well and is well tolerated, and the idea of fixed duration therapy is attractive, as are the long-term outcomes for many patients following cessation of therapy.

“But remember, if you take ibrutinib, you’ve got a 90% chance of going into remission, and an over 80% chance of being in remission 5 years later, so that’s pretty good as well,” he said.

Paolo P. Ghia, MD, from Univerista Vita-Salute San Raffaele in Milan, who has studied fixed-duration I+V in younger patients with CLL in the CAPTIVATE trial agreed that “in general, there is very little role for chemoimmunotherapy in CLL.”

But Dr. Ghia, who was not involved in the GLOW study, said in an interview that the results add to the growing body of evidence of the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib -venetoclax in a wide range of patients.

“Overall between the two studies [CAPTIVATE and GLOW] we have now over 400 patients who have been treated with the combination, and the message is rather similar in the two studies: you have a high frequency of undetectable MRD in peripheral blood and in the bone marrow, with a high concordance between the two tissues, and in particular we have a durability of the response,” he said.
 

GLOW details

Dr. Kater noted that ibrutinib and venetoclax have distinct and complementary modes of action, with ibrutinib mobilizing CLL cells out of their “protective lymphoid niches” and inhibiting their proliferation, as well as accelerating apoptosis by sensitizing cells to inhibition by the anti–B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) agent venetoclax. The combination leads to high levels of MRD negative by eliminating subpopulations of resting and dividing CLL cells.

The GLOW investigators enrolled 211 patients who were 65 or older, or were younger than 65 with a cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) score of greater than 6, or creatinine clearance rate of less than 70 mL/min, and no known deletion 17p (del17p) or TP53 mutation.

The patients all had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 0-2.

After stratification by immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) region genes and presence of deletion 11q (del11q), the patients were randomly assigned to either a three cycle run-in with ibrutinib 420 mg daily followed by ibrutinib plus venetoclax ramped up from 20 to 400 mg, or to chlorambucil 0.5 mg/kg on days and 15 for six cycles, and obinutuzumab 1,000 mg on days 1,2, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of cycles 2-6.

About one-third of patients in each study arm were 75 or older. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between the arms, except for a higher frequency of CIRS scores above 6 in the I+V arm, and a higher frequency of elevated lactate dehydrogenase in the Clb+O arm.
 

Superior PFS

As noted, the primary endpoint of PFS as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) after 27.7 months of follow-up had not been reached in I+V arm, compared with 21 months in the Clb+O arm, translating into a hazard ratio or progression with I+V of 0.21 (P < .0001). Investigator-assessed PFS was similar, with an HR of 2.07 (P < .0001).

PFS was superior with I+V across all subgroups, including age, baseline performance status. CIRS total score, Rai stage, bulky disease, elevated LDH at baseline, IGHV mutated or unmutated, and presence or absence of del(11q).

IRC-assessed combined complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) rates were 38.7% with I+V vs. 11.4% with Clb+O (P < .0001).

Responses were also more durable with the oral combination, with 90% of patients having a sustained IRC-assessed response at 24 months, compared with 41% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.

Rates of undetectable MRD by next-generation sequencing 3 months after the end of treatment were also significantly higher with I+V in both bone marrow (51.9% vs. 17.1%, respectively, P < .0001) and peripheral blood (54.7% vs. 39%, P = .0259). ­

One year post treatment 49% of patients assigned to I+V had undetectable MRD in peripheral blood, compared with 12% of patients assigned to Clb+O).
 

Safety

In all, 11 patients assigned to I+V discontinued treatment because of adverse events, compared with 2 in the Clb+O arm. Two patients in the I+V arm (1.9%) discontinued ibrutinib because of atrial fibrillation (AF). Serious adverse events in 5% or more of patients that were more frequent with I+V include infections (12.3% vs. 8.6% and AF (6.6% vs. o%). The tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) was not seen in the I+V arm, but occurred in 5.7% of patients in the Clb+O arm.

There were a total of 11 deaths in the I+V arm and 12 in the Clb+O arm during treatment or follow-up.

Causes of death were generally similar between the arms, with infections and cardiac events being the most common causes, Dr. Kater said.

Of the four deaths that occurred during ibrutinib lead-in, one was due to infection, one to metastatic carcinoma, and two due to cardiac disorders. Of the three that occurred in the I+V arm during treatment, two were from sudden death, and one from a nervous system disorder. Four patients in this arm died during follow-up, two from infections, one from sudden death, and one from progressive disease with Richter transformation.

In the Clb+O arm, one patient died during treatment from an infection and one died from hepatobiliary disease. Of the 10 that died during follow-up, 6 died from infections/infestations, 2 from cardiac disorders, and 1 each from nervous system and respiratory/thoracic/mediastinal disorder.

The study was supported by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Kater disclosed advisory board activity, research committee, and steering committee participation for Janssen, and similar relationships with others. Dr. Zent disclosed research funding to the University of Rochester from AstraZenca/Acerta and TG Therpeutics. Dr. Ghia disclosed consultancy, honoraria, travel expenses, and research funding from Janssen and others.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

Three or more weeks of oral anticoagulation (OAC) sometimes isn’t up to the job of clearing any potentially embolic left atrial (LA) thrombi before procedures like cardioversion or catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Such OAC-defiant LA thrombi aren’t common, nor are they rare enough to ignore, suggests a new meta-analysis that might also have identified features that predispose to them.

Such predictors of LA clots that persist despite OAC could potentially guide selective use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) instead of more routine policies to either use or not use TEE for thrombus rule-out before rhythm-control procedures, researchers propose.

Their prevalence was about 2.7% among the study’s more than 14,000 patients who received at least 3 weeks of OAC with either vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) before undergoing TEE.

But OAC-resistant LA thrombi were two- to four-times as common in patients with than without certain features, including AF other than paroxysmal and higher CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk-stratification scores.

“TEE imaging in select patients at an elevated risk of LA thrombus, despite anticoagulation status, may be a reasonable approach to minimize the risk of thromboembolic complications following cardioversion or catheter ablation,” propose the study’s authors, led by Antony Lurie, BMSC, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont. Their report was published in the June 15 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Guidelines don’t encourage TEE before cardioversion in patients who have been on OAC for at least 3 weeks, the group notes, and policies on TEE use before AF ablation vary widely regardless of anticoagulation status.

The current study suggests that 3 weeks of OAC isn’t enough for a substantial number of patients, who might be put at thromboembolic risk if TEE were to be skipped before rhythm-control procedures.

Conversely, many patients unlikely to have LA thrombi get preprocedure TEE anyway. That can happen “irrespective of how long they’ve been anticoagulated, their pattern of atrial fibrillation, or their stroke risk,” senior author Jorge A. Wong, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

But “TEE is an invasive imaging modality, so it is associated with small element of risk.” The current study, Dr. Wong said, points to potential risk-stratification tools clinicians might use to guide more selective TEE screening.

“At sites where TEEs are done all the time for patients undergoing ablation, one could use several of these risk markers to perhaps tailor use of TEE in individuals,” Dr. Wong said. “For example, in people with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, we found that the risk of left atrial appendage clot was approximately 1% or less.” Screening by TEE might reasonably be avoided in such patients.

“Fortunately, continued oral anticoagulation already yields low peri-procedural stroke rates,” observes an accompanying editorial from Paulus Kirchhof, MD, and Christoph Sinning, MD, from the University Heart & Vascular Center and German Centre of Cardiovascular Research, Hamburg.

“Based on this new analysis of existing data, a risk-based use of TEE imaging in anticoagulated patients could enable further improvement in the safe delivery of rhythm control interventions in patients with AF,” the editorialists agree.

The meta-analysis covered 10 prospective and 25 retrospective studies with a total of 14,653 patients that reported whether LA thrombus was present in patients with AF or atrial flutter (AFL) who underwent TEE after at least 3 weeks of VKA or DOAC therapy. Reports for 30 of the studies identified patients by rhythm-control procedure, and the remaining five didn’t specify TEE indications.

The weighted mean prevalence of LA thrombus at TEE was 2.73% (95% confidence interval, 1.95%-3.80%). The finding was not significantly changed in separate sensitivity analyses, the report says, including one limited to studies with low risk of bias and others excluding patients with valvular AF, interrupted OAC, heparin bridging, or subtherapeutic anticoagulation, respectively.

Patients treated with VKA and DOACs showed similar prevalences of LA thrombi, with means of 2.80% and 3.12%, respectively (P = .674). The prevalence was significantly higher in patients:

• with nonparoxysmal than with paroxysmal AF/AFL (4.81% vs. 1.03%; P < .001)
• undergoing cardioversion than ablation (5.55% vs. 1.65; P < .001)
• with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of at least 3 than with scores of 2 or less (6.31% vs. 1.06%; P < .001).

A limitation of the study, observe Dr. Kirchhof and Dr. Sinning, “is that all patients had a clinical indication for a TEE, which might be a selection bias. When a thrombus was found on TEE, clinical judgment led to postponing of the procedure,” thereby avoiding potential thromboembolism.

“Thus, the paper cannot demonstrate that presence of a thrombus on TEE is related to peri-procedural ischemic stroke,” they write.

The literature puts the risk for stroke or systemic embolism at well under 1% for patients anticoagulated with either VKA or DOACs for at least 3 weeks prior to cardioversion, in contrast to the nearly 3% prevalence of LA appendage thrombus by TEE in the current analysis, Dr. Wong observed.

“So we’re seeing a lot more left atrial appendage thrombus than we would see stroke,” but there wasn’t a way to determine whether that increases the stroke risk, he agreed.Dr. Wong, Dr. Lurie, and the other authors report no relevant conflicts. Dr. Kirchhof discloses receiving partial support “from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation” and to being listed as inventor on two AF-related patents held by the University of Birmingham. Dr. Sinning reports no relevant relationships. 

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

Three or more weeks of oral anticoagulation (OAC) sometimes isn’t up to the job of clearing any potentially embolic left atrial (LA) thrombi before procedures like cardioversion or catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Such OAC-defiant LA thrombi aren’t common, nor are they rare enough to ignore, suggests a new meta-analysis that might also have identified features that predispose to them.

Such predictors of LA clots that persist despite OAC could potentially guide selective use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) instead of more routine policies to either use or not use TEE for thrombus rule-out before rhythm-control procedures, researchers propose.

Their prevalence was about 2.7% among the study’s more than 14,000 patients who received at least 3 weeks of OAC with either vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) before undergoing TEE.

But OAC-resistant LA thrombi were two- to four-times as common in patients with than without certain features, including AF other than paroxysmal and higher CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk-stratification scores.

“TEE imaging in select patients at an elevated risk of LA thrombus, despite anticoagulation status, may be a reasonable approach to minimize the risk of thromboembolic complications following cardioversion or catheter ablation,” propose the study’s authors, led by Antony Lurie, BMSC, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont. Their report was published in the June 15 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Guidelines don’t encourage TEE before cardioversion in patients who have been on OAC for at least 3 weeks, the group notes, and policies on TEE use before AF ablation vary widely regardless of anticoagulation status.

The current study suggests that 3 weeks of OAC isn’t enough for a substantial number of patients, who might be put at thromboembolic risk if TEE were to be skipped before rhythm-control procedures.

Conversely, many patients unlikely to have LA thrombi get preprocedure TEE anyway. That can happen “irrespective of how long they’ve been anticoagulated, their pattern of atrial fibrillation, or their stroke risk,” senior author Jorge A. Wong, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

But “TEE is an invasive imaging modality, so it is associated with small element of risk.” The current study, Dr. Wong said, points to potential risk-stratification tools clinicians might use to guide more selective TEE screening.

“At sites where TEEs are done all the time for patients undergoing ablation, one could use several of these risk markers to perhaps tailor use of TEE in individuals,” Dr. Wong said. “For example, in people with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, we found that the risk of left atrial appendage clot was approximately 1% or less.” Screening by TEE might reasonably be avoided in such patients.

“Fortunately, continued oral anticoagulation already yields low peri-procedural stroke rates,” observes an accompanying editorial from Paulus Kirchhof, MD, and Christoph Sinning, MD, from the University Heart & Vascular Center and German Centre of Cardiovascular Research, Hamburg.

“Based on this new analysis of existing data, a risk-based use of TEE imaging in anticoagulated patients could enable further improvement in the safe delivery of rhythm control interventions in patients with AF,” the editorialists agree.

The meta-analysis covered 10 prospective and 25 retrospective studies with a total of 14,653 patients that reported whether LA thrombus was present in patients with AF or atrial flutter (AFL) who underwent TEE after at least 3 weeks of VKA or DOAC therapy. Reports for 30 of the studies identified patients by rhythm-control procedure, and the remaining five didn’t specify TEE indications.

The weighted mean prevalence of LA thrombus at TEE was 2.73% (95% confidence interval, 1.95%-3.80%). The finding was not significantly changed in separate sensitivity analyses, the report says, including one limited to studies with low risk of bias and others excluding patients with valvular AF, interrupted OAC, heparin bridging, or subtherapeutic anticoagulation, respectively.

Patients treated with VKA and DOACs showed similar prevalences of LA thrombi, with means of 2.80% and 3.12%, respectively (P = .674). The prevalence was significantly higher in patients:

• with nonparoxysmal than with paroxysmal AF/AFL (4.81% vs. 1.03%; P < .001)
• undergoing cardioversion than ablation (5.55% vs. 1.65; P < .001)
• with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of at least 3 than with scores of 2 or less (6.31% vs. 1.06%; P < .001).

A limitation of the study, observe Dr. Kirchhof and Dr. Sinning, “is that all patients had a clinical indication for a TEE, which might be a selection bias. When a thrombus was found on TEE, clinical judgment led to postponing of the procedure,” thereby avoiding potential thromboembolism.

“Thus, the paper cannot demonstrate that presence of a thrombus on TEE is related to peri-procedural ischemic stroke,” they write.

The literature puts the risk for stroke or systemic embolism at well under 1% for patients anticoagulated with either VKA or DOACs for at least 3 weeks prior to cardioversion, in contrast to the nearly 3% prevalence of LA appendage thrombus by TEE in the current analysis, Dr. Wong observed.

“So we’re seeing a lot more left atrial appendage thrombus than we would see stroke,” but there wasn’t a way to determine whether that increases the stroke risk, he agreed.Dr. Wong, Dr. Lurie, and the other authors report no relevant conflicts. Dr. Kirchhof discloses receiving partial support “from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation” and to being listed as inventor on two AF-related patents held by the University of Birmingham. Dr. Sinning reports no relevant relationships. 

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

Three or more weeks of oral anticoagulation (OAC) sometimes isn’t up to the job of clearing any potentially embolic left atrial (LA) thrombi before procedures like cardioversion or catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Such OAC-defiant LA thrombi aren’t common, nor are they rare enough to ignore, suggests a new meta-analysis that might also have identified features that predispose to them.

Such predictors of LA clots that persist despite OAC could potentially guide selective use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) instead of more routine policies to either use or not use TEE for thrombus rule-out before rhythm-control procedures, researchers propose.

Their prevalence was about 2.7% among the study’s more than 14,000 patients who received at least 3 weeks of OAC with either vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) before undergoing TEE.

But OAC-resistant LA thrombi were two- to four-times as common in patients with than without certain features, including AF other than paroxysmal and higher CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk-stratification scores.

“TEE imaging in select patients at an elevated risk of LA thrombus, despite anticoagulation status, may be a reasonable approach to minimize the risk of thromboembolic complications following cardioversion or catheter ablation,” propose the study’s authors, led by Antony Lurie, BMSC, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont. Their report was published in the June 15 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Guidelines don’t encourage TEE before cardioversion in patients who have been on OAC for at least 3 weeks, the group notes, and policies on TEE use before AF ablation vary widely regardless of anticoagulation status.

The current study suggests that 3 weeks of OAC isn’t enough for a substantial number of patients, who might be put at thromboembolic risk if TEE were to be skipped before rhythm-control procedures.

Conversely, many patients unlikely to have LA thrombi get preprocedure TEE anyway. That can happen “irrespective of how long they’ve been anticoagulated, their pattern of atrial fibrillation, or their stroke risk,” senior author Jorge A. Wong, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

But “TEE is an invasive imaging modality, so it is associated with small element of risk.” The current study, Dr. Wong said, points to potential risk-stratification tools clinicians might use to guide more selective TEE screening.

“At sites where TEEs are done all the time for patients undergoing ablation, one could use several of these risk markers to perhaps tailor use of TEE in individuals,” Dr. Wong said. “For example, in people with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, we found that the risk of left atrial appendage clot was approximately 1% or less.” Screening by TEE might reasonably be avoided in such patients.

“Fortunately, continued oral anticoagulation already yields low peri-procedural stroke rates,” observes an accompanying editorial from Paulus Kirchhof, MD, and Christoph Sinning, MD, from the University Heart & Vascular Center and German Centre of Cardiovascular Research, Hamburg.

“Based on this new analysis of existing data, a risk-based use of TEE imaging in anticoagulated patients could enable further improvement in the safe delivery of rhythm control interventions in patients with AF,” the editorialists agree.

The meta-analysis covered 10 prospective and 25 retrospective studies with a total of 14,653 patients that reported whether LA thrombus was present in patients with AF or atrial flutter (AFL) who underwent TEE after at least 3 weeks of VKA or DOAC therapy. Reports for 30 of the studies identified patients by rhythm-control procedure, and the remaining five didn’t specify TEE indications.

The weighted mean prevalence of LA thrombus at TEE was 2.73% (95% confidence interval, 1.95%-3.80%). The finding was not significantly changed in separate sensitivity analyses, the report says, including one limited to studies with low risk of bias and others excluding patients with valvular AF, interrupted OAC, heparin bridging, or subtherapeutic anticoagulation, respectively.

Patients treated with VKA and DOACs showed similar prevalences of LA thrombi, with means of 2.80% and 3.12%, respectively (P = .674). The prevalence was significantly higher in patients:

• with nonparoxysmal than with paroxysmal AF/AFL (4.81% vs. 1.03%; P < .001)
• undergoing cardioversion than ablation (5.55% vs. 1.65; P < .001)
• with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of at least 3 than with scores of 2 or less (6.31% vs. 1.06%; P < .001).

A limitation of the study, observe Dr. Kirchhof and Dr. Sinning, “is that all patients had a clinical indication for a TEE, which might be a selection bias. When a thrombus was found on TEE, clinical judgment led to postponing of the procedure,” thereby avoiding potential thromboembolism.

“Thus, the paper cannot demonstrate that presence of a thrombus on TEE is related to peri-procedural ischemic stroke,” they write.

The literature puts the risk for stroke or systemic embolism at well under 1% for patients anticoagulated with either VKA or DOACs for at least 3 weeks prior to cardioversion, in contrast to the nearly 3% prevalence of LA appendage thrombus by TEE in the current analysis, Dr. Wong observed.

“So we’re seeing a lot more left atrial appendage thrombus than we would see stroke,” but there wasn’t a way to determine whether that increases the stroke risk, he agreed.Dr. Wong, Dr. Lurie, and the other authors report no relevant conflicts. Dr. Kirchhof discloses receiving partial support “from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation” and to being listed as inventor on two AF-related patents held by the University of Birmingham. Dr. Sinning reports no relevant relationships. 

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen for aortic valve calcification during a lung cancer screening could identify those at risk for aortic stenosis, says new research published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Aortic stenosis is one of the most common valve disease problems and is characterized by the narrowing of the aortic valve opening, according to the American Heart Association. The condition impedes the delivery of blood from the heart to the body.

Researchers found that LDCT, which according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the only recommended screening test for lung cancer, also can be used to identify aortic valve calcification – a condition in which calcium deposits form on the aortic valve, narrowing it.

Since cardiovascular events and lung cancer are known to have the same modifiable risk factors, people screened for lung cancer could also be diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases, the authors noted in their paper.

Furthermore, a 2019 study published in the Journal of Thoracic Imaging found that LDCT can be useful for identifying not just lung cancer, but the early stages of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and coronary artery disease.

“LDCT has been described as useful for identifying the early stages of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and coronary artery disease, but it can also [screen for] calcified aortic valve [which corresponds] with the risk of severe aortic stenosis,” study author Marcin Fijalkowski, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Gdansk, said in an interview. “This additional evaluation is not time-consuming and is easy to perform.”
 

Methods and results

For the study, Dr. Fijalkowski and his colleagues examined data from 6,631 people between the ages of 50 and 80 years of age with a smoking history of 30 or more pack-years. The group was enrolled in the MOLTEST BIS lung cancer screening program between 2016 and 2018, which assessed the usefulness of LDCT performed during lung cancer screening in determining the degree of aortic valve calcification as an additional finding. The researchers arbitrarily determined a calcium score of 900 as a cutoff point indicating a positive test result. Positive patients were sent for an echocardiogram for confirmation of diagnosis.

Aortic valve calcification was identified in 869 patients, 13.1% of the group. Sixty-eight participants, which is about 8% of this group, were identified as having a calcium score of 900 at least and were referred for echocardiography to confirm these results. Of this group, 0.5% were diagnosed with at least moderate aortic stenosis after receiving an echocardiogram. About 55% of the participants with this condition were unaware of their valvular heart disease, including 23% with a severe form of the disease.
 

Study identified patients who had not been aware of disease

Dr. Fijalkowski said while he was not surprised by the findings, he was surprised that the study may have saved some of the participants’ lives.

“We were expecting the same degree of calcification of aortic valve and correlation with aortic stenosis severity, but what surprised us was that half of diagnosed patients were not aware of disease,” he said. “This additional finding was lifesaving.”

In the paper, the authors noted that cardiology societies do not yet recognize LDCT as a diagnostic tool for aortic stenosis. Based on their findings, they propose that aortic valve calcification become a routine assessment procedure in the LDCT protocol for lung cancer screening.
 

Findings are ‘important’ but not practice changing

Salim S. Virani, MD, FACC, who was not involved in the study, said this new research is important.

The analyses were done well and push the needle further in a direction that suggests “when we are doing imaging for one reason, we should use the totality of information that we have available,” he noted.

“I mean, if you are looking at a lung nodule, if you see an aortic valve that’s very calcified, then it should prompt you to at least ask the patient about some symptoms related to that,” Dr. Virani explained.

However, he said more research is needed on a larger population before LDCT can be considered a diagnostic tool for aortic stenosis.

“I think we have to understand that this study was done in a very specific group of patients,” said Dr. Virani, professor in the sections of cardiology and cardiovascular research at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “If you were to do it in a population that was much younger, with much lower risk of even lung cancer, then the yield of a CT to pick up aortic stenosis would be lower.”

Before any practice changes are made regarding LDCT and the diagnosis of aortic stenosis, there needs to be more research on how many people in the general population are getting non–cardiology-related chest imaging and then come up with a population-based metric as to what calcium score cutoff could be used, he said.

Dr. Fijalkowski said he believes the results of his study will encourage physicians to focus not only on pulmonary nodules but also to look for additional things such as aortic valve calcification.

The experts did not disclose any relevant financial relationships.

Using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen for aortic valve calcification during a lung cancer screening could identify those at risk for aortic stenosis, says new research published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Aortic stenosis is one of the most common valve disease problems and is characterized by the narrowing of the aortic valve opening, according to the American Heart Association. The condition impedes the delivery of blood from the heart to the body.

Researchers found that LDCT, which according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the only recommended screening test for lung cancer, also can be used to identify aortic valve calcification – a condition in which calcium deposits form on the aortic valve, narrowing it.

Since cardiovascular events and lung cancer are known to have the same modifiable risk factors, people screened for lung cancer could also be diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases, the authors noted in their paper.

Furthermore, a 2019 study published in the Journal of Thoracic Imaging found that LDCT can be useful for identifying not just lung cancer, but the early stages of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and coronary artery disease.

“LDCT has been described as useful for identifying the early stages of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and coronary artery disease, but it can also [screen for] calcified aortic valve [which corresponds] with the risk of severe aortic stenosis,” study author Marcin Fijalkowski, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Gdansk, said in an interview. “This additional evaluation is not time-consuming and is easy to perform.”
 

Methods and results

For the study, Dr. Fijalkowski and his colleagues examined data from 6,631 people between the ages of 50 and 80 years of age with a smoking history of 30 or more pack-years. The group was enrolled in the MOLTEST BIS lung cancer screening program between 2016 and 2018, which assessed the usefulness of LDCT performed during lung cancer screening in determining the degree of aortic valve calcification as an additional finding. The researchers arbitrarily determined a calcium score of 900 as a cutoff point indicating a positive test result. Positive patients were sent for an echocardiogram for confirmation of diagnosis.

Aortic valve calcification was identified in 869 patients, 13.1% of the group. Sixty-eight participants, which is about 8% of this group, were identified as having a calcium score of 900 at least and were referred for echocardiography to confirm these results. Of this group, 0.5% were diagnosed with at least moderate aortic stenosis after receiving an echocardiogram. About 55% of the participants with this condition were unaware of their valvular heart disease, including 23% with a severe form of the disease.
 

Study identified patients who had not been aware of disease

Dr. Fijalkowski said while he was not surprised by the findings, he was surprised that the study may have saved some of the participants’ lives.

“We were expecting the same degree of calcification of aortic valve and correlation with aortic stenosis severity, but what surprised us was that half of diagnosed patients were not aware of disease,” he said. “This additional finding was lifesaving.”

In the paper, the authors noted that cardiology societies do not yet recognize LDCT as a diagnostic tool for aortic stenosis. Based on their findings, they propose that aortic valve calcification become a routine assessment procedure in the LDCT protocol for lung cancer screening.
 

Findings are ‘important’ but not practice changing

Salim S. Virani, MD, FACC, who was not involved in the study, said this new research is important.

The analyses were done well and push the needle further in a direction that suggests “when we are doing imaging for one reason, we should use the totality of information that we have available,” he noted.

“I mean, if you are looking at a lung nodule, if you see an aortic valve that’s very calcified, then it should prompt you to at least ask the patient about some symptoms related to that,” Dr. Virani explained.

However, he said more research is needed on a larger population before LDCT can be considered a diagnostic tool for aortic stenosis.

“I think we have to understand that this study was done in a very specific group of patients,” said Dr. Virani, professor in the sections of cardiology and cardiovascular research at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “If you were to do it in a population that was much younger, with much lower risk of even lung cancer, then the yield of a CT to pick up aortic stenosis would be lower.”

Before any practice changes are made regarding LDCT and the diagnosis of aortic stenosis, there needs to be more research on how many people in the general population are getting non–cardiology-related chest imaging and then come up with a population-based metric as to what calcium score cutoff could be used, he said.

Dr. Fijalkowski said he believes the results of his study will encourage physicians to focus not only on pulmonary nodules but also to look for additional things such as aortic valve calcification.

The experts did not disclose any relevant financial relationships.

Using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen for aortic valve calcification during a lung cancer screening could identify those at risk for aortic stenosis, says new research published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Aortic stenosis is one of the most common valve disease problems and is characterized by the narrowing of the aortic valve opening, according to the American Heart Association. The condition impedes the delivery of blood from the heart to the body.

Researchers found that LDCT, which according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the only recommended screening test for lung cancer, also can be used to identify aortic valve calcification – a condition in which calcium deposits form on the aortic valve, narrowing it.

Since cardiovascular events and lung cancer are known to have the same modifiable risk factors, people screened for lung cancer could also be diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases, the authors noted in their paper.

Furthermore, a 2019 study published in the Journal of Thoracic Imaging found that LDCT can be useful for identifying not just lung cancer, but the early stages of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and coronary artery disease.

“LDCT has been described as useful for identifying the early stages of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and coronary artery disease, but it can also [screen for] calcified aortic valve [which corresponds] with the risk of severe aortic stenosis,” study author Marcin Fijalkowski, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Gdansk, said in an interview. “This additional evaluation is not time-consuming and is easy to perform.”
 

Methods and results

For the study, Dr. Fijalkowski and his colleagues examined data from 6,631 people between the ages of 50 and 80 years of age with a smoking history of 30 or more pack-years. The group was enrolled in the MOLTEST BIS lung cancer screening program between 2016 and 2018, which assessed the usefulness of LDCT performed during lung cancer screening in determining the degree of aortic valve calcification as an additional finding. The researchers arbitrarily determined a calcium score of 900 as a cutoff point indicating a positive test result. Positive patients were sent for an echocardiogram for confirmation of diagnosis.

Aortic valve calcification was identified in 869 patients, 13.1% of the group. Sixty-eight participants, which is about 8% of this group, were identified as having a calcium score of 900 at least and were referred for echocardiography to confirm these results. Of this group, 0.5% were diagnosed with at least moderate aortic stenosis after receiving an echocardiogram. About 55% of the participants with this condition were unaware of their valvular heart disease, including 23% with a severe form of the disease.
 

Study identified patients who had not been aware of disease

Dr. Fijalkowski said while he was not surprised by the findings, he was surprised that the study may have saved some of the participants’ lives.

“We were expecting the same degree of calcification of aortic valve and correlation with aortic stenosis severity, but what surprised us was that half of diagnosed patients were not aware of disease,” he said. “This additional finding was lifesaving.”

In the paper, the authors noted that cardiology societies do not yet recognize LDCT as a diagnostic tool for aortic stenosis. Based on their findings, they propose that aortic valve calcification become a routine assessment procedure in the LDCT protocol for lung cancer screening.
 

Findings are ‘important’ but not practice changing

Salim S. Virani, MD, FACC, who was not involved in the study, said this new research is important.

The analyses were done well and push the needle further in a direction that suggests “when we are doing imaging for one reason, we should use the totality of information that we have available,” he noted.

“I mean, if you are looking at a lung nodule, if you see an aortic valve that’s very calcified, then it should prompt you to at least ask the patient about some symptoms related to that,” Dr. Virani explained.

However, he said more research is needed on a larger population before LDCT can be considered a diagnostic tool for aortic stenosis.

“I think we have to understand that this study was done in a very specific group of patients,” said Dr. Virani, professor in the sections of cardiology and cardiovascular research at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “If you were to do it in a population that was much younger, with much lower risk of even lung cancer, then the yield of a CT to pick up aortic stenosis would be lower.”

Before any practice changes are made regarding LDCT and the diagnosis of aortic stenosis, there needs to be more research on how many people in the general population are getting non–cardiology-related chest imaging and then come up with a population-based metric as to what calcium score cutoff could be used, he said.

Dr. Fijalkowski said he believes the results of his study will encourage physicians to focus not only on pulmonary nodules but also to look for additional things such as aortic valve calcification.

The experts did not disclose any relevant financial relationships.

To remedy a lack of data on infants and toddlers with von Willebrand disease (VWD), researchers examined data on patients collected from the U.S. Hemophilia Treatment Center Network. They examined birth characteristics, bleeding episodes, and complications experienced by 105 patients with VWD who were younger than 2 years of age.

For these patients, the mean age of diagnosis was 7 months, with little variation by sex. Patients with type 2 VWD were diagnosed earlier than those with types 1 or 3 (P = .04), and those with a family history of VWD were diagnosed approximately 4 months earlier than those with none (P < .001), according to the report by Brandi Dupervil, DHSC, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

Approximately 14% of the patients were born preterm and 13% had low birth weight, proportions that were higher than national preterm birth rates (approximately 12% and 8%, respectively). There was no way of knowing from the data whether this was due to the presence of VWD or other factors, according to the report (Blood Adv. 2021;5[8]:2079-86).
 

Specialized care

The study found that initial bleeding episodes were most commonly oropharyngeal, related to circumcision, or intracranial or extracranial, and that most initial bleeding episodes occurred within the first year of life, according to the researchers.

Overall, there were 274 bleeding episodes among 73 children, including oral/nasal episodes (38 patients experienced 166 episodes), soft tissue hematomas (15 patients experienced 57 episodes), and head injuries, including skull fractures (13 patients experienced 19 episodes), according to the report.

In terms of treatment, among the two-thirds of the patients who had intervention to prevent or treat bleeding, most received either plasma-derived VW factor/factor VIII concentrates or antifibrinolytics.

Overall, the researchers advocated a team approach to treating these children “including genetic counselors throughout the prepartum period who work to increase expectant mothers’ understanding of the risks associated with having a child with VWD.”

They also recommended the input of “adult and pediatric hematologists, obstetrician gynecologists, genetic counselors, nurses, and social workers throughout the pre- and postpartum period who seek to optimize outcomes and disease management.”

The authors reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

To remedy a lack of data on infants and toddlers with von Willebrand disease (VWD), researchers examined data on patients collected from the U.S. Hemophilia Treatment Center Network. They examined birth characteristics, bleeding episodes, and complications experienced by 105 patients with VWD who were younger than 2 years of age.

For these patients, the mean age of diagnosis was 7 months, with little variation by sex. Patients with type 2 VWD were diagnosed earlier than those with types 1 or 3 (P = .04), and those with a family history of VWD were diagnosed approximately 4 months earlier than those with none (P < .001), according to the report by Brandi Dupervil, DHSC, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

Approximately 14% of the patients were born preterm and 13% had low birth weight, proportions that were higher than national preterm birth rates (approximately 12% and 8%, respectively). There was no way of knowing from the data whether this was due to the presence of VWD or other factors, according to the report (Blood Adv. 2021;5[8]:2079-86).
 

Specialized care

The study found that initial bleeding episodes were most commonly oropharyngeal, related to circumcision, or intracranial or extracranial, and that most initial bleeding episodes occurred within the first year of life, according to the researchers.

Overall, there were 274 bleeding episodes among 73 children, including oral/nasal episodes (38 patients experienced 166 episodes), soft tissue hematomas (15 patients experienced 57 episodes), and head injuries, including skull fractures (13 patients experienced 19 episodes), according to the report.

In terms of treatment, among the two-thirds of the patients who had intervention to prevent or treat bleeding, most received either plasma-derived VW factor/factor VIII concentrates or antifibrinolytics.

Overall, the researchers advocated a team approach to treating these children “including genetic counselors throughout the prepartum period who work to increase expectant mothers’ understanding of the risks associated with having a child with VWD.”

They also recommended the input of “adult and pediatric hematologists, obstetrician gynecologists, genetic counselors, nurses, and social workers throughout the pre- and postpartum period who seek to optimize outcomes and disease management.”

The authors reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

To remedy a lack of data on infants and toddlers with von Willebrand disease (VWD), researchers examined data on patients collected from the U.S. Hemophilia Treatment Center Network. They examined birth characteristics, bleeding episodes, and complications experienced by 105 patients with VWD who were younger than 2 years of age.

For these patients, the mean age of diagnosis was 7 months, with little variation by sex. Patients with type 2 VWD were diagnosed earlier than those with types 1 or 3 (P = .04), and those with a family history of VWD were diagnosed approximately 4 months earlier than those with none (P < .001), according to the report by Brandi Dupervil, DHSC, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

Approximately 14% of the patients were born preterm and 13% had low birth weight, proportions that were higher than national preterm birth rates (approximately 12% and 8%, respectively). There was no way of knowing from the data whether this was due to the presence of VWD or other factors, according to the report (Blood Adv. 2021;5[8]:2079-86).
 

Specialized care

The study found that initial bleeding episodes were most commonly oropharyngeal, related to circumcision, or intracranial or extracranial, and that most initial bleeding episodes occurred within the first year of life, according to the researchers.

Overall, there were 274 bleeding episodes among 73 children, including oral/nasal episodes (38 patients experienced 166 episodes), soft tissue hematomas (15 patients experienced 57 episodes), and head injuries, including skull fractures (13 patients experienced 19 episodes), according to the report.

In terms of treatment, among the two-thirds of the patients who had intervention to prevent or treat bleeding, most received either plasma-derived VW factor/factor VIII concentrates or antifibrinolytics.

Overall, the researchers advocated a team approach to treating these children “including genetic counselors throughout the prepartum period who work to increase expectant mothers’ understanding of the risks associated with having a child with VWD.”

They also recommended the input of “adult and pediatric hematologists, obstetrician gynecologists, genetic counselors, nurses, and social workers throughout the pre- and postpartum period who seek to optimize outcomes and disease management.”

The authors reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

Physicians often face the choice of whether to treat elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a full or reduced dose intensity (DI) of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone + rituximab), according to Edward J. Bataillard of the Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, and colleagues.

To address this issue, the researchers conducted a systematic review assessing the impact of R-CHOP DI on DLBCL survival outcomes, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. They found that greater than 80 years of age is an important cutoff for treating patients with a reduced R-CHOP dosage, according to their results, published in Blood Advances (2021;5[9]:2426-37).

Cutoff at 80 years of age

Their final review comprised 13 studies including 5,188 patients. Overall, the lower DI (intended or relative) was associated with inferior survival in seven of nine studies reporting crude survival analyses. In addition, most studies and those larger studies of higher quality showed poorer outcomes associated with reduced R-CHOP DI.

However, in subgroups of patients aged 80 years or more, survival was not consistently affected by the use of lower dosage R-CHOP, according to the researchers.

“We found evidence of improved survival with higher RDIs (up to R-CHOP-21) in those aged < 80 years, but the literature to date does not support full-dose intensity in those 80 years [or older],” they stated.

However, the researchers concluded that: “In the absence of improved options beyond R-CHOP in DLBCL over the past 20 years, prospective studies of DI are warranted, despite the recognized challenges involved.”

Two of the authors reported being previously employed by Roche. A third served as a consultant and adviser and received honoraria from Roche and other pharmaceutical companies. Several authors reported disclosures related to multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Physicians often face the choice of whether to treat elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a full or reduced dose intensity (DI) of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone + rituximab), according to Edward J. Bataillard of the Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, and colleagues.

To address this issue, the researchers conducted a systematic review assessing the impact of R-CHOP DI on DLBCL survival outcomes, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. They found that greater than 80 years of age is an important cutoff for treating patients with a reduced R-CHOP dosage, according to their results, published in Blood Advances (2021;5[9]:2426-37).

Cutoff at 80 years of age

Their final review comprised 13 studies including 5,188 patients. Overall, the lower DI (intended or relative) was associated with inferior survival in seven of nine studies reporting crude survival analyses. In addition, most studies and those larger studies of higher quality showed poorer outcomes associated with reduced R-CHOP DI.

However, in subgroups of patients aged 80 years or more, survival was not consistently affected by the use of lower dosage R-CHOP, according to the researchers.

“We found evidence of improved survival with higher RDIs (up to R-CHOP-21) in those aged < 80 years, but the literature to date does not support full-dose intensity in those 80 years [or older],” they stated.

However, the researchers concluded that: “In the absence of improved options beyond R-CHOP in DLBCL over the past 20 years, prospective studies of DI are warranted, despite the recognized challenges involved.”

Two of the authors reported being previously employed by Roche. A third served as a consultant and adviser and received honoraria from Roche and other pharmaceutical companies. Several authors reported disclosures related to multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Physicians often face the choice of whether to treat elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a full or reduced dose intensity (DI) of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone + rituximab), according to Edward J. Bataillard of the Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, and colleagues.

To address this issue, the researchers conducted a systematic review assessing the impact of R-CHOP DI on DLBCL survival outcomes, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. They found that greater than 80 years of age is an important cutoff for treating patients with a reduced R-CHOP dosage, according to their results, published in Blood Advances (2021;5[9]:2426-37).

Cutoff at 80 years of age

Their final review comprised 13 studies including 5,188 patients. Overall, the lower DI (intended or relative) was associated with inferior survival in seven of nine studies reporting crude survival analyses. In addition, most studies and those larger studies of higher quality showed poorer outcomes associated with reduced R-CHOP DI.

However, in subgroups of patients aged 80 years or more, survival was not consistently affected by the use of lower dosage R-CHOP, according to the researchers.

“We found evidence of improved survival with higher RDIs (up to R-CHOP-21) in those aged < 80 years, but the literature to date does not support full-dose intensity in those 80 years [or older],” they stated.

However, the researchers concluded that: “In the absence of improved options beyond R-CHOP in DLBCL over the past 20 years, prospective studies of DI are warranted, despite the recognized challenges involved.”

Two of the authors reported being previously employed by Roche. A third served as a consultant and adviser and received honoraria from Roche and other pharmaceutical companies. Several authors reported disclosures related to multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]