Hematology News

After more than 10 hours of intense debate, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel gave its support to a premarket approval application (PMA) for the TransMedics Organ Care System (OCS) Heart system.

Courtesy Transmedics

The OCS Heart is a portable extracorporeal perfusion and monitoring system designed to keep a donor heart in a normothermic, beating state. The “heart in a box” technology allows donor hearts to be transported across longer distances than is possible with standard cold storage, which can safely preserve donor hearts for about 4 hours.

The Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee voted 12 to 5, with 1 abstention, that the benefits of the OCS Heart System outweigh its risks.

The panel voted in favor of the OCS Heart being effective (10 yes, 6 no, and 2 abstaining) and safe (9 yes, 7 no, 2 abstaining) but not without mixed feelings.

James Blankenship, MD, a cardiologist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, voted yes to all three questions but said: “If it had been compared to standard of care, I would have voted no to all three. But if it’s compared to getting an [left ventricular assist device] LVAD or not getting a heart at all, I would say the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Marc R. Katz, MD, chief of cardiothoracic surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, also gave universal support, noting that the rate of heart transplantations has been flat for years. “This is a big step forward toward being able to expand that number. Now all that said, it obviously was a less-than-perfect study and I do think there needs to be some constraints put on the utilization.”

The panel reviewed data from the single-arm OCS Heart EXPAND trial and associated EXPAND Continued Access Protocol (CAP), as well the sponsor’s first OCS Heart trial, PROCEED II.

EXPAND met its effectiveness endpoint, with 88% of donor hearts successfully transplanted, an 8% incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) 24 hours after transplantation, and 94.6% survival at 30 days.

Data from 41 patients with 30-day follow-up in the ongoing EXPAND CAP show 91% of donor hearts were utilized, a 2.4% incidence of severe PGD, and 100% 30-day survival.

The sponsor and the FDA clashed over changes made to the trial after the PMA was submitted, the appropriateness of the effectiveness outcome, and claims by the FDA that there was substantial overlap in demographic characteristics between the extended criteria donor hearts in the EXPAND trials and the standard criteria donor hearts in PROCEED II.

TransMedics previously submitted a PMA based on PROCEED II but it noted in submitted documents that it was withdrawn because of “fundamental disagreements with FDA” on the interpretation of a post hoc analysis with United Network for Organ Sharing registry data that identified increased all-cause mortality risk but comparable cardiac-related mortality in patients with OCS hearts.

During the marathon hearing, FDA officials presented several post hoc analyses, including one stratified by donor inclusion criteria, in which 30-day survival estimates were worse in recipients of single-criterion organs than for those receiving donor organs with multiple inclusion criteria (85% vs. 91.4%). In a second analysis, 2-year point estimates of survival also trended lower with donor organs having only one extended criterion.

Reported EXPAND CAP 6- and 12-month survival estimates were 100% and 93%, respectively, which was higher than EXPAND (93% and 84%), but there was substantial censoring (>50%) at 6 months and beyond, FDA officials said.

When EXPAND and CAP data were pooled, modeled survival curves shifted upward but there was a substantial site effect, with a single site contributing 46% of data, which may affect generalizability of the results, they noted.

“I voted yes for safety, no for efficacy, and no for approval and I’d just like to say I found this to be the most difficult vote in my experience on this panel,” John Hirshfeld, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said. “I was very concerned that the PROCEED data suggests a possible harm, and in the absence of an interpretable comparator for the EXPAND trial, it’s really not possible to decide if there’s efficacy.”

Keith B. Allen, MD, director of surgical research at Saint Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City (Mo.), said, “I voted no on safety; I’m not going to give the company a pass. I think their animal data was sorely lacking and a lot of issues over the last 10 years could have been addressed with some key animal studies.

“For efficacy and risk/benefit, I voted yes for both,” he said. “Had this been standard of care and only PROCEED II, I would have voted no, but I do think there are a lot of hearts that go in the bucket and this is a challenging population.”

More than a dozen physicians and patients spoke at the open public hearing about the potential for the device to expand donor heart utilization, including a recipient whose own father died while waiting on the transplant list. Only about 3 out of every 10 donated hearts are used for transplant. To ensure fair access, particularly for patients in rural areas, federal changes in 2020 mandate that organs be allocated to the sickest patients first.

Data showed that the OCS Heart System was associated with shorter waiting list times, compared with U.S. averages but longer preservation times than cold static preservation.

In all, 13% of accepted donor organs were subsequently turned down after OCS heart preservation. Lactate levels were cited as the principal reason for turn-down but, FDA officials said, the validity of using lactate as a marker for transplantability is unclear.

Pathologic analysis of OCS Heart turned-down donor hearts with stable antemortem hemodynamics, normal or near-normal anatomy and normal ventricular function by echocardiography, and autopsy findings of acute diffuse or multifocal myocardial damage “suggest that in an important proportion of cases the OCS Heart system did not provide effective organ preservation or its use caused severe myocardial damage to what might have been an acceptable graft for transplant,” said Andrew Farb, MD, chief medical officer of the FDA’s Office of Cardiovascular Devices.
 

Proposed indication

In the present PMA, the OCS Heart System is indicated for donor hearts with one or more of the following characteristics: an expected cross-clamp or ischemic time of at least 4 hours because of donor or recipient characteristics; or an expected total cross-clamp time of at least 2 hours plus one of the following risk factors: donor age 55 or older, history of cardiac arrest and downtime of at least 20 minutes, history of alcoholism, history of diabetes, donor ejection fraction of 40%-50%,history of left ventricular hypertrophy, and donor angiogram with luminal irregularities but no significant coronary artery disease

Several members voiced concern about “indication creep” should the device be approved by the FDA, and highlighted the 2-hour cross-clamp time plus wide-ranging risk factors.

“I’m a surgeon and I voted no on all three counts,” said Murray H. Kwon, MD, Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. “As far as risk/benefit, if it was just limited to one group – the 4-hour plus – I would say yes, but if you’re going to tell me that there’s a risk/benefit for the 2-hour with the alcoholic, I don’t know how that was proved in anything.”

Dr. Kwon was also troubled by lack of proper controls and by the one quarter of patients who ended up on mechanical circulatory support in the first 30 days after transplant. “I find that highly aberrant.”

Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, head of cardiovascular medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said the unmet need for patients with refractory, end-stage heart failure is challenging and quite emotional, but also voted no across the board, citing concerns about a lack of comparator in the EXPAND trials and overall out-of-body ischemic time.

“As it relates to risk/benefit, I thought long and hard about voting yes despite all the unknowns because of this emotion, but ultimately I voted no because of the secondary 2-hours plus alcoholism, diabetes, or minor coronary disease, in which the ischemic burden and ongoing lactate production concern me,” he said.

Although the panel decision is nonbinding, there was strong support from the committee members for a randomized, postapproval trial and more complete animal studies.

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

After more than 10 hours of intense debate, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel gave its support to a premarket approval application (PMA) for the TransMedics Organ Care System (OCS) Heart system.

Courtesy Transmedics

The OCS Heart is a portable extracorporeal perfusion and monitoring system designed to keep a donor heart in a normothermic, beating state. The “heart in a box” technology allows donor hearts to be transported across longer distances than is possible with standard cold storage, which can safely preserve donor hearts for about 4 hours.

The Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee voted 12 to 5, with 1 abstention, that the benefits of the OCS Heart System outweigh its risks.

The panel voted in favor of the OCS Heart being effective (10 yes, 6 no, and 2 abstaining) and safe (9 yes, 7 no, 2 abstaining) but not without mixed feelings.

James Blankenship, MD, a cardiologist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, voted yes to all three questions but said: “If it had been compared to standard of care, I would have voted no to all three. But if it’s compared to getting an [left ventricular assist device] LVAD or not getting a heart at all, I would say the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Marc R. Katz, MD, chief of cardiothoracic surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, also gave universal support, noting that the rate of heart transplantations has been flat for years. “This is a big step forward toward being able to expand that number. Now all that said, it obviously was a less-than-perfect study and I do think there needs to be some constraints put on the utilization.”

The panel reviewed data from the single-arm OCS Heart EXPAND trial and associated EXPAND Continued Access Protocol (CAP), as well the sponsor’s first OCS Heart trial, PROCEED II.

EXPAND met its effectiveness endpoint, with 88% of donor hearts successfully transplanted, an 8% incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) 24 hours after transplantation, and 94.6% survival at 30 days.

Data from 41 patients with 30-day follow-up in the ongoing EXPAND CAP show 91% of donor hearts were utilized, a 2.4% incidence of severe PGD, and 100% 30-day survival.

The sponsor and the FDA clashed over changes made to the trial after the PMA was submitted, the appropriateness of the effectiveness outcome, and claims by the FDA that there was substantial overlap in demographic characteristics between the extended criteria donor hearts in the EXPAND trials and the standard criteria donor hearts in PROCEED II.

TransMedics previously submitted a PMA based on PROCEED II but it noted in submitted documents that it was withdrawn because of “fundamental disagreements with FDA” on the interpretation of a post hoc analysis with United Network for Organ Sharing registry data that identified increased all-cause mortality risk but comparable cardiac-related mortality in patients with OCS hearts.

During the marathon hearing, FDA officials presented several post hoc analyses, including one stratified by donor inclusion criteria, in which 30-day survival estimates were worse in recipients of single-criterion organs than for those receiving donor organs with multiple inclusion criteria (85% vs. 91.4%). In a second analysis, 2-year point estimates of survival also trended lower with donor organs having only one extended criterion.

Reported EXPAND CAP 6- and 12-month survival estimates were 100% and 93%, respectively, which was higher than EXPAND (93% and 84%), but there was substantial censoring (>50%) at 6 months and beyond, FDA officials said.

When EXPAND and CAP data were pooled, modeled survival curves shifted upward but there was a substantial site effect, with a single site contributing 46% of data, which may affect generalizability of the results, they noted.

“I voted yes for safety, no for efficacy, and no for approval and I’d just like to say I found this to be the most difficult vote in my experience on this panel,” John Hirshfeld, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said. “I was very concerned that the PROCEED data suggests a possible harm, and in the absence of an interpretable comparator for the EXPAND trial, it’s really not possible to decide if there’s efficacy.”

Keith B. Allen, MD, director of surgical research at Saint Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City (Mo.), said, “I voted no on safety; I’m not going to give the company a pass. I think their animal data was sorely lacking and a lot of issues over the last 10 years could have been addressed with some key animal studies.

“For efficacy and risk/benefit, I voted yes for both,” he said. “Had this been standard of care and only PROCEED II, I would have voted no, but I do think there are a lot of hearts that go in the bucket and this is a challenging population.”

More than a dozen physicians and patients spoke at the open public hearing about the potential for the device to expand donor heart utilization, including a recipient whose own father died while waiting on the transplant list. Only about 3 out of every 10 donated hearts are used for transplant. To ensure fair access, particularly for patients in rural areas, federal changes in 2020 mandate that organs be allocated to the sickest patients first.

Data showed that the OCS Heart System was associated with shorter waiting list times, compared with U.S. averages but longer preservation times than cold static preservation.

In all, 13% of accepted donor organs were subsequently turned down after OCS heart preservation. Lactate levels were cited as the principal reason for turn-down but, FDA officials said, the validity of using lactate as a marker for transplantability is unclear.

Pathologic analysis of OCS Heart turned-down donor hearts with stable antemortem hemodynamics, normal or near-normal anatomy and normal ventricular function by echocardiography, and autopsy findings of acute diffuse or multifocal myocardial damage “suggest that in an important proportion of cases the OCS Heart system did not provide effective organ preservation or its use caused severe myocardial damage to what might have been an acceptable graft for transplant,” said Andrew Farb, MD, chief medical officer of the FDA’s Office of Cardiovascular Devices.
 

Proposed indication

In the present PMA, the OCS Heart System is indicated for donor hearts with one or more of the following characteristics: an expected cross-clamp or ischemic time of at least 4 hours because of donor or recipient characteristics; or an expected total cross-clamp time of at least 2 hours plus one of the following risk factors: donor age 55 or older, history of cardiac arrest and downtime of at least 20 minutes, history of alcoholism, history of diabetes, donor ejection fraction of 40%-50%,history of left ventricular hypertrophy, and donor angiogram with luminal irregularities but no significant coronary artery disease

Several members voiced concern about “indication creep” should the device be approved by the FDA, and highlighted the 2-hour cross-clamp time plus wide-ranging risk factors.

“I’m a surgeon and I voted no on all three counts,” said Murray H. Kwon, MD, Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. “As far as risk/benefit, if it was just limited to one group – the 4-hour plus – I would say yes, but if you’re going to tell me that there’s a risk/benefit for the 2-hour with the alcoholic, I don’t know how that was proved in anything.”

Dr. Kwon was also troubled by lack of proper controls and by the one quarter of patients who ended up on mechanical circulatory support in the first 30 days after transplant. “I find that highly aberrant.”

Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, head of cardiovascular medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said the unmet need for patients with refractory, end-stage heart failure is challenging and quite emotional, but also voted no across the board, citing concerns about a lack of comparator in the EXPAND trials and overall out-of-body ischemic time.

“As it relates to risk/benefit, I thought long and hard about voting yes despite all the unknowns because of this emotion, but ultimately I voted no because of the secondary 2-hours plus alcoholism, diabetes, or minor coronary disease, in which the ischemic burden and ongoing lactate production concern me,” he said.

Although the panel decision is nonbinding, there was strong support from the committee members for a randomized, postapproval trial and more complete animal studies.

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

After more than 10 hours of intense debate, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel gave its support to a premarket approval application (PMA) for the TransMedics Organ Care System (OCS) Heart system.

Courtesy Transmedics

The OCS Heart is a portable extracorporeal perfusion and monitoring system designed to keep a donor heart in a normothermic, beating state. The “heart in a box” technology allows donor hearts to be transported across longer distances than is possible with standard cold storage, which can safely preserve donor hearts for about 4 hours.

The Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee voted 12 to 5, with 1 abstention, that the benefits of the OCS Heart System outweigh its risks.

The panel voted in favor of the OCS Heart being effective (10 yes, 6 no, and 2 abstaining) and safe (9 yes, 7 no, 2 abstaining) but not without mixed feelings.

James Blankenship, MD, a cardiologist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, voted yes to all three questions but said: “If it had been compared to standard of care, I would have voted no to all three. But if it’s compared to getting an [left ventricular assist device] LVAD or not getting a heart at all, I would say the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Marc R. Katz, MD, chief of cardiothoracic surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, also gave universal support, noting that the rate of heart transplantations has been flat for years. “This is a big step forward toward being able to expand that number. Now all that said, it obviously was a less-than-perfect study and I do think there needs to be some constraints put on the utilization.”

The panel reviewed data from the single-arm OCS Heart EXPAND trial and associated EXPAND Continued Access Protocol (CAP), as well the sponsor’s first OCS Heart trial, PROCEED II.

EXPAND met its effectiveness endpoint, with 88% of donor hearts successfully transplanted, an 8% incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) 24 hours after transplantation, and 94.6% survival at 30 days.

Data from 41 patients with 30-day follow-up in the ongoing EXPAND CAP show 91% of donor hearts were utilized, a 2.4% incidence of severe PGD, and 100% 30-day survival.

The sponsor and the FDA clashed over changes made to the trial after the PMA was submitted, the appropriateness of the effectiveness outcome, and claims by the FDA that there was substantial overlap in demographic characteristics between the extended criteria donor hearts in the EXPAND trials and the standard criteria donor hearts in PROCEED II.

TransMedics previously submitted a PMA based on PROCEED II but it noted in submitted documents that it was withdrawn because of “fundamental disagreements with FDA” on the interpretation of a post hoc analysis with United Network for Organ Sharing registry data that identified increased all-cause mortality risk but comparable cardiac-related mortality in patients with OCS hearts.

During the marathon hearing, FDA officials presented several post hoc analyses, including one stratified by donor inclusion criteria, in which 30-day survival estimates were worse in recipients of single-criterion organs than for those receiving donor organs with multiple inclusion criteria (85% vs. 91.4%). In a second analysis, 2-year point estimates of survival also trended lower with donor organs having only one extended criterion.

Reported EXPAND CAP 6- and 12-month survival estimates were 100% and 93%, respectively, which was higher than EXPAND (93% and 84%), but there was substantial censoring (>50%) at 6 months and beyond, FDA officials said.

When EXPAND and CAP data were pooled, modeled survival curves shifted upward but there was a substantial site effect, with a single site contributing 46% of data, which may affect generalizability of the results, they noted.

“I voted yes for safety, no for efficacy, and no for approval and I’d just like to say I found this to be the most difficult vote in my experience on this panel,” John Hirshfeld, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said. “I was very concerned that the PROCEED data suggests a possible harm, and in the absence of an interpretable comparator for the EXPAND trial, it’s really not possible to decide if there’s efficacy.”

Keith B. Allen, MD, director of surgical research at Saint Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City (Mo.), said, “I voted no on safety; I’m not going to give the company a pass. I think their animal data was sorely lacking and a lot of issues over the last 10 years could have been addressed with some key animal studies.

“For efficacy and risk/benefit, I voted yes for both,” he said. “Had this been standard of care and only PROCEED II, I would have voted no, but I do think there are a lot of hearts that go in the bucket and this is a challenging population.”

More than a dozen physicians and patients spoke at the open public hearing about the potential for the device to expand donor heart utilization, including a recipient whose own father died while waiting on the transplant list. Only about 3 out of every 10 donated hearts are used for transplant. To ensure fair access, particularly for patients in rural areas, federal changes in 2020 mandate that organs be allocated to the sickest patients first.

Data showed that the OCS Heart System was associated with shorter waiting list times, compared with U.S. averages but longer preservation times than cold static preservation.

In all, 13% of accepted donor organs were subsequently turned down after OCS heart preservation. Lactate levels were cited as the principal reason for turn-down but, FDA officials said, the validity of using lactate as a marker for transplantability is unclear.

Pathologic analysis of OCS Heart turned-down donor hearts with stable antemortem hemodynamics, normal or near-normal anatomy and normal ventricular function by echocardiography, and autopsy findings of acute diffuse or multifocal myocardial damage “suggest that in an important proportion of cases the OCS Heart system did not provide effective organ preservation or its use caused severe myocardial damage to what might have been an acceptable graft for transplant,” said Andrew Farb, MD, chief medical officer of the FDA’s Office of Cardiovascular Devices.
 

Proposed indication

In the present PMA, the OCS Heart System is indicated for donor hearts with one or more of the following characteristics: an expected cross-clamp or ischemic time of at least 4 hours because of donor or recipient characteristics; or an expected total cross-clamp time of at least 2 hours plus one of the following risk factors: donor age 55 or older, history of cardiac arrest and downtime of at least 20 minutes, history of alcoholism, history of diabetes, donor ejection fraction of 40%-50%,history of left ventricular hypertrophy, and donor angiogram with luminal irregularities but no significant coronary artery disease

Several members voiced concern about “indication creep” should the device be approved by the FDA, and highlighted the 2-hour cross-clamp time plus wide-ranging risk factors.

“I’m a surgeon and I voted no on all three counts,” said Murray H. Kwon, MD, Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. “As far as risk/benefit, if it was just limited to one group – the 4-hour plus – I would say yes, but if you’re going to tell me that there’s a risk/benefit for the 2-hour with the alcoholic, I don’t know how that was proved in anything.”

Dr. Kwon was also troubled by lack of proper controls and by the one quarter of patients who ended up on mechanical circulatory support in the first 30 days after transplant. “I find that highly aberrant.”

Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, head of cardiovascular medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said the unmet need for patients with refractory, end-stage heart failure is challenging and quite emotional, but also voted no across the board, citing concerns about a lack of comparator in the EXPAND trials and overall out-of-body ischemic time.

“As it relates to risk/benefit, I thought long and hard about voting yes despite all the unknowns because of this emotion, but ultimately I voted no because of the secondary 2-hours plus alcoholism, diabetes, or minor coronary disease, in which the ischemic burden and ongoing lactate production concern me,” he said.

Although the panel decision is nonbinding, there was strong support from the committee members for a randomized, postapproval trial and more complete animal studies.

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

The combination of copanlisib plus rituximab led to a 48% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, when compared with rituximab plus placebo in a phase 3 trial of patients with relapsed, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The trial, dubbed CHRONOS-3, is the first to report “a broad benefit” across histologic subtypes of relapsed, indolent NHL, and the results are “essentially a long-awaited proof of concept” for combining a PI3K inhibitor with rituximab, according to investigator Matthew Matasar, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Matasar presented results from CHRONOS-3 at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT001). The findings were simultaneously published in The Lancet Oncology.

Charles Swanton, MBPhD, of the Francis Crick Institute and UCL Cancer Institute in London, called the results “strongly positive” and said the copanlisib-rituximab combination is “a potential new treatment option” for indolent NHL in patients with a long remission after first-line therapy or those who are unfit for chemotherapy.

Dr. Swanton noted, however, that “one should also bear in mind” the serious adverse events (AEs) seen with copanlisib, particularly hypertension and hyperglycemia. When asked about these AEs, Dr. Matasar said he thinks the combination would be appropriate for patients who meet the study criteria as long as they don’t have severe baseline diabetes or uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Patient and treatment details

The study included 458 patients with CD20-positive, relapsed, indolent, B-cell NHL. Subtypes included follicular lymphoma (n = 275), marginal zone lymphoma (n = 95), small lymphocytic lymphoma (n = 50), and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (n = 38).

All patients were progression free and treatment free before their relapse for at least 12 months after their last rituximab-containing regimen, or at least 6 months before relapse if they were unwilling or unable to undergo chemotherapy.

The patients’ median age was 63 years, and just over half of them were men (52%). About 37% of patients had a history of hypertension at baseline, and about 15% had a history of diabetes.

Patients were randomized to receive copanlisib plus rituximab (n = 307) or rituximab plus placebo (n = 151). Copanlisib was given at 60 mg IV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. In both arms, rituximab was given at 375 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, and 9.
 

Progression-free survival benefit

At a median follow-up of 19.2 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.5 months in the copanlisib-rituximab arm and 13.8 months in the placebo-rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .0001).

The PFS advantage with copanlisib was seen across subtypes:

• Follicular lymphoma – 22.2 months vs. 18.7 months (P = .001)
• Small lymphocytic lymphoma – 14.2 months vs. 5.7 months (P < .0001)
• Marginal zone lymphoma – 22.1 months vs. 11.5 months (P = .012)
• Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia – 33.4 months vs. 16.6 months (P = .054)

The PFS difference among patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia was likely not statistically significant because of the small sample size, Dr. Matasar said.

He reported that the overall response rate was 81% with copanlisib-rituximab, including a 34% complete response rate. In the placebo arm, the overall response rate was 48%, and 15% of patients had a complete response.

The median overall survival was not estimable in either treatment arm. At a median follow-up of 30.1 months, 14% of patients in the copanlisib arm and 13.2% of patients in the placebo arm had died.
 

More than double the rate of serious AEs

The rate of serious treatment-emergent AEs was 47.2% in the combination arm and 18.5% in the placebo arm.

There were six grade 5 treatment-emergent AEs in the combination arm. One of these – pneumonitis – was deemed treatment related. There was one treatment-emergent death in the placebo arm.

Hyperglycemia and hypertension were the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs with the combination. Diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, and pyrexia were also more frequent with the combination than with rituximab-placebo.

More than half of patients in the combination arm (56.3%) developed grade 3/4 hyperglycemia. In the placebo arm, the incidence of grade 3 hyperglycemia was 8.2%, and there was no grade 4 hyperglycemia.

Rates of grade 3 hypertension were 39.7% in the combination arm and 8.9% in the placebo arm. There was no grade 4 hypertension.

In the combination arm, 2.6% of patients stopped treatment because of hyperglycemia and 0.7% stopped because of hypertension.

Any-grade pneumonitis occurred in 6.8% of patients in the combination arm and 1.4% of those in the placebo arm. The rate of grade 3/4 pneumonitis was 2.7% in the copanlisib arm, and the rate of grade 3 pneumonitis was 0.7% in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by Bayer, the company developing copanlisib. Dr. Matasar disclosed relationships with Bayer, its subsidiaries, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Swanton disclosed relationships with numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

[email protected]

The combination of copanlisib plus rituximab led to a 48% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, when compared with rituximab plus placebo in a phase 3 trial of patients with relapsed, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The trial, dubbed CHRONOS-3, is the first to report “a broad benefit” across histologic subtypes of relapsed, indolent NHL, and the results are “essentially a long-awaited proof of concept” for combining a PI3K inhibitor with rituximab, according to investigator Matthew Matasar, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Matasar presented results from CHRONOS-3 at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT001). The findings were simultaneously published in The Lancet Oncology.

Charles Swanton, MBPhD, of the Francis Crick Institute and UCL Cancer Institute in London, called the results “strongly positive” and said the copanlisib-rituximab combination is “a potential new treatment option” for indolent NHL in patients with a long remission after first-line therapy or those who are unfit for chemotherapy.

Dr. Swanton noted, however, that “one should also bear in mind” the serious adverse events (AEs) seen with copanlisib, particularly hypertension and hyperglycemia. When asked about these AEs, Dr. Matasar said he thinks the combination would be appropriate for patients who meet the study criteria as long as they don’t have severe baseline diabetes or uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Patient and treatment details

The study included 458 patients with CD20-positive, relapsed, indolent, B-cell NHL. Subtypes included follicular lymphoma (n = 275), marginal zone lymphoma (n = 95), small lymphocytic lymphoma (n = 50), and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (n = 38).

All patients were progression free and treatment free before their relapse for at least 12 months after their last rituximab-containing regimen, or at least 6 months before relapse if they were unwilling or unable to undergo chemotherapy.

The patients’ median age was 63 years, and just over half of them were men (52%). About 37% of patients had a history of hypertension at baseline, and about 15% had a history of diabetes.

Patients were randomized to receive copanlisib plus rituximab (n = 307) or rituximab plus placebo (n = 151). Copanlisib was given at 60 mg IV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. In both arms, rituximab was given at 375 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, and 9.
 

Progression-free survival benefit

At a median follow-up of 19.2 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.5 months in the copanlisib-rituximab arm and 13.8 months in the placebo-rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .0001).

The PFS advantage with copanlisib was seen across subtypes:

• Follicular lymphoma – 22.2 months vs. 18.7 months (P = .001)
• Small lymphocytic lymphoma – 14.2 months vs. 5.7 months (P < .0001)
• Marginal zone lymphoma – 22.1 months vs. 11.5 months (P = .012)
• Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia – 33.4 months vs. 16.6 months (P = .054)

The PFS difference among patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia was likely not statistically significant because of the small sample size, Dr. Matasar said.

He reported that the overall response rate was 81% with copanlisib-rituximab, including a 34% complete response rate. In the placebo arm, the overall response rate was 48%, and 15% of patients had a complete response.

The median overall survival was not estimable in either treatment arm. At a median follow-up of 30.1 months, 14% of patients in the copanlisib arm and 13.2% of patients in the placebo arm had died.
 

More than double the rate of serious AEs

The rate of serious treatment-emergent AEs was 47.2% in the combination arm and 18.5% in the placebo arm.

There were six grade 5 treatment-emergent AEs in the combination arm. One of these – pneumonitis – was deemed treatment related. There was one treatment-emergent death in the placebo arm.

Hyperglycemia and hypertension were the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs with the combination. Diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, and pyrexia were also more frequent with the combination than with rituximab-placebo.

More than half of patients in the combination arm (56.3%) developed grade 3/4 hyperglycemia. In the placebo arm, the incidence of grade 3 hyperglycemia was 8.2%, and there was no grade 4 hyperglycemia.

Rates of grade 3 hypertension were 39.7% in the combination arm and 8.9% in the placebo arm. There was no grade 4 hypertension.

In the combination arm, 2.6% of patients stopped treatment because of hyperglycemia and 0.7% stopped because of hypertension.

Any-grade pneumonitis occurred in 6.8% of patients in the combination arm and 1.4% of those in the placebo arm. The rate of grade 3/4 pneumonitis was 2.7% in the copanlisib arm, and the rate of grade 3 pneumonitis was 0.7% in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by Bayer, the company developing copanlisib. Dr. Matasar disclosed relationships with Bayer, its subsidiaries, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Swanton disclosed relationships with numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

[email protected]

The combination of copanlisib plus rituximab led to a 48% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, when compared with rituximab plus placebo in a phase 3 trial of patients with relapsed, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The trial, dubbed CHRONOS-3, is the first to report “a broad benefit” across histologic subtypes of relapsed, indolent NHL, and the results are “essentially a long-awaited proof of concept” for combining a PI3K inhibitor with rituximab, according to investigator Matthew Matasar, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Matasar presented results from CHRONOS-3 at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT001). The findings were simultaneously published in The Lancet Oncology.

Charles Swanton, MBPhD, of the Francis Crick Institute and UCL Cancer Institute in London, called the results “strongly positive” and said the copanlisib-rituximab combination is “a potential new treatment option” for indolent NHL in patients with a long remission after first-line therapy or those who are unfit for chemotherapy.

Dr. Swanton noted, however, that “one should also bear in mind” the serious adverse events (AEs) seen with copanlisib, particularly hypertension and hyperglycemia. When asked about these AEs, Dr. Matasar said he thinks the combination would be appropriate for patients who meet the study criteria as long as they don’t have severe baseline diabetes or uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Patient and treatment details

The study included 458 patients with CD20-positive, relapsed, indolent, B-cell NHL. Subtypes included follicular lymphoma (n = 275), marginal zone lymphoma (n = 95), small lymphocytic lymphoma (n = 50), and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (n = 38).

All patients were progression free and treatment free before their relapse for at least 12 months after their last rituximab-containing regimen, or at least 6 months before relapse if they were unwilling or unable to undergo chemotherapy.

The patients’ median age was 63 years, and just over half of them were men (52%). About 37% of patients had a history of hypertension at baseline, and about 15% had a history of diabetes.

Patients were randomized to receive copanlisib plus rituximab (n = 307) or rituximab plus placebo (n = 151). Copanlisib was given at 60 mg IV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. In both arms, rituximab was given at 375 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, and 9.
 

Progression-free survival benefit

At a median follow-up of 19.2 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.5 months in the copanlisib-rituximab arm and 13.8 months in the placebo-rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .0001).

The PFS advantage with copanlisib was seen across subtypes:

• Follicular lymphoma – 22.2 months vs. 18.7 months (P = .001)
• Small lymphocytic lymphoma – 14.2 months vs. 5.7 months (P < .0001)
• Marginal zone lymphoma – 22.1 months vs. 11.5 months (P = .012)
• Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia – 33.4 months vs. 16.6 months (P = .054)

The PFS difference among patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia was likely not statistically significant because of the small sample size, Dr. Matasar said.

He reported that the overall response rate was 81% with copanlisib-rituximab, including a 34% complete response rate. In the placebo arm, the overall response rate was 48%, and 15% of patients had a complete response.

The median overall survival was not estimable in either treatment arm. At a median follow-up of 30.1 months, 14% of patients in the copanlisib arm and 13.2% of patients in the placebo arm had died.
 

More than double the rate of serious AEs

The rate of serious treatment-emergent AEs was 47.2% in the combination arm and 18.5% in the placebo arm.

There were six grade 5 treatment-emergent AEs in the combination arm. One of these – pneumonitis – was deemed treatment related. There was one treatment-emergent death in the placebo arm.

Hyperglycemia and hypertension were the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs with the combination. Diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, and pyrexia were also more frequent with the combination than with rituximab-placebo.

More than half of patients in the combination arm (56.3%) developed grade 3/4 hyperglycemia. In the placebo arm, the incidence of grade 3 hyperglycemia was 8.2%, and there was no grade 4 hyperglycemia.

Rates of grade 3 hypertension were 39.7% in the combination arm and 8.9% in the placebo arm. There was no grade 4 hypertension.

In the combination arm, 2.6% of patients stopped treatment because of hyperglycemia and 0.7% stopped because of hypertension.

Any-grade pneumonitis occurred in 6.8% of patients in the combination arm and 1.4% of those in the placebo arm. The rate of grade 3/4 pneumonitis was 2.7% in the copanlisib arm, and the rate of grade 3 pneumonitis was 0.7% in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by Bayer, the company developing copanlisib. Dr. Matasar disclosed relationships with Bayer, its subsidiaries, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Swanton disclosed relationships with numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

[email protected]

A new antiplatelet drug with a completely novel mechanism of action may hold the promise of delivering the holy grail – reducing cardiac events without increasing bleeding. That is the hope behind the new class of drugs directed against the platelet collagen glycoprotein VI (GPVI) receptor.

A phase 2 trial with the first agent in this class, known as revacept (advanceCOR), showed no increase in bleeding with the product when added to standard dual-antiplatelet therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), despite the drug’s being used at a dose that has been shown to increase platelet inhibition.

Unfortunately, there was no reduction in the primary clinical efficacy endpoint, a myocardial injury surrogate, but the authors pointed out that the overall event rate was low, and they were hopeful that future trials in a higher-risk population will show efficacy.

The ISAR PLASTER study was published online on March 31 in JAMA Cardiology.

“This new drug is targeting the collagen in the extracellular matrix of atherosclerotic plaque rather than the platelets themselves. So, in theory, this agent should not cause an increase in bleeding,” study author Steffen Massberg, DrMed, said in an interview.

Dr. Massberg explained that revacept targets the binding site for platelets on collagen that is exposed on rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and is a major trigger of platelet activation.

“In contrast to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors, which target all platelets, revacept only binds to sites where there is ruptured plaque. But the platelets themselves otherwise have normal function, so regular coagulation processes should be unaffected,” he commented.

“While collagen also has a role in the coagulation process, it is more involved in atherosclerotic plaque rupture, and in animal studies, revacept was effective in preventing clot formation in large arteries but only had a small effect on bleeding,” Dr. Massberg added.

In the JAMA Cardiology article, the authors further elaborated that, when collagen is exposed during atherosclerotic plaque rupture, it binds platelet GPVI, the major platelet collagen receptor.

“Glycoprotein VI in turn mediates local platelet recruitment, activation, and aggregation. Glycoprotein VI is an attractive antiplatelet target because GPVI-mediated platelet response plays a central role during myocardial infarction and stroke but is less relevant in physiological hemostasis,” they wrote.

The researchers describe revacept as a dimeric, soluble fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the GPVI receptor and the human Fc-fragment. It competes with endogenous platelet GPVI for binding to exposed collagen fibers and inhibits collagen-mediated platelet adhesion and aggregation selectively at the site of plaque rupture.

In addition, revacept blocks binding of von Willebrand factor to collagen and inhibits von Willebrand factor–mediated platelet activation, they reported.

“As a lesion-directed drug, revacept does not interfere with the function of circulating platelets beyond the atherosclerotic lesion,” the authors said.

In animal studies and a phase 1 clinical trial, the drug was shown to inhibit atherothrombosis but to have little effect on systemic hemostasis or bleeding.

The current ISAR-PLASTER trial is the first study of the use of the agent for patients with coronary heart disease.

For the study, 334 patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous infusion of revacept 160 mg, revacept 80 mg, or placebo prior to the start of PCI in addition to standard antithrombotic therapy.

The safety endpoint was bleeding of type 2-5, per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, at 30 days.

Results showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (the composite of death or myocardial injury, defined as an increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T [hsTnT] to at least five times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours from randomization) between the revacept and placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 24.4% of the revacept 160-mg group, 25.0% of the revacept 80-mg group, and 23.3% of the placebo group.

The high dose of revacept was associated with a small but significant reduction of high-concentration collagen-induced platelet aggregation, but adenosine 5-diphosphate–induced aggregation was not affected.

Revacept did not increase bleeding. Bleeding of BARC type 2 or higher at 30 days occurred in 5.0% of the 160-mg group, 5.9% of the 80-mg group, and 8.6% of the placebo group.

Dr. Massberg pointed out that one possible explanation for the lack of difference in the efficacy outcome was that the patients enrolled in the study were at low risk.

“The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was very low (2.5% at 30 days), and this was a low-risk population undergoing elective PCI,” he commented.

The authors also pointed out that the five-times increase in hsTnT endpoint used in the current study has little prognostic impact.

In addition, Dr. Massberg noted that, in the stable situation, myocardial injury is mostly triggered by cholesterol embolism during PCI and side-branch occlusion due to distal plaque embolization, problems that are unlikely to respond to inhibition of GPVI-collagen interaction by revacept.

He suggested that better results may be achieved in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). “In ACS patients, the myocardial injury is caused by ongoing thrombotic cascades, where the collagen-platelet interaction plays a much larger role, so in theory, this drug should show a greater effect in an ACS population.”

The researchers are now planning a larger phase 3 study in that group.

“I am still optimistic. I still believe it could work,” Dr. Massberg said. “The major aim for this study was safety and dosing. There was no difference in bleeding, so safety was supported,” he added.

The ISAR-PLASTER study was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Deutsches Herzzentrum Munchen, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and advanceCOR (the manufacturer of revacept). One of the coauthors of the study is a cofounder of advanceCor.

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

A new antiplatelet drug with a completely novel mechanism of action may hold the promise of delivering the holy grail – reducing cardiac events without increasing bleeding. That is the hope behind the new class of drugs directed against the platelet collagen glycoprotein VI (GPVI) receptor.

A phase 2 trial with the first agent in this class, known as revacept (advanceCOR), showed no increase in bleeding with the product when added to standard dual-antiplatelet therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), despite the drug’s being used at a dose that has been shown to increase platelet inhibition.

Unfortunately, there was no reduction in the primary clinical efficacy endpoint, a myocardial injury surrogate, but the authors pointed out that the overall event rate was low, and they were hopeful that future trials in a higher-risk population will show efficacy.

The ISAR PLASTER study was published online on March 31 in JAMA Cardiology.

“This new drug is targeting the collagen in the extracellular matrix of atherosclerotic plaque rather than the platelets themselves. So, in theory, this agent should not cause an increase in bleeding,” study author Steffen Massberg, DrMed, said in an interview.

Dr. Massberg explained that revacept targets the binding site for platelets on collagen that is exposed on rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and is a major trigger of platelet activation.

“In contrast to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors, which target all platelets, revacept only binds to sites where there is ruptured plaque. But the platelets themselves otherwise have normal function, so regular coagulation processes should be unaffected,” he commented.

“While collagen also has a role in the coagulation process, it is more involved in atherosclerotic plaque rupture, and in animal studies, revacept was effective in preventing clot formation in large arteries but only had a small effect on bleeding,” Dr. Massberg added.

In the JAMA Cardiology article, the authors further elaborated that, when collagen is exposed during atherosclerotic plaque rupture, it binds platelet GPVI, the major platelet collagen receptor.

“Glycoprotein VI in turn mediates local platelet recruitment, activation, and aggregation. Glycoprotein VI is an attractive antiplatelet target because GPVI-mediated platelet response plays a central role during myocardial infarction and stroke but is less relevant in physiological hemostasis,” they wrote.

The researchers describe revacept as a dimeric, soluble fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the GPVI receptor and the human Fc-fragment. It competes with endogenous platelet GPVI for binding to exposed collagen fibers and inhibits collagen-mediated platelet adhesion and aggregation selectively at the site of plaque rupture.

In addition, revacept blocks binding of von Willebrand factor to collagen and inhibits von Willebrand factor–mediated platelet activation, they reported.

“As a lesion-directed drug, revacept does not interfere with the function of circulating platelets beyond the atherosclerotic lesion,” the authors said.

In animal studies and a phase 1 clinical trial, the drug was shown to inhibit atherothrombosis but to have little effect on systemic hemostasis or bleeding.

The current ISAR-PLASTER trial is the first study of the use of the agent for patients with coronary heart disease.

For the study, 334 patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous infusion of revacept 160 mg, revacept 80 mg, or placebo prior to the start of PCI in addition to standard antithrombotic therapy.

The safety endpoint was bleeding of type 2-5, per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, at 30 days.

Results showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (the composite of death or myocardial injury, defined as an increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T [hsTnT] to at least five times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours from randomization) between the revacept and placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 24.4% of the revacept 160-mg group, 25.0% of the revacept 80-mg group, and 23.3% of the placebo group.

The high dose of revacept was associated with a small but significant reduction of high-concentration collagen-induced platelet aggregation, but adenosine 5-diphosphate–induced aggregation was not affected.

Revacept did not increase bleeding. Bleeding of BARC type 2 or higher at 30 days occurred in 5.0% of the 160-mg group, 5.9% of the 80-mg group, and 8.6% of the placebo group.

Dr. Massberg pointed out that one possible explanation for the lack of difference in the efficacy outcome was that the patients enrolled in the study were at low risk.

“The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was very low (2.5% at 30 days), and this was a low-risk population undergoing elective PCI,” he commented.

The authors also pointed out that the five-times increase in hsTnT endpoint used in the current study has little prognostic impact.

In addition, Dr. Massberg noted that, in the stable situation, myocardial injury is mostly triggered by cholesterol embolism during PCI and side-branch occlusion due to distal plaque embolization, problems that are unlikely to respond to inhibition of GPVI-collagen interaction by revacept.

He suggested that better results may be achieved in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). “In ACS patients, the myocardial injury is caused by ongoing thrombotic cascades, where the collagen-platelet interaction plays a much larger role, so in theory, this drug should show a greater effect in an ACS population.”

The researchers are now planning a larger phase 3 study in that group.

“I am still optimistic. I still believe it could work,” Dr. Massberg said. “The major aim for this study was safety and dosing. There was no difference in bleeding, so safety was supported,” he added.

The ISAR-PLASTER study was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Deutsches Herzzentrum Munchen, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and advanceCOR (the manufacturer of revacept). One of the coauthors of the study is a cofounder of advanceCor.

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

A new antiplatelet drug with a completely novel mechanism of action may hold the promise of delivering the holy grail – reducing cardiac events without increasing bleeding. That is the hope behind the new class of drugs directed against the platelet collagen glycoprotein VI (GPVI) receptor.

A phase 2 trial with the first agent in this class, known as revacept (advanceCOR), showed no increase in bleeding with the product when added to standard dual-antiplatelet therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), despite the drug’s being used at a dose that has been shown to increase platelet inhibition.

Unfortunately, there was no reduction in the primary clinical efficacy endpoint, a myocardial injury surrogate, but the authors pointed out that the overall event rate was low, and they were hopeful that future trials in a higher-risk population will show efficacy.

The ISAR PLASTER study was published online on March 31 in JAMA Cardiology.

“This new drug is targeting the collagen in the extracellular matrix of atherosclerotic plaque rather than the platelets themselves. So, in theory, this agent should not cause an increase in bleeding,” study author Steffen Massberg, DrMed, said in an interview.

Dr. Massberg explained that revacept targets the binding site for platelets on collagen that is exposed on rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and is a major trigger of platelet activation.

“In contrast to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors, which target all platelets, revacept only binds to sites where there is ruptured plaque. But the platelets themselves otherwise have normal function, so regular coagulation processes should be unaffected,” he commented.

“While collagen also has a role in the coagulation process, it is more involved in atherosclerotic plaque rupture, and in animal studies, revacept was effective in preventing clot formation in large arteries but only had a small effect on bleeding,” Dr. Massberg added.

In the JAMA Cardiology article, the authors further elaborated that, when collagen is exposed during atherosclerotic plaque rupture, it binds platelet GPVI, the major platelet collagen receptor.

“Glycoprotein VI in turn mediates local platelet recruitment, activation, and aggregation. Glycoprotein VI is an attractive antiplatelet target because GPVI-mediated platelet response plays a central role during myocardial infarction and stroke but is less relevant in physiological hemostasis,” they wrote.

The researchers describe revacept as a dimeric, soluble fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the GPVI receptor and the human Fc-fragment. It competes with endogenous platelet GPVI for binding to exposed collagen fibers and inhibits collagen-mediated platelet adhesion and aggregation selectively at the site of plaque rupture.

In addition, revacept blocks binding of von Willebrand factor to collagen and inhibits von Willebrand factor–mediated platelet activation, they reported.

“As a lesion-directed drug, revacept does not interfere with the function of circulating platelets beyond the atherosclerotic lesion,” the authors said.

In animal studies and a phase 1 clinical trial, the drug was shown to inhibit atherothrombosis but to have little effect on systemic hemostasis or bleeding.

The current ISAR-PLASTER trial is the first study of the use of the agent for patients with coronary heart disease.

For the study, 334 patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous infusion of revacept 160 mg, revacept 80 mg, or placebo prior to the start of PCI in addition to standard antithrombotic therapy.

The safety endpoint was bleeding of type 2-5, per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, at 30 days.

Results showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (the composite of death or myocardial injury, defined as an increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T [hsTnT] to at least five times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours from randomization) between the revacept and placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 24.4% of the revacept 160-mg group, 25.0% of the revacept 80-mg group, and 23.3% of the placebo group.

The high dose of revacept was associated with a small but significant reduction of high-concentration collagen-induced platelet aggregation, but adenosine 5-diphosphate–induced aggregation was not affected.

Revacept did not increase bleeding. Bleeding of BARC type 2 or higher at 30 days occurred in 5.0% of the 160-mg group, 5.9% of the 80-mg group, and 8.6% of the placebo group.

Dr. Massberg pointed out that one possible explanation for the lack of difference in the efficacy outcome was that the patients enrolled in the study were at low risk.

“The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was very low (2.5% at 30 days), and this was a low-risk population undergoing elective PCI,” he commented.

The authors also pointed out that the five-times increase in hsTnT endpoint used in the current study has little prognostic impact.

In addition, Dr. Massberg noted that, in the stable situation, myocardial injury is mostly triggered by cholesterol embolism during PCI and side-branch occlusion due to distal plaque embolization, problems that are unlikely to respond to inhibition of GPVI-collagen interaction by revacept.

He suggested that better results may be achieved in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). “In ACS patients, the myocardial injury is caused by ongoing thrombotic cascades, where the collagen-platelet interaction plays a much larger role, so in theory, this drug should show a greater effect in an ACS population.”

The researchers are now planning a larger phase 3 study in that group.

“I am still optimistic. I still believe it could work,” Dr. Massberg said. “The major aim for this study was safety and dosing. There was no difference in bleeding, so safety was supported,” he added.

The ISAR-PLASTER study was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Deutsches Herzzentrum Munchen, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and advanceCOR (the manufacturer of revacept). One of the coauthors of the study is a cofounder of advanceCor.

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

Pneumonitis is an uncommon and potentially life-threatening complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. A fraction of patients with ICI-related pneumonitis fail to respond to initial therapy with high-dose systemic steroids.

The recently published experiences at two major cancer centers shed light on the outcomes from treatment and can provide some advice to clinicians for dealing with affected patients.
 

The Johns Hopkins experience

Because ICI-related pneumonitis typically improves within 48-72 hours of steroid therapy, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steroid-refractory pneumonitis is defined as pneumonitis that demonstrates no clinical improvement after high-dose corticosteroids for 2-14 days. If the immune toxicity–specialized, multidisciplinary management team implements additional immunosuppressive therapy, that is regarded as confirmatory evidence.

Aanika Balaji, a medical student at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues retrospectively summarized the clinical course of 12 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis between 2011 and 2020. Clinical improvement with subsequent treatment was evidenced by reduction in either level of care or oxygen requirements.

Three-quarters of the patients were current or former smokers, and the same proportion had lung cancer. Most patients (91.6%) had received chemotherapy, 58.3% had prior chest radiotherapy, and 58.3% had achieved partial response or stable disease with an ICI.

Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis developed between 40 and 127 days (median, 85 days) after the first dose of ICI therapy. Subsequent immunosuppressive management included IVIg, infliximab, or the combination, in addition to ICU-level supportive care.

Among the seven patients who received IVIg alone, two patients (29%) achieved clinical improvement and hospital discharge. The remainder died.

The two patients treated with infliximab and the three patients treated with sequential IVIg and infliximab died. All deaths were attributed to ICI-related pneumonitis or infectious complications.

Overall, clinically relevant findings were:

• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis was seen in 18.5% of patients referred for multidisciplinary care.
• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis occurred at a median of 85 days into a patient’s ICI treatment.
• Some patients improved clinically after IVIg therapy, but mortality was high overall.
• Infliximab therapy, alone or in combination with IVIg, was ineffective.

The Memorial Sloan Kettering experience

Jason Beattie, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues performed a retrospective study of patients who had pneumonitis after ICI therapy and/or received immune modulator therapy after corticosteroids in the setting of ICI cancer treatment.

Manual record review was performed to exclude cases of pneumonitis from other causes. The period reviewed was roughly contemporaneous with the Johns Hopkins series.

Patients with ICI-related pneumonitis were divided into “steroid refractory” (i.e., no response to high-dose corticosteroids) or “steroid resistant” (i.e., initial response, followed by worsening) categories.

The researchers identified 26 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis, all of whom had advanced malignancy (8 lung cancer, 4 malignant melanoma, 4 renal cell cancer, and 10 “other” cancers).

A majority of patients (85%) were current or former smokers, 73% had received ICI monotherapy, 35% had received prior chest radiation at a median interval of 4.9 months prior to pneumonitis onset, and 27% had preexisting pulmonary disease.

Twelve patients (46%) had steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis, and 14 (54%) had steroid-resistant ICI-related pneumonitis.

The two groups differed in time to pneumonitis onset (a median of 68 days in the refractory group and 182 days in the resistant group) and time to immune modulator therapy after beginning steroids (median 7 days and 2.9 months, respectively). In the steroid-refractory cases, pneumonitis was more severe.

In addition to corticosteroids, most patients received infliximab monotherapy or infliximab with mycophenolate mofetil. In contrast to the Johns Hopkins series, IVIg was not used in the Memorial Sloan Kettering cases.

Outcomes from immune modulators were graded based on clinical evidence (progress notes, oxygen requirements, level of care, radiologic information, etc.) of resolution of pneumonitis on imaging at least 8 weeks after cessation of steroids and immune modulator therapy, durable improvement for at least 8 weeks after immune modulator therapy, transient improvement followed by pneumonitis relapse or inadequate follow-up because of death or hospice referral, or no improvement.

Ten patients (38%) had durable improvement of ICI-related pneumonitis, of whom three (12%) had complete resolution. Two of the patients with complete resolution had steroid-refractory pneumonitis, both of whom had received infliximab followed by mycophenolate mofetil.

Among the seven patients with durable improvement, four remained alive on immune modulators. Time to resolution of pneumonitis was protracted, ranging from 2.3 months to 8.4 months in the steroid-refractory patients.

Durable response was less common with steroid-refractory (25%) than steroid-resistant (50%) disease, with a significant difference in 90-day survival of 25% and 71%, respectively.

Among the 13 (50%) patients with transient improvement in ICI-related pneumonitis, 8 ultimately died, either because of recurrent ICI-related pneumonitis or infection. All three patients with no improvement from immune modulators died.

The 90-day all-cause mortality was 50%, with durable pneumonitis improvement and freedom from severe infectious complications occurring in only about a third of patients.
 

Lessons for clinicians

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society of Medical Oncology have all published guidelines and recommendations for immunosuppression for steroid-refractory adverse events from ICIs.

Unfortunately, there is little experience with steroid-unresponsive ICI-related pneumonitis. The ideal sequence, dose, and duration of additional immune modulator therapy for ICI-related pneumonitis are unclear and may differ from the approaches to other immune-related toxicities.

This is important because, as suggested in an editorial by Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, and James L. Gulley, MD, PhD, it is likely that ICI-related pneumonitis will be seen more in routine practice than in clinical trial populations. In addition, across all tumor types, ICI-related pneumonitis is the most common cause of ICI-associated death from toxicity.

The retrospective studies from Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering constitute the largest published experience with ICI-related pneumonitis and yield important clinical insights.

Uniform definitions of potentially important patient subgroups (e.g., steroid refractory vs. steroid resistant) are needed. The steroid-refractory and steroid-resistant subgroups have distinctly different clinical features and outcomes. Uniformity in the subgroup definitions would be a useful starting point from both clinical and research perspectives.

Preferred treatment choices need to be tested systematically in multi-institutional studies. Any potential impact of treatment for ICI-related pneumonitis on antitumor immune control should be identified.

Endpoints of interest need to be defined and measured prospectively. All-cause mortality after 90 days is important, but, as the authors of both reviews noted, there are vitally important narratives and differences in functionality that are completely concealed by restricting the focus to mortality.

Potential causal relationships with antecedent exposure to tobacco, radiation, intrathoracic tumor burden, or other factors need to be defined.

Clinicians need predictive biomarkers for ICI-related pneumonitis (e.g., in peripheral blood, pulmonary function testing, or bronchoscopy specimens). At-risk patients may benefit from early intervention.

The limitations of single-institution record reviews in guiding real-world patient management notwithstanding, these reviews illustrate the value of registries and prospective studies to guide the path forward. Taking these next steps will ensure for our patients that the success of immune-targeted therapy against their cancer never becomes a Pyrrhic victory.

The Johns Hopkins investigators and the editorialists reported having no disclosures. The Memorial Sloan Kettering investigators disclosed relationships with Targeted Oncology, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, and many other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Pneumonitis is an uncommon and potentially life-threatening complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. A fraction of patients with ICI-related pneumonitis fail to respond to initial therapy with high-dose systemic steroids.

The recently published experiences at two major cancer centers shed light on the outcomes from treatment and can provide some advice to clinicians for dealing with affected patients.
 

The Johns Hopkins experience

Because ICI-related pneumonitis typically improves within 48-72 hours of steroid therapy, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steroid-refractory pneumonitis is defined as pneumonitis that demonstrates no clinical improvement after high-dose corticosteroids for 2-14 days. If the immune toxicity–specialized, multidisciplinary management team implements additional immunosuppressive therapy, that is regarded as confirmatory evidence.

Aanika Balaji, a medical student at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues retrospectively summarized the clinical course of 12 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis between 2011 and 2020. Clinical improvement with subsequent treatment was evidenced by reduction in either level of care or oxygen requirements.

Three-quarters of the patients were current or former smokers, and the same proportion had lung cancer. Most patients (91.6%) had received chemotherapy, 58.3% had prior chest radiotherapy, and 58.3% had achieved partial response or stable disease with an ICI.

Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis developed between 40 and 127 days (median, 85 days) after the first dose of ICI therapy. Subsequent immunosuppressive management included IVIg, infliximab, or the combination, in addition to ICU-level supportive care.

Among the seven patients who received IVIg alone, two patients (29%) achieved clinical improvement and hospital discharge. The remainder died.

The two patients treated with infliximab and the three patients treated with sequential IVIg and infliximab died. All deaths were attributed to ICI-related pneumonitis or infectious complications.

Overall, clinically relevant findings were:

• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis was seen in 18.5% of patients referred for multidisciplinary care.
• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis occurred at a median of 85 days into a patient’s ICI treatment.
• Some patients improved clinically after IVIg therapy, but mortality was high overall.
• Infliximab therapy, alone or in combination with IVIg, was ineffective.

The Memorial Sloan Kettering experience

Jason Beattie, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues performed a retrospective study of patients who had pneumonitis after ICI therapy and/or received immune modulator therapy after corticosteroids in the setting of ICI cancer treatment.

Manual record review was performed to exclude cases of pneumonitis from other causes. The period reviewed was roughly contemporaneous with the Johns Hopkins series.

Patients with ICI-related pneumonitis were divided into “steroid refractory” (i.e., no response to high-dose corticosteroids) or “steroid resistant” (i.e., initial response, followed by worsening) categories.

The researchers identified 26 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis, all of whom had advanced malignancy (8 lung cancer, 4 malignant melanoma, 4 renal cell cancer, and 10 “other” cancers).

A majority of patients (85%) were current or former smokers, 73% had received ICI monotherapy, 35% had received prior chest radiation at a median interval of 4.9 months prior to pneumonitis onset, and 27% had preexisting pulmonary disease.

Twelve patients (46%) had steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis, and 14 (54%) had steroid-resistant ICI-related pneumonitis.

The two groups differed in time to pneumonitis onset (a median of 68 days in the refractory group and 182 days in the resistant group) and time to immune modulator therapy after beginning steroids (median 7 days and 2.9 months, respectively). In the steroid-refractory cases, pneumonitis was more severe.

In addition to corticosteroids, most patients received infliximab monotherapy or infliximab with mycophenolate mofetil. In contrast to the Johns Hopkins series, IVIg was not used in the Memorial Sloan Kettering cases.

Outcomes from immune modulators were graded based on clinical evidence (progress notes, oxygen requirements, level of care, radiologic information, etc.) of resolution of pneumonitis on imaging at least 8 weeks after cessation of steroids and immune modulator therapy, durable improvement for at least 8 weeks after immune modulator therapy, transient improvement followed by pneumonitis relapse or inadequate follow-up because of death or hospice referral, or no improvement.

Ten patients (38%) had durable improvement of ICI-related pneumonitis, of whom three (12%) had complete resolution. Two of the patients with complete resolution had steroid-refractory pneumonitis, both of whom had received infliximab followed by mycophenolate mofetil.

Among the seven patients with durable improvement, four remained alive on immune modulators. Time to resolution of pneumonitis was protracted, ranging from 2.3 months to 8.4 months in the steroid-refractory patients.

Durable response was less common with steroid-refractory (25%) than steroid-resistant (50%) disease, with a significant difference in 90-day survival of 25% and 71%, respectively.

Among the 13 (50%) patients with transient improvement in ICI-related pneumonitis, 8 ultimately died, either because of recurrent ICI-related pneumonitis or infection. All three patients with no improvement from immune modulators died.

The 90-day all-cause mortality was 50%, with durable pneumonitis improvement and freedom from severe infectious complications occurring in only about a third of patients.
 

Lessons for clinicians

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society of Medical Oncology have all published guidelines and recommendations for immunosuppression for steroid-refractory adverse events from ICIs.

Unfortunately, there is little experience with steroid-unresponsive ICI-related pneumonitis. The ideal sequence, dose, and duration of additional immune modulator therapy for ICI-related pneumonitis are unclear and may differ from the approaches to other immune-related toxicities.

This is important because, as suggested in an editorial by Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, and James L. Gulley, MD, PhD, it is likely that ICI-related pneumonitis will be seen more in routine practice than in clinical trial populations. In addition, across all tumor types, ICI-related pneumonitis is the most common cause of ICI-associated death from toxicity.

The retrospective studies from Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering constitute the largest published experience with ICI-related pneumonitis and yield important clinical insights.

Uniform definitions of potentially important patient subgroups (e.g., steroid refractory vs. steroid resistant) are needed. The steroid-refractory and steroid-resistant subgroups have distinctly different clinical features and outcomes. Uniformity in the subgroup definitions would be a useful starting point from both clinical and research perspectives.

Preferred treatment choices need to be tested systematically in multi-institutional studies. Any potential impact of treatment for ICI-related pneumonitis on antitumor immune control should be identified.

Endpoints of interest need to be defined and measured prospectively. All-cause mortality after 90 days is important, but, as the authors of both reviews noted, there are vitally important narratives and differences in functionality that are completely concealed by restricting the focus to mortality.

Potential causal relationships with antecedent exposure to tobacco, radiation, intrathoracic tumor burden, or other factors need to be defined.

Clinicians need predictive biomarkers for ICI-related pneumonitis (e.g., in peripheral blood, pulmonary function testing, or bronchoscopy specimens). At-risk patients may benefit from early intervention.

The limitations of single-institution record reviews in guiding real-world patient management notwithstanding, these reviews illustrate the value of registries and prospective studies to guide the path forward. Taking these next steps will ensure for our patients that the success of immune-targeted therapy against their cancer never becomes a Pyrrhic victory.

The Johns Hopkins investigators and the editorialists reported having no disclosures. The Memorial Sloan Kettering investigators disclosed relationships with Targeted Oncology, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, and many other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Pneumonitis is an uncommon and potentially life-threatening complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. A fraction of patients with ICI-related pneumonitis fail to respond to initial therapy with high-dose systemic steroids.

The recently published experiences at two major cancer centers shed light on the outcomes from treatment and can provide some advice to clinicians for dealing with affected patients.
 

The Johns Hopkins experience

Because ICI-related pneumonitis typically improves within 48-72 hours of steroid therapy, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steroid-refractory pneumonitis is defined as pneumonitis that demonstrates no clinical improvement after high-dose corticosteroids for 2-14 days. If the immune toxicity–specialized, multidisciplinary management team implements additional immunosuppressive therapy, that is regarded as confirmatory evidence.

Aanika Balaji, a medical student at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues retrospectively summarized the clinical course of 12 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis between 2011 and 2020. Clinical improvement with subsequent treatment was evidenced by reduction in either level of care or oxygen requirements.

Three-quarters of the patients were current or former smokers, and the same proportion had lung cancer. Most patients (91.6%) had received chemotherapy, 58.3% had prior chest radiotherapy, and 58.3% had achieved partial response or stable disease with an ICI.

Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis developed between 40 and 127 days (median, 85 days) after the first dose of ICI therapy. Subsequent immunosuppressive management included IVIg, infliximab, or the combination, in addition to ICU-level supportive care.

Among the seven patients who received IVIg alone, two patients (29%) achieved clinical improvement and hospital discharge. The remainder died.

The two patients treated with infliximab and the three patients treated with sequential IVIg and infliximab died. All deaths were attributed to ICI-related pneumonitis or infectious complications.

Overall, clinically relevant findings were:

• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis was seen in 18.5% of patients referred for multidisciplinary care.
• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis occurred at a median of 85 days into a patient’s ICI treatment.
• Some patients improved clinically after IVIg therapy, but mortality was high overall.
• Infliximab therapy, alone or in combination with IVIg, was ineffective.

The Memorial Sloan Kettering experience

Jason Beattie, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues performed a retrospective study of patients who had pneumonitis after ICI therapy and/or received immune modulator therapy after corticosteroids in the setting of ICI cancer treatment.

Manual record review was performed to exclude cases of pneumonitis from other causes. The period reviewed was roughly contemporaneous with the Johns Hopkins series.

Patients with ICI-related pneumonitis were divided into “steroid refractory” (i.e., no response to high-dose corticosteroids) or “steroid resistant” (i.e., initial response, followed by worsening) categories.

The researchers identified 26 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis, all of whom had advanced malignancy (8 lung cancer, 4 malignant melanoma, 4 renal cell cancer, and 10 “other” cancers).

A majority of patients (85%) were current or former smokers, 73% had received ICI monotherapy, 35% had received prior chest radiation at a median interval of 4.9 months prior to pneumonitis onset, and 27% had preexisting pulmonary disease.

Twelve patients (46%) had steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis, and 14 (54%) had steroid-resistant ICI-related pneumonitis.

The two groups differed in time to pneumonitis onset (a median of 68 days in the refractory group and 182 days in the resistant group) and time to immune modulator therapy after beginning steroids (median 7 days and 2.9 months, respectively). In the steroid-refractory cases, pneumonitis was more severe.

In addition to corticosteroids, most patients received infliximab monotherapy or infliximab with mycophenolate mofetil. In contrast to the Johns Hopkins series, IVIg was not used in the Memorial Sloan Kettering cases.

Outcomes from immune modulators were graded based on clinical evidence (progress notes, oxygen requirements, level of care, radiologic information, etc.) of resolution of pneumonitis on imaging at least 8 weeks after cessation of steroids and immune modulator therapy, durable improvement for at least 8 weeks after immune modulator therapy, transient improvement followed by pneumonitis relapse or inadequate follow-up because of death or hospice referral, or no improvement.

Ten patients (38%) had durable improvement of ICI-related pneumonitis, of whom three (12%) had complete resolution. Two of the patients with complete resolution had steroid-refractory pneumonitis, both of whom had received infliximab followed by mycophenolate mofetil.

Among the seven patients with durable improvement, four remained alive on immune modulators. Time to resolution of pneumonitis was protracted, ranging from 2.3 months to 8.4 months in the steroid-refractory patients.

Durable response was less common with steroid-refractory (25%) than steroid-resistant (50%) disease, with a significant difference in 90-day survival of 25% and 71%, respectively.

Among the 13 (50%) patients with transient improvement in ICI-related pneumonitis, 8 ultimately died, either because of recurrent ICI-related pneumonitis or infection. All three patients with no improvement from immune modulators died.

The 90-day all-cause mortality was 50%, with durable pneumonitis improvement and freedom from severe infectious complications occurring in only about a third of patients.
 

Lessons for clinicians

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society of Medical Oncology have all published guidelines and recommendations for immunosuppression for steroid-refractory adverse events from ICIs.

Unfortunately, there is little experience with steroid-unresponsive ICI-related pneumonitis. The ideal sequence, dose, and duration of additional immune modulator therapy for ICI-related pneumonitis are unclear and may differ from the approaches to other immune-related toxicities.

This is important because, as suggested in an editorial by Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, and James L. Gulley, MD, PhD, it is likely that ICI-related pneumonitis will be seen more in routine practice than in clinical trial populations. In addition, across all tumor types, ICI-related pneumonitis is the most common cause of ICI-associated death from toxicity.

The retrospective studies from Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering constitute the largest published experience with ICI-related pneumonitis and yield important clinical insights.

Uniform definitions of potentially important patient subgroups (e.g., steroid refractory vs. steroid resistant) are needed. The steroid-refractory and steroid-resistant subgroups have distinctly different clinical features and outcomes. Uniformity in the subgroup definitions would be a useful starting point from both clinical and research perspectives.

Preferred treatment choices need to be tested systematically in multi-institutional studies. Any potential impact of treatment for ICI-related pneumonitis on antitumor immune control should be identified.

Endpoints of interest need to be defined and measured prospectively. All-cause mortality after 90 days is important, but, as the authors of both reviews noted, there are vitally important narratives and differences in functionality that are completely concealed by restricting the focus to mortality.

Potential causal relationships with antecedent exposure to tobacco, radiation, intrathoracic tumor burden, or other factors need to be defined.

Clinicians need predictive biomarkers for ICI-related pneumonitis (e.g., in peripheral blood, pulmonary function testing, or bronchoscopy specimens). At-risk patients may benefit from early intervention.

The limitations of single-institution record reviews in guiding real-world patient management notwithstanding, these reviews illustrate the value of registries and prospective studies to guide the path forward. Taking these next steps will ensure for our patients that the success of immune-targeted therapy against their cancer never becomes a Pyrrhic victory.

The Johns Hopkins investigators and the editorialists reported having no disclosures. The Memorial Sloan Kettering investigators disclosed relationships with Targeted Oncology, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, and many other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Specialty palliative care interventions improve outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies but are underutilized, according to findings from a systematic literature review.

Outcomes that were improved, as demonstrated by 16 studies that met inclusion criteria for the review, included symptom management, inpatient mortality, health care utilization, health care costs, and caregiver-reported outcomes, Elizabeth Elliott, DO, a hematology and oncology fellow at the Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Loyola University, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues reported.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.
 

Palliative care needs

Patients with hematologic malignancies, including leukemia, myeloma, and lymphoma, have a high need for supportive care, the authors noted, adding that, although its use has increased over time, palliative care (PC) is often provided late in the disease course – sometimes only in the final days of life.

“Compared with their solid tumor counterparts, patients with hematologic malignancies experience higher symptom burdens, have higher rates of cancer-directed care near death, and are more likely to die while hospitalized than at home or in hospice,” they wrote. “Despite this need, specialist palliative care is less commonly utilized in patients with hematologic malignancies than other cancer types.”

Given the high health care utilization among patients with hematologic malignancies, earlier and more widespread utilization of PC in this population may significantly reduce health care costs, they added.
 

Palliative care benefits

Of 5,345 studies published between 2005 and 2020 and screened for the current review, 16 met inclusion criteria, including 10 retrospective cohort studies; 4 prospective cohort studies; and 2 randomized, controlled studies.

Nine studies included only patients with hematologic malignancies and seven included both patients with solid tumors and patients with hematologic malignancies. Each study assessed as being of moderate quality.

Benefits of PC as demonstrated in the studies included:

Symptom management: One study, for example, showed that an integrated psychological and PC intervention improved traumatic stress levels, degree and number of physical symptoms, pain intensity, depressive symptoms, and quality of life, compared with no intervention. Another showed that the percentage of patients reporting moderate to severe pain improved from 57% to 18% with a PC intervention, and the number reporting depressive episodes improved from 13% to 5%.

Reduced in-patient death: Findings from eight studies showed that 21.9%-83% of those receiving PC died at home, compared with 6.0%-8.9% of controls. Two studies showed that PC provided at least 20 days prior to death decreased the likelihood of inpatient death and death in an ICU, compared with controls, and one showed that the rate of in-hospital deaths was 30% for those with home PC or hospice, compared with 80% of controls.

Health care utilization: The studies showed that hospitalization occurred in 45%-76.3% of hematologic malignancy patients who received PC, compared with 98% of controls. The odds ratio for hospitalization among acute leukemia patients receiving PC was 0.64, compared with 2.53 among those in a historical control group.

Caregiver-reported outcomes: One randomized, controlled study showed that PC was associated with smaller increases in depression scores, improved coping, and improved scores in multiple quality of life domains in caregivers versus controls.

Survival: One study showed that a larger percentage of hematologic malignancy patients who died 1-6 months after diagnosis had not received PC (28% vs. 23%), whereas more of those who died 6-12 months or 12 or more months after diagnosis had received PC (23.9 vs. 14.9% and 42.5% vs. 22.0%).

Health care costs: Two studies showed a decrease in inpatient costs after a palliative care consultation. Decreases in hospitalization costs were $2,321 and $1,506 for less medically complex patients and $3,515 and $5,617 for more medically complex patient.

Improving PC utilization

One potential strategy to promote earlier referrals to PC is improved education for hematologists, the authors said, citing a study showing that 98% of oncology fellows at one center reported improvement in their ability to assess and manage patient symptoms after completion of a 4-week mandatory PC rotation.

“Another strategy to improve referrals to PC of hematologic malignancies patients could be the creation of programs which facilitate collaboration between PC providers and hematologists, such as the palliative and supportive care special interest group within the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy,” they wrote.

A third strategy “could be to provide a concurrent care model, in which cancer directed therapy (such as transfusions) is provided at the same time as hospice care,” they added, explaining that such an approach was shown in a study of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer to be associated with less aggressive medical treatment and lower costs.

The authors also stressed that patient with solid tumors and those with hematologic malignancies have differing supportive care needs and health care utilization, but several studies included in the current review included both types of cancer.

“Further studies investigating PC use exclusively in patients with hematologic malignancies are needed. Our results demonstrate a strong argument for hematologists to refer their patients early and often for specialized PC,” they concluded.

Indeed, when PC is integrated within hematologic malignancies, impacts occur that are similar to those seen in a variety of other diseases and include improved symptom control, enhanced caregiver experience, and reduced burdens on the health care system, Toby C Campbell, MD, said in an interview.

“The benefits of providing palliative care concurrent with standard cancer care is felt by all the major stakeholders in this care: the patients, their caregivers, and the health care system around them,” said Dr. Campbell, a thoracic medical oncologist and professor in the division of hematology, medical oncology, and palliative care at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
 

Overcoming challenges

However, this is “new territory” for most programs, added Dr. Campbell, who also is the University of Wisconsin health chief of palliative care and holds the Ellen and Peter O. Johnson Chair in Palliative Care .

“The palliative care clinicians have a lot of learning to do if they’re going to enter this space and provide expert care,” he said, adding that expert care is what is needed and what was studied in this review. “Providing palliative care to patients with hematologic malignancies has a unique pace and a number of subspecialized therapeutic options with which the palliative care clinician must become familiar.”

Examples include bone marrow transplantation with prolonged hospitalizations and transfusion support, he said.

“Palliative care programs, in order to provide high quality care, will need to familiarize themselves with these therapies and develop close partnership with hematologists to integrate seamlessly into the patient’s care,” he added. “At some centers, culture changes will be necessary concurrent with the clinical practice change of integrating palliative care and it is the responsibility of the palliative care clinicians to bring their very best to these new relationships and patient populations.”

The authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Campbell also reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Specialty palliative care interventions improve outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies but are underutilized, according to findings from a systematic literature review.

Outcomes that were improved, as demonstrated by 16 studies that met inclusion criteria for the review, included symptom management, inpatient mortality, health care utilization, health care costs, and caregiver-reported outcomes, Elizabeth Elliott, DO, a hematology and oncology fellow at the Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Loyola University, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues reported.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.
 

Palliative care needs

Patients with hematologic malignancies, including leukemia, myeloma, and lymphoma, have a high need for supportive care, the authors noted, adding that, although its use has increased over time, palliative care (PC) is often provided late in the disease course – sometimes only in the final days of life.

“Compared with their solid tumor counterparts, patients with hematologic malignancies experience higher symptom burdens, have higher rates of cancer-directed care near death, and are more likely to die while hospitalized than at home or in hospice,” they wrote. “Despite this need, specialist palliative care is less commonly utilized in patients with hematologic malignancies than other cancer types.”

Given the high health care utilization among patients with hematologic malignancies, earlier and more widespread utilization of PC in this population may significantly reduce health care costs, they added.
 

Palliative care benefits

Of 5,345 studies published between 2005 and 2020 and screened for the current review, 16 met inclusion criteria, including 10 retrospective cohort studies; 4 prospective cohort studies; and 2 randomized, controlled studies.

Nine studies included only patients with hematologic malignancies and seven included both patients with solid tumors and patients with hematologic malignancies. Each study assessed as being of moderate quality.

Benefits of PC as demonstrated in the studies included:

Symptom management: One study, for example, showed that an integrated psychological and PC intervention improved traumatic stress levels, degree and number of physical symptoms, pain intensity, depressive symptoms, and quality of life, compared with no intervention. Another showed that the percentage of patients reporting moderate to severe pain improved from 57% to 18% with a PC intervention, and the number reporting depressive episodes improved from 13% to 5%.

Reduced in-patient death: Findings from eight studies showed that 21.9%-83% of those receiving PC died at home, compared with 6.0%-8.9% of controls. Two studies showed that PC provided at least 20 days prior to death decreased the likelihood of inpatient death and death in an ICU, compared with controls, and one showed that the rate of in-hospital deaths was 30% for those with home PC or hospice, compared with 80% of controls.

Health care utilization: The studies showed that hospitalization occurred in 45%-76.3% of hematologic malignancy patients who received PC, compared with 98% of controls. The odds ratio for hospitalization among acute leukemia patients receiving PC was 0.64, compared with 2.53 among those in a historical control group.

Caregiver-reported outcomes: One randomized, controlled study showed that PC was associated with smaller increases in depression scores, improved coping, and improved scores in multiple quality of life domains in caregivers versus controls.

Survival: One study showed that a larger percentage of hematologic malignancy patients who died 1-6 months after diagnosis had not received PC (28% vs. 23%), whereas more of those who died 6-12 months or 12 or more months after diagnosis had received PC (23.9 vs. 14.9% and 42.5% vs. 22.0%).

Health care costs: Two studies showed a decrease in inpatient costs after a palliative care consultation. Decreases in hospitalization costs were $2,321 and $1,506 for less medically complex patients and $3,515 and $5,617 for more medically complex patient.

Improving PC utilization

One potential strategy to promote earlier referrals to PC is improved education for hematologists, the authors said, citing a study showing that 98% of oncology fellows at one center reported improvement in their ability to assess and manage patient symptoms after completion of a 4-week mandatory PC rotation.

“Another strategy to improve referrals to PC of hematologic malignancies patients could be the creation of programs which facilitate collaboration between PC providers and hematologists, such as the palliative and supportive care special interest group within the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy,” they wrote.

A third strategy “could be to provide a concurrent care model, in which cancer directed therapy (such as transfusions) is provided at the same time as hospice care,” they added, explaining that such an approach was shown in a study of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer to be associated with less aggressive medical treatment and lower costs.

The authors also stressed that patient with solid tumors and those with hematologic malignancies have differing supportive care needs and health care utilization, but several studies included in the current review included both types of cancer.

“Further studies investigating PC use exclusively in patients with hematologic malignancies are needed. Our results demonstrate a strong argument for hematologists to refer their patients early and often for specialized PC,” they concluded.

Indeed, when PC is integrated within hematologic malignancies, impacts occur that are similar to those seen in a variety of other diseases and include improved symptom control, enhanced caregiver experience, and reduced burdens on the health care system, Toby C Campbell, MD, said in an interview.

“The benefits of providing palliative care concurrent with standard cancer care is felt by all the major stakeholders in this care: the patients, their caregivers, and the health care system around them,” said Dr. Campbell, a thoracic medical oncologist and professor in the division of hematology, medical oncology, and palliative care at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
 

Overcoming challenges

However, this is “new territory” for most programs, added Dr. Campbell, who also is the University of Wisconsin health chief of palliative care and holds the Ellen and Peter O. Johnson Chair in Palliative Care .

“The palliative care clinicians have a lot of learning to do if they’re going to enter this space and provide expert care,” he said, adding that expert care is what is needed and what was studied in this review. “Providing palliative care to patients with hematologic malignancies has a unique pace and a number of subspecialized therapeutic options with which the palliative care clinician must become familiar.”

Examples include bone marrow transplantation with prolonged hospitalizations and transfusion support, he said.

“Palliative care programs, in order to provide high quality care, will need to familiarize themselves with these therapies and develop close partnership with hematologists to integrate seamlessly into the patient’s care,” he added. “At some centers, culture changes will be necessary concurrent with the clinical practice change of integrating palliative care and it is the responsibility of the palliative care clinicians to bring their very best to these new relationships and patient populations.”

The authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Campbell also reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Specialty palliative care interventions improve outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies but are underutilized, according to findings from a systematic literature review.

Outcomes that were improved, as demonstrated by 16 studies that met inclusion criteria for the review, included symptom management, inpatient mortality, health care utilization, health care costs, and caregiver-reported outcomes, Elizabeth Elliott, DO, a hematology and oncology fellow at the Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Loyola University, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues reported.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.
 

Palliative care needs

Patients with hematologic malignancies, including leukemia, myeloma, and lymphoma, have a high need for supportive care, the authors noted, adding that, although its use has increased over time, palliative care (PC) is often provided late in the disease course – sometimes only in the final days of life.

“Compared with their solid tumor counterparts, patients with hematologic malignancies experience higher symptom burdens, have higher rates of cancer-directed care near death, and are more likely to die while hospitalized than at home or in hospice,” they wrote. “Despite this need, specialist palliative care is less commonly utilized in patients with hematologic malignancies than other cancer types.”

Given the high health care utilization among patients with hematologic malignancies, earlier and more widespread utilization of PC in this population may significantly reduce health care costs, they added.
 

Palliative care benefits

Of 5,345 studies published between 2005 and 2020 and screened for the current review, 16 met inclusion criteria, including 10 retrospective cohort studies; 4 prospective cohort studies; and 2 randomized, controlled studies.

Nine studies included only patients with hematologic malignancies and seven included both patients with solid tumors and patients with hematologic malignancies. Each study assessed as being of moderate quality.

Benefits of PC as demonstrated in the studies included:

Symptom management: One study, for example, showed that an integrated psychological and PC intervention improved traumatic stress levels, degree and number of physical symptoms, pain intensity, depressive symptoms, and quality of life, compared with no intervention. Another showed that the percentage of patients reporting moderate to severe pain improved from 57% to 18% with a PC intervention, and the number reporting depressive episodes improved from 13% to 5%.

Reduced in-patient death: Findings from eight studies showed that 21.9%-83% of those receiving PC died at home, compared with 6.0%-8.9% of controls. Two studies showed that PC provided at least 20 days prior to death decreased the likelihood of inpatient death and death in an ICU, compared with controls, and one showed that the rate of in-hospital deaths was 30% for those with home PC or hospice, compared with 80% of controls.

Health care utilization: The studies showed that hospitalization occurred in 45%-76.3% of hematologic malignancy patients who received PC, compared with 98% of controls. The odds ratio for hospitalization among acute leukemia patients receiving PC was 0.64, compared with 2.53 among those in a historical control group.

Caregiver-reported outcomes: One randomized, controlled study showed that PC was associated with smaller increases in depression scores, improved coping, and improved scores in multiple quality of life domains in caregivers versus controls.

Survival: One study showed that a larger percentage of hematologic malignancy patients who died 1-6 months after diagnosis had not received PC (28% vs. 23%), whereas more of those who died 6-12 months or 12 or more months after diagnosis had received PC (23.9 vs. 14.9% and 42.5% vs. 22.0%).

Health care costs: Two studies showed a decrease in inpatient costs after a palliative care consultation. Decreases in hospitalization costs were $2,321 and $1,506 for less medically complex patients and $3,515 and $5,617 for more medically complex patient.

Improving PC utilization

One potential strategy to promote earlier referrals to PC is improved education for hematologists, the authors said, citing a study showing that 98% of oncology fellows at one center reported improvement in their ability to assess and manage patient symptoms after completion of a 4-week mandatory PC rotation.

“Another strategy to improve referrals to PC of hematologic malignancies patients could be the creation of programs which facilitate collaboration between PC providers and hematologists, such as the palliative and supportive care special interest group within the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy,” they wrote.

A third strategy “could be to provide a concurrent care model, in which cancer directed therapy (such as transfusions) is provided at the same time as hospice care,” they added, explaining that such an approach was shown in a study of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer to be associated with less aggressive medical treatment and lower costs.

The authors also stressed that patient with solid tumors and those with hematologic malignancies have differing supportive care needs and health care utilization, but several studies included in the current review included both types of cancer.

“Further studies investigating PC use exclusively in patients with hematologic malignancies are needed. Our results demonstrate a strong argument for hematologists to refer their patients early and often for specialized PC,” they concluded.

Indeed, when PC is integrated within hematologic malignancies, impacts occur that are similar to those seen in a variety of other diseases and include improved symptom control, enhanced caregiver experience, and reduced burdens on the health care system, Toby C Campbell, MD, said in an interview.

“The benefits of providing palliative care concurrent with standard cancer care is felt by all the major stakeholders in this care: the patients, their caregivers, and the health care system around them,” said Dr. Campbell, a thoracic medical oncologist and professor in the division of hematology, medical oncology, and palliative care at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
 

Overcoming challenges

However, this is “new territory” for most programs, added Dr. Campbell, who also is the University of Wisconsin health chief of palliative care and holds the Ellen and Peter O. Johnson Chair in Palliative Care .

“The palliative care clinicians have a lot of learning to do if they’re going to enter this space and provide expert care,” he said, adding that expert care is what is needed and what was studied in this review. “Providing palliative care to patients with hematologic malignancies has a unique pace and a number of subspecialized therapeutic options with which the palliative care clinician must become familiar.”

Examples include bone marrow transplantation with prolonged hospitalizations and transfusion support, he said.

“Palliative care programs, in order to provide high quality care, will need to familiarize themselves with these therapies and develop close partnership with hematologists to integrate seamlessly into the patient’s care,” he added. “At some centers, culture changes will be necessary concurrent with the clinical practice change of integrating palliative care and it is the responsibility of the palliative care clinicians to bring their very best to these new relationships and patient populations.”

The authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Campbell also reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.

Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.

“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.

She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).

In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.

“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.

A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.

In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.

In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).

Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.

The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.

There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.

“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.

By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.

Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.

After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.

The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.

The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.

His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.

In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.

Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.

“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”

He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.

In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.

“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.

She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.

Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.

“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.

Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.

Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.

“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”

In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.

Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.

Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”

In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”

“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”

Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.

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

Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.

Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.

“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.

She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).

In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.

“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.

A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.

In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.

In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).

Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.

The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.

There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.

“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.

By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.

Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.

After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.

The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.

The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.

His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.

In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.

Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.

“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”

He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.

In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.

“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.

She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.

Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.

“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.

Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.

Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.

“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”

In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.

Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.

Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”

In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”

“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”

Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.

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

Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.

Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.

“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.

She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).

In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.

“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.

A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.

In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.

In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).

Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.

The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.

There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.

“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.

By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.

Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.

After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.

The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.

The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.

His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.

In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.

Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.

“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”

He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.

In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.

“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.

She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.

Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.

“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.

Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.

Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.

“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”

In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.

Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.

Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”

In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”

“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”

Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.

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

COVID-19 survivors face a sharply elevated risk of developing psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the 6 months after they contract the virus – a danger that mounts with symptom severity, new research shows.
 

In what is purported to be the largest study of its kind to date, results showed that among 236,379 COVID-19 patients, one-third were diagnosed with at least 1 of 14 psychiatric or neurologic disorders within a 6-month span.

The rate of illnesses, which ranged from depression to stroke, rose sharply among those with COVID-19 symptoms acute enough to require hospitalization.  

“If we look at patients who were hospitalized, that rate increased to 39%, and then increased to about just under 1 in 2 patients who needed ICU admission at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis,” Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford (England) department of psychiatry, said at a media briefing.

Incidence jumps to almost two-thirds in patients with encephalopathy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, he added.

The study, which examined the brain health of 236,379 survivors of COVID-19 via a U.S. database of 81 million electronic health records, was published online April 6 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

High rate of neurologic, psychiatric disorders

The research team looked at the first-time diagnosis or recurrence of 14 neurologic and psychiatric outcomes in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. They also compared the brain health of this cohort with a control group of those with influenza or with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections over the same period. 

All study participants were older than 10 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 on or after Jan. 20, 2020, and still alive as of Dec. 13, 2020.

The psychiatric and neurologic conditions examined included intracranial hemorrhage; ischemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders; substance use disorder; and insomnia.

The investigators used hospitalization, intensive care admissions, and encephalopathy as an indication of the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

The study benchmarked the primary cohort with four populations of patients diagnosed in the same period with nonrespiratory illnesses, including skin infection, urolithiasis, bone fractures, and pulmonary embolisms.

Results showed that substantially more COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with a neurologic or psychiatric disorder compared with those with other respiratory illnesses.

“On average, in terms of the relative numbers, there was a 44% increased risk of having a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis after COVID-19 than after the flu and a 16% increased risk compared to other respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Taquet told reporters.

Health services should be prepared for an increase in psychiatric and neurologic issues in the months to come, he said, adding that further investigations are needed into why, and how, the coronavirus affects brain health.
 

Largest study to date

Although previous research suggests a link between the two, this is the largest study of its kind, examines a wider range of neurologic outcomes, and spans the longest time frame to date, said study coinvestigator Paul Harrison, BM BCh, associate head of the University of Oxford department of psychiatry.

There was a lower incidence of mood and anxiety disorders vs. neurologic disorders in patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms, a finding that Dr. Harrison said may indicate pandemic-related psychological stress is driving these disorders vs. biological factors.

“This paper follows up on an earlier study we did where we found much the same association, and our view is that a lot of the mental health consequences of COVID are … to do with the stress of knowing that one has had COVID and all the implications that go with that, rather than its being a direct effect, for example, of the virus on the brain, or of the immune response to the virus on the brain,” he added.

In contrast, neurologic diagnoses were more likely to be “mediated by some direct consequence of the COVID infection,” he added.

Psychosis and dementia, for instance, were less frequent in the overall COVID-19 population but became much more frequent among those with severe symptoms. The research team said these findings, along with those related to the incidence of ischemic stroke, were “concerning.”

“We found that 1 in 50 patients with COVID-19 go on to have an ischemic stroke in the 6 months after the COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Taquet told reporters. “And that rate increased to 1 in 11 patients if we look at patients with encephalopathy at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis.”

Rates of brain hemorrhages also rose sharply among those with acute symptoms. Just over 1 in 200 total COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with this neurological condition, but that jumped to 1 in 25 of those who experienced encephalopathy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Need for replication

Study coauthor Masud Husain, PhD, of University of Oxford’s cognitive neurology department, told reporters that while there is evidence from other neurologic studies that the virus can access the brain, there has been little sign the neurons themselves are affected.

“There isn’t much evidence that the virus itself attacks neurons in the brain, but it can cause inflammation, and it can activate inflammatory cells in the brain,” he said.

“And those effects are probably very important in some of the biological effects on the brain. In addition, of course, we know that the virus can change clotting and the likelihood of thrombosis in the blood, and those effects can also impact upon the brain,” he added.

Dr. Harrison said it would be helpful to replicate the results garnered from the U.S. database in other populations.

“It goes without saying that replication of these results with other electronic health records and in other countries is a priority,” he said, adding that investigations are essential into how and why the virus affects brain health.

Dr. Harrison cited a U.K. Research and Innovation–funded study called COVID CNS that will follow patients with neurologic and/or psychiatric issues during acute COVID-19 in hopes of exploring possible causes.
 

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Commenting on the findings, Sir Simon Wessely, MD, Regius chair of psychiatry, King’s College London, said in a release: “This is a very important paper. It confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that COVID-19 affects both brain and mind in equal measure.”

Some of these effects, including stroke and anxiety disorders, were already known, but others such as dementia and psychosis were less well known, he added. 

“What is very new is the comparisons with all respiratory viruses or influenza, which suggests that these increases are specifically related to COVID-19, and not a general impact of viral infection,” Dr. Wessely said. “In general, the worse the illness, the greater the neurological or psychiatric outcomes, which is perhaps not surprising.    

“The worst outcomes were in those with encephalopathy – inflammation of the brain – again, not surprising. The association with dementia was, however, small and might reflect diagnostic issues, whilst so far there doesn’t seem early evidence of a link with parkinsonism, which was a major factor after the great Spanish Flu pandemic, although the authors caution that it is too early to rule this out.”

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

COVID-19 survivors face a sharply elevated risk of developing psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the 6 months after they contract the virus – a danger that mounts with symptom severity, new research shows.
 

In what is purported to be the largest study of its kind to date, results showed that among 236,379 COVID-19 patients, one-third were diagnosed with at least 1 of 14 psychiatric or neurologic disorders within a 6-month span.

The rate of illnesses, which ranged from depression to stroke, rose sharply among those with COVID-19 symptoms acute enough to require hospitalization.  

“If we look at patients who were hospitalized, that rate increased to 39%, and then increased to about just under 1 in 2 patients who needed ICU admission at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis,” Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford (England) department of psychiatry, said at a media briefing.

Incidence jumps to almost two-thirds in patients with encephalopathy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, he added.

The study, which examined the brain health of 236,379 survivors of COVID-19 via a U.S. database of 81 million electronic health records, was published online April 6 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

High rate of neurologic, psychiatric disorders

The research team looked at the first-time diagnosis or recurrence of 14 neurologic and psychiatric outcomes in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. They also compared the brain health of this cohort with a control group of those with influenza or with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections over the same period. 

All study participants were older than 10 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 on or after Jan. 20, 2020, and still alive as of Dec. 13, 2020.

The psychiatric and neurologic conditions examined included intracranial hemorrhage; ischemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders; substance use disorder; and insomnia.

The investigators used hospitalization, intensive care admissions, and encephalopathy as an indication of the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

The study benchmarked the primary cohort with four populations of patients diagnosed in the same period with nonrespiratory illnesses, including skin infection, urolithiasis, bone fractures, and pulmonary embolisms.

Results showed that substantially more COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with a neurologic or psychiatric disorder compared with those with other respiratory illnesses.

“On average, in terms of the relative numbers, there was a 44% increased risk of having a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis after COVID-19 than after the flu and a 16% increased risk compared to other respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Taquet told reporters.

Health services should be prepared for an increase in psychiatric and neurologic issues in the months to come, he said, adding that further investigations are needed into why, and how, the coronavirus affects brain health.
 

Largest study to date

Although previous research suggests a link between the two, this is the largest study of its kind, examines a wider range of neurologic outcomes, and spans the longest time frame to date, said study coinvestigator Paul Harrison, BM BCh, associate head of the University of Oxford department of psychiatry.

There was a lower incidence of mood and anxiety disorders vs. neurologic disorders in patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms, a finding that Dr. Harrison said may indicate pandemic-related psychological stress is driving these disorders vs. biological factors.

“This paper follows up on an earlier study we did where we found much the same association, and our view is that a lot of the mental health consequences of COVID are … to do with the stress of knowing that one has had COVID and all the implications that go with that, rather than its being a direct effect, for example, of the virus on the brain, or of the immune response to the virus on the brain,” he added.

In contrast, neurologic diagnoses were more likely to be “mediated by some direct consequence of the COVID infection,” he added.

Psychosis and dementia, for instance, were less frequent in the overall COVID-19 population but became much more frequent among those with severe symptoms. The research team said these findings, along with those related to the incidence of ischemic stroke, were “concerning.”

“We found that 1 in 50 patients with COVID-19 go on to have an ischemic stroke in the 6 months after the COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Taquet told reporters. “And that rate increased to 1 in 11 patients if we look at patients with encephalopathy at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis.”

Rates of brain hemorrhages also rose sharply among those with acute symptoms. Just over 1 in 200 total COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with this neurological condition, but that jumped to 1 in 25 of those who experienced encephalopathy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Need for replication

Study coauthor Masud Husain, PhD, of University of Oxford’s cognitive neurology department, told reporters that while there is evidence from other neurologic studies that the virus can access the brain, there has been little sign the neurons themselves are affected.

“There isn’t much evidence that the virus itself attacks neurons in the brain, but it can cause inflammation, and it can activate inflammatory cells in the brain,” he said.

“And those effects are probably very important in some of the biological effects on the brain. In addition, of course, we know that the virus can change clotting and the likelihood of thrombosis in the blood, and those effects can also impact upon the brain,” he added.

Dr. Harrison said it would be helpful to replicate the results garnered from the U.S. database in other populations.

“It goes without saying that replication of these results with other electronic health records and in other countries is a priority,” he said, adding that investigations are essential into how and why the virus affects brain health.

Dr. Harrison cited a U.K. Research and Innovation–funded study called COVID CNS that will follow patients with neurologic and/or psychiatric issues during acute COVID-19 in hopes of exploring possible causes.
 

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Commenting on the findings, Sir Simon Wessely, MD, Regius chair of psychiatry, King’s College London, said in a release: “This is a very important paper. It confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that COVID-19 affects both brain and mind in equal measure.”

Some of these effects, including stroke and anxiety disorders, were already known, but others such as dementia and psychosis were less well known, he added. 

“What is very new is the comparisons with all respiratory viruses or influenza, which suggests that these increases are specifically related to COVID-19, and not a general impact of viral infection,” Dr. Wessely said. “In general, the worse the illness, the greater the neurological or psychiatric outcomes, which is perhaps not surprising.    

“The worst outcomes were in those with encephalopathy – inflammation of the brain – again, not surprising. The association with dementia was, however, small and might reflect diagnostic issues, whilst so far there doesn’t seem early evidence of a link with parkinsonism, which was a major factor after the great Spanish Flu pandemic, although the authors caution that it is too early to rule this out.”

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

COVID-19 survivors face a sharply elevated risk of developing psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the 6 months after they contract the virus – a danger that mounts with symptom severity, new research shows.
 

In what is purported to be the largest study of its kind to date, results showed that among 236,379 COVID-19 patients, one-third were diagnosed with at least 1 of 14 psychiatric or neurologic disorders within a 6-month span.

The rate of illnesses, which ranged from depression to stroke, rose sharply among those with COVID-19 symptoms acute enough to require hospitalization.  

“If we look at patients who were hospitalized, that rate increased to 39%, and then increased to about just under 1 in 2 patients who needed ICU admission at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis,” Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford (England) department of psychiatry, said at a media briefing.

Incidence jumps to almost two-thirds in patients with encephalopathy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, he added.

The study, which examined the brain health of 236,379 survivors of COVID-19 via a U.S. database of 81 million electronic health records, was published online April 6 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

High rate of neurologic, psychiatric disorders

The research team looked at the first-time diagnosis or recurrence of 14 neurologic and psychiatric outcomes in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. They also compared the brain health of this cohort with a control group of those with influenza or with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections over the same period. 

All study participants were older than 10 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 on or after Jan. 20, 2020, and still alive as of Dec. 13, 2020.

The psychiatric and neurologic conditions examined included intracranial hemorrhage; ischemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders; substance use disorder; and insomnia.

The investigators used hospitalization, intensive care admissions, and encephalopathy as an indication of the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

The study benchmarked the primary cohort with four populations of patients diagnosed in the same period with nonrespiratory illnesses, including skin infection, urolithiasis, bone fractures, and pulmonary embolisms.

Results showed that substantially more COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with a neurologic or psychiatric disorder compared with those with other respiratory illnesses.

“On average, in terms of the relative numbers, there was a 44% increased risk of having a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis after COVID-19 than after the flu and a 16% increased risk compared to other respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Taquet told reporters.

Health services should be prepared for an increase in psychiatric and neurologic issues in the months to come, he said, adding that further investigations are needed into why, and how, the coronavirus affects brain health.
 

Largest study to date

Although previous research suggests a link between the two, this is the largest study of its kind, examines a wider range of neurologic outcomes, and spans the longest time frame to date, said study coinvestigator Paul Harrison, BM BCh, associate head of the University of Oxford department of psychiatry.

There was a lower incidence of mood and anxiety disorders vs. neurologic disorders in patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms, a finding that Dr. Harrison said may indicate pandemic-related psychological stress is driving these disorders vs. biological factors.

“This paper follows up on an earlier study we did where we found much the same association, and our view is that a lot of the mental health consequences of COVID are … to do with the stress of knowing that one has had COVID and all the implications that go with that, rather than its being a direct effect, for example, of the virus on the brain, or of the immune response to the virus on the brain,” he added.

In contrast, neurologic diagnoses were more likely to be “mediated by some direct consequence of the COVID infection,” he added.

Psychosis and dementia, for instance, were less frequent in the overall COVID-19 population but became much more frequent among those with severe symptoms. The research team said these findings, along with those related to the incidence of ischemic stroke, were “concerning.”

“We found that 1 in 50 patients with COVID-19 go on to have an ischemic stroke in the 6 months after the COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Taquet told reporters. “And that rate increased to 1 in 11 patients if we look at patients with encephalopathy at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis.”

Rates of brain hemorrhages also rose sharply among those with acute symptoms. Just over 1 in 200 total COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with this neurological condition, but that jumped to 1 in 25 of those who experienced encephalopathy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Need for replication

Study coauthor Masud Husain, PhD, of University of Oxford’s cognitive neurology department, told reporters that while there is evidence from other neurologic studies that the virus can access the brain, there has been little sign the neurons themselves are affected.

“There isn’t much evidence that the virus itself attacks neurons in the brain, but it can cause inflammation, and it can activate inflammatory cells in the brain,” he said.

“And those effects are probably very important in some of the biological effects on the brain. In addition, of course, we know that the virus can change clotting and the likelihood of thrombosis in the blood, and those effects can also impact upon the brain,” he added.

Dr. Harrison said it would be helpful to replicate the results garnered from the U.S. database in other populations.

“It goes without saying that replication of these results with other electronic health records and in other countries is a priority,” he said, adding that investigations are essential into how and why the virus affects brain health.

Dr. Harrison cited a U.K. Research and Innovation–funded study called COVID CNS that will follow patients with neurologic and/or psychiatric issues during acute COVID-19 in hopes of exploring possible causes.
 

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Commenting on the findings, Sir Simon Wessely, MD, Regius chair of psychiatry, King’s College London, said in a release: “This is a very important paper. It confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that COVID-19 affects both brain and mind in equal measure.”

Some of these effects, including stroke and anxiety disorders, were already known, but others such as dementia and psychosis were less well known, he added. 

“What is very new is the comparisons with all respiratory viruses or influenza, which suggests that these increases are specifically related to COVID-19, and not a general impact of viral infection,” Dr. Wessely said. “In general, the worse the illness, the greater the neurological or psychiatric outcomes, which is perhaps not surprising.    

“The worst outcomes were in those with encephalopathy – inflammation of the brain – again, not surprising. The association with dementia was, however, small and might reflect diagnostic issues, whilst so far there doesn’t seem early evidence of a link with parkinsonism, which was a major factor after the great Spanish Flu pandemic, although the authors caution that it is too early to rule this out.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take its toll on the well-being and work satisfaction of health care providers, a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.

About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.

“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”

“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.

“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”

“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
 

When the pandemic hits home

A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.

“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”

To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.

Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”

Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.

The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.

A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
 

COVID-19 career concerns

Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.

The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.

Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.

“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.

Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.

“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.

“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.

Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
 

Potential solutions

“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.

Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.

Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.

“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”

The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take its toll on the well-being and work satisfaction of health care providers, a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.

About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.

“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”

“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.

“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”

“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
 

When the pandemic hits home

A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.

“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”

To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.

Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”

Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.

The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.

A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
 

COVID-19 career concerns

Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.

The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.

Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.

“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.

Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.

“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.

“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.

Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
 

Potential solutions

“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.

Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.

Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.

“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”

The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take its toll on the well-being and work satisfaction of health care providers, a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.

About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.

“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”

“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.

“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”

“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
 

When the pandemic hits home

A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.

“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”

To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.

Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”

Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.

The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.

A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
 

COVID-19 career concerns

Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.

The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.

Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.

“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.

Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.

“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.

“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.

Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
 

Potential solutions

“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.

Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.

Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.

“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”

The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older men with a novel adult-onset, severe autoinflammatory syndrome known by the acronym VEXAS are likely hiding in plain sight in many adult rheumatology, hematology, and dermatology practices. New clinical features are being described to fill out the clinical profile of such patients who may be currently misdiagnosed with other conditions, according to researchers who first described the syndrome in the last quarter of 2020.

Courtesy Dr. Marcela Ferrada

VEXAS is often misdiagnosed as treatment-refractory relapsing polychondritis, polyarteritis nodosa, Sweet syndrome, or giant cell arteritis. These seemingly unrelated disorders are actually tied together by a single thread recently unraveled by David B. Beck, MD, PhD, a clinical fellow at the National Human Genome Research Institute, and colleagues, including rheumatologist Marcela Ferrada, MD, and others at institutes of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. The connection between these disparate clinical presentations lies in somatic mutations in UBA1, a gene that initiates cytoplasmic ubiquitylation, a process by which misfolded proteins are tagged for degradation. VEXAS appears primarily limited to men because the UBA1 gene lies on the X chromosome, although it may be possible for women to have it because of an acquired loss of X chromosome.

VEXAS is an acronym for:

• Vacuoles in bone marrow cells
• E-1 activating enzyme, which is what UBA1 encodes for
• X-linked
• Autoinflammatory
• Somatic mutation featuring hematologic mosaicism

Dr. Beck said that VEXAS is “probably affecting thousands of Americans,” but it is tough to say this early in the understanding of the disease. He estimated that the prevalence of VEXAS could be 1 per 20,000-30,000 individuals.
 

A new way of looking for disease

VEXAS has caused a major stir among geneticists because of the novel manner in which Dr. Beck and his coinvestigators made their discovery. Instead of starting out in the traditional path to discovery of a new genetic disease – that is, by looking for clinical similarities among patients with undiagnosed diseases and then conducting a search for a gene or genes that might explain the shared patient symptoms – the investigators took a genotype-first approach. They scanned the mapped genomic sequences of patients in the National Institutes of Health Undiagnosed Diseases Network, which led them to zero in on mutations in UBA1 as their top candidate.

“We targeted the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, because it has been implicated in many autoinflammatory diseases – for example, HA20 [A20 haploinsufficiency] and CANDLE syndrome [Chronic Atypical Neutrophilic Dermatosis with Lipodystrophy and Elevated temperature]. Many of these recurrent inflammatory diseases are caused by mutations within this pathway,” Dr. Beck said in an interview.

Next, they analyzed the genomes of patients in other NIH databases and patients from other study populations at the University College London and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in the United Kingdom in a search for UBA1 somatic mutations, eventually identifying 25 men with the shared features they called VEXAS. These 25 formed the basis for their initial report on the syndrome in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Most autoinflammatory diseases appear in childhood because they stem from germline mutations. VEXAS syndrome, because of somatic mutations with mosaicism, appears to manifest later in life: The median age of the initial 25-man cohort was 64 years, ranging from 45 to 80 years. It’s a severe disorder. By the time the investigators were preparing their paper for publication, 10 of the 25 patients, or 40%, had died.

“I think that somatic mutations may account for a significant percentage of severe. adult-onset rheumatologic diseases, and it may change the way we think about treating them based on having a genetic diagnosis,” Dr. Beck said.

“This approach could be expanded to look at other pathways we know are important in inflammation, or alternatively, it could be completely unbiased and look for any shared variation that occurs across undiagnosed patients with inflammatory diseases. I think that one thing that’s important about our study is that previously we had been looking for mutations that really in most cases were the same sort of germline mutations present in [pediatric] patients who have disease at early onset, but now we’re thinking about things differently. There may be a different type of genetics that drives adult-onset rheumatologic disease, and this would be somatic mutations which are not present in every cell of the body, just in the blood, and that’s why there’s just this blood-based disease.”
 

When to suspect VEXAS syndrome

Consider the possibility of VEXAS in middle-aged or older men in a rheumatology clinic with characteristics suggestive of treatment-refractory relapsing polychondritis, giant cell arteritis, polyarteritis nodosa, or Sweet syndrome. In the original series of 25 men, 15 were diagnosed with relapsing polychondritis, 8 with Sweet syndrome, 3 with polyarteritis nodosa, and 1 with giant cell arteritis.

Men with VEXAS often have periodic fevers, pulmonary infiltrates, a history of unprovoked venous thromboembolic events, neutrophilic dermatoses, and/or hematologic abnormalities such as myelodysplastic syndrome, multiple myeloma, or monoclonal gammopathy of unknown origin.

Dr. Katherine R. Calvo, M.D., Ph.D., NIH Clinical Center

Bone marrow biopsy will show vacuoles in myeloid and erythroid precursor cells. Inflammatory marker levels are very high: In the NIH series, the median C-reactive protein was 73 mg/L and median erythrocyte sedimentation rate was 97 mm/hr. The diagnosis of VEXAS can be confirmed by genetic testing performed by Dr. Beck and his NIH coworkers ([email protected]).

In interviews, Dr. Beck and Dr. Ferrada emphasized that management of VEXAS requires a multidisciplinary team of clinicians including rheumatologists, hematologists, and dermatologists.

Dr. Ferrada said that rheumatologists could suspect VEXAS in patients who have very high inflammatory markers and do not have a clear diagnosis or do not meet all criteria for other rheumatologic diseases, particularly in older men, but it’s possible in younger men as well. Hematologists could also consider VEXAS in patients with macrocytic anemia or macrocytosis without an explanation and inflammatory features, she said.

Dr. Ferrada, Dr. Beck, and colleagues also published a study in Arthritis & Rheumatology that presents a useful clinical algorithm for deciding whether to order genetic screening for VEXAS in patients with relapsing polychondritis.

First off, Dr. Ferrada and colleagues performed whole-exome sequencing and testing for UBA1 variants in an observational cohort of 92 relapsing polychondritis patients to determine the prevalence of VEXAS, which turned out to be 8%. They added an additional 6 patients with relapsing polychondritis and VEXAS from other cohorts, for a total of 13. The investigators determined that patients with VEXAS were older at disease onset, and more likely to have fever, ear chondritis, DVT, pulmonary infiltrates, skin involvement, and periorbital edema. In contrast, the RP cohort had a significantly higher prevalence of airway chondritis, joint involvement, and vestibular symptoms.

Courtesy Dr. Marcela Ferrada

Myelodysplastic syndrome and hematologic abnormalities

While patients with both myelodysplastic syndrome and relapsing polychondritis have been known in the literature for many years, it’s not until now that researchers are seeing a connection between the two, Dr. Ferrada said.

A majority of the VEXAS patients in the NEJM study had a workup for myelodysplastic syndrome, but only 24% met criteria. However, many were within the spectrum of myelodysplastic disease and some did not meet criteria because their anemia was attributed to a rheumatologic diagnosis and they did not have a known genetic driver of myelodysplastic syndrome, Dr. Beck said. It also fits with this new evidence that UBA1 is probably a driver of myelodysplastic syndrome in and of itself, and that anemia and hematologic involvement are not secondary to the rheumatologic disease; they are linked to the same disease process.

Dr. Beck said that there may be a subset of patients who present with primarily hematologic manifestations, noting the NEJM study could have ascertainment bias because the researchers analyzed mainly patients presenting to their clinic with relapsing polychondritis and severe inflammation. NIH researchers also are still looking in their cohort for any association with hematologic malignancies that preceded clinical manifestations, he said.
 

More cases reported

As of early April, another 27 cases had been reported in the literature as more researchers have begun to look for patients with UBA1 mutations, some with additional presenting clinical features associated with VEXAS, including chronic progressive inflammatory arthritis, Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease, spondyloarthritis, and bacterial pneumonia.

“Many times with rare diseases, we can’t get enough patients to understand the full spectrum of the disease, but this disease seems to be far more common than we would have expected. We’re actually getting many referrals,” Dr. Beck said.

It appears so far that the range of somatic UBA1 mutations that have been discovered in VEXAS patients does make a difference in the severity of clinical presentation and could potentially be useful in prognosis, Dr. Beck said.

Right now, NIH researchers are asking patients about their natural clinical course, assessing disease activity, and determining which treatments get a response, with the ultimate goal of a treatment trial at the NIH.

Treatment

Developing better treatments for VEXAS syndrome is a priority. In the initial report on VEXAS, the researchers found that the only reliably effective therapy is high-dose corticosteroids. Dr. Ferrada said that NIH investigators have begun thinking about agents that target both the hematologic and inflammatory features of VEXAS. “Most patients get exposed to treatments that are targeted to decrease the inflammatory process, and some of these treatments help partially but not completely to decrease the amount of steroids that patients are taking. For example, one of the medications is tocilizumab. [It was used in] patients who had previous diagnosis of relapsing polychondritis, but they still had to take steroids and their hematologic manifestations keep progressing. We’re in the process of figuring out medications that may help in treating both.” Dr. Ferrada added that because the source of the mutation is in the bone marrow, transplantation may be an effective option.

Laboratory work to identify potential treatments for VEXAS in studies of model organisms could identify treatments outside of the classic anti-inflammatory agents, such as targeting certain cell types in the bone marrow or the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, Dr. Beck said. “We think that however UBA1 works to initiate inflammation may be important not just in VEXAS but in other diseases. Rare diseases may be informing the mechanisms in common diseases.”

The VEXAS NEJM study was sponsored by the NIH Intramural Research Programs and by an EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program grant. Dr. Beck reported a patent pending on “Diagnosis and Treatment of VEXAS with Mosaic Missense Mutations in UBA1.”

[email protected]

Older men with a novel adult-onset, severe autoinflammatory syndrome known by the acronym VEXAS are likely hiding in plain sight in many adult rheumatology, hematology, and dermatology practices. New clinical features are being described to fill out the clinical profile of such patients who may be currently misdiagnosed with other conditions, according to researchers who first described the syndrome in the last quarter of 2020.

Courtesy Dr. Marcela Ferrada

VEXAS is often misdiagnosed as treatment-refractory relapsing polychondritis, polyarteritis nodosa, Sweet syndrome, or giant cell arteritis. These seemingly unrelated disorders are actually tied together by a single thread recently unraveled by David B. Beck, MD, PhD, a clinical fellow at the National Human Genome Research Institute, and colleagues, including rheumatologist Marcela Ferrada, MD, and others at institutes of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. The connection between these disparate clinical presentations lies in somatic mutations in UBA1, a gene that initiates cytoplasmic ubiquitylation, a process by which misfolded proteins are tagged for degradation. VEXAS appears primarily limited to men because the UBA1 gene lies on the X chromosome, although it may be possible for women to have it because of an acquired loss of X chromosome.

VEXAS is an acronym for:

• Vacuoles in bone marrow cells
• E-1 activating enzyme, which is what UBA1 encodes for
• X-linked
• Autoinflammatory
• Somatic mutation featuring hematologic mosaicism

Dr. Beck said that VEXAS is “probably affecting thousands of Americans,” but it is tough to say this early in the understanding of the disease. He estimated that the prevalence of VEXAS could be 1 per 20,000-30,000 individuals.
 

A new way of looking for disease

VEXAS has caused a major stir among geneticists because of the novel manner in which Dr. Beck and his coinvestigators made their discovery. Instead of starting out in the traditional path to discovery of a new genetic disease – that is, by looking for clinical similarities among patients with undiagnosed diseases and then conducting a search for a gene or genes that might explain the shared patient symptoms – the investigators took a genotype-first approach. They scanned the mapped genomic sequences of patients in the National Institutes of Health Undiagnosed Diseases Network, which led them to zero in on mutations in UBA1 as their top candidate.

“We targeted the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, because it has been implicated in many autoinflammatory diseases – for example, HA20 [A20 haploinsufficiency] and CANDLE syndrome [Chronic Atypical Neutrophilic Dermatosis with Lipodystrophy and Elevated temperature]. Many of these recurrent inflammatory diseases are caused by mutations within this pathway,” Dr. Beck said in an interview.

Next, they analyzed the genomes of patients in other NIH databases and patients from other study populations at the University College London and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in the United Kingdom in a search for UBA1 somatic mutations, eventually identifying 25 men with the shared features they called VEXAS. These 25 formed the basis for their initial report on the syndrome in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Most autoinflammatory diseases appear in childhood because they stem from germline mutations. VEXAS syndrome, because of somatic mutations with mosaicism, appears to manifest later in life: The median age of the initial 25-man cohort was 64 years, ranging from 45 to 80 years. It’s a severe disorder. By the time the investigators were preparing their paper for publication, 10 of the 25 patients, or 40%, had died.

“I think that somatic mutations may account for a significant percentage of severe. adult-onset rheumatologic diseases, and it may change the way we think about treating them based on having a genetic diagnosis,” Dr. Beck said.

“This approach could be expanded to look at other pathways we know are important in inflammation, or alternatively, it could be completely unbiased and look for any shared variation that occurs across undiagnosed patients with inflammatory diseases. I think that one thing that’s important about our study is that previously we had been looking for mutations that really in most cases were the same sort of germline mutations present in [pediatric] patients who have disease at early onset, but now we’re thinking about things differently. There may be a different type of genetics that drives adult-onset rheumatologic disease, and this would be somatic mutations which are not present in every cell of the body, just in the blood, and that’s why there’s just this blood-based disease.”
 

When to suspect VEXAS syndrome

Consider the possibility of VEXAS in middle-aged or older men in a rheumatology clinic with characteristics suggestive of treatment-refractory relapsing polychondritis, giant cell arteritis, polyarteritis nodosa, or Sweet syndrome. In the original series of 25 men, 15 were diagnosed with relapsing polychondritis, 8 with Sweet syndrome, 3 with polyarteritis nodosa, and 1 with giant cell arteritis.

Men with VEXAS often have periodic fevers, pulmonary infiltrates, a history of unprovoked venous thromboembolic events, neutrophilic dermatoses, and/or hematologic abnormalities such as myelodysplastic syndrome, multiple myeloma, or monoclonal gammopathy of unknown origin.

Dr. Katherine R. Calvo, M.D., Ph.D., NIH Clinical Center

Bone marrow biopsy will show vacuoles in myeloid and erythroid precursor cells. Inflammatory marker levels are very high: In the NIH series, the median C-reactive protein was 73 mg/L and median erythrocyte sedimentation rate was 97 mm/hr. The diagnosis of VEXAS can be confirmed by genetic testing performed by Dr. Beck and his NIH coworkers ([email protected]).

In interviews, Dr. Beck and Dr. Ferrada emphasized that management of VEXAS requires a multidisciplinary team of clinicians including rheumatologists, hematologists, and dermatologists.

Dr. Ferrada said that rheumatologists could suspect VEXAS in patients who have very high inflammatory markers and do not have a clear diagnosis or do not meet all criteria for other rheumatologic diseases, particularly in older men, but it’s possible in younger men as well. Hematologists could also consider VEXAS in patients with macrocytic anemia or macrocytosis without an explanation and inflammatory features, she said.

Dr. Ferrada, Dr. Beck, and colleagues also published a study in Arthritis & Rheumatology that presents a useful clinical algorithm for deciding whether to order genetic screening for VEXAS in patients with relapsing polychondritis.

First off, Dr. Ferrada and colleagues performed whole-exome sequencing and testing for UBA1 variants in an observational cohort of 92 relapsing polychondritis patients to determine the prevalence of VEXAS, which turned out to be 8%. They added an additional 6 patients with relapsing polychondritis and VEXAS from other cohorts, for a total of 13. The investigators determined that patients with VEXAS were older at disease onset, and more likely to have fever, ear chondritis, DVT, pulmonary infiltrates, skin involvement, and periorbital edema. In contrast, the RP cohort had a significantly higher prevalence of airway chondritis, joint involvement, and vestibular symptoms.

Courtesy Dr. Marcela Ferrada

Myelodysplastic syndrome and hematologic abnormalities

While patients with both myelodysplastic syndrome and relapsing polychondritis have been known in the literature for many years, it’s not until now that researchers are seeing a connection between the two, Dr. Ferrada said.

A majority of the VEXAS patients in the NEJM study had a workup for myelodysplastic syndrome, but only 24% met criteria. However, many were within the spectrum of myelodysplastic disease and some did not meet criteria because their anemia was attributed to a rheumatologic diagnosis and they did not have a known genetic driver of myelodysplastic syndrome, Dr. Beck said. It also fits with this new evidence that UBA1 is probably a driver of myelodysplastic syndrome in and of itself, and that anemia and hematologic involvement are not secondary to the rheumatologic disease; they are linked to the same disease process.

Dr. Beck said that there may be a subset of patients who present with primarily hematologic manifestations, noting the NEJM study could have ascertainment bias because the researchers analyzed mainly patients presenting to their clinic with relapsing polychondritis and severe inflammation. NIH researchers also are still looking in their cohort for any association with hematologic malignancies that preceded clinical manifestations, he said.
 

More cases reported

As of early April, another 27 cases had been reported in the literature as more researchers have begun to look for patients with UBA1 mutations, some with additional presenting clinical features associated with VEXAS, including chronic progressive inflammatory arthritis, Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease, spondyloarthritis, and bacterial pneumonia.

“Many times with rare diseases, we can’t get enough patients to understand the full spectrum of the disease, but this disease seems to be far more common than we would have expected. We’re actually getting many referrals,” Dr. Beck said.

It appears so far that the range of somatic UBA1 mutations that have been discovered in VEXAS patients does make a difference in the severity of clinical presentation and could potentially be useful in prognosis, Dr. Beck said.

Right now, NIH researchers are asking patients about their natural clinical course, assessing disease activity, and determining which treatments get a response, with the ultimate goal of a treatment trial at the NIH.

Treatment

Developing better treatments for VEXAS syndrome is a priority. In the initial report on VEXAS, the researchers found that the only reliably effective therapy is high-dose corticosteroids. Dr. Ferrada said that NIH investigators have begun thinking about agents that target both the hematologic and inflammatory features of VEXAS. “Most patients get exposed to treatments that are targeted to decrease the inflammatory process, and some of these treatments help partially but not completely to decrease the amount of steroids that patients are taking. For example, one of the medications is tocilizumab. [It was used in] patients who had previous diagnosis of relapsing polychondritis, but they still had to take steroids and their hematologic manifestations keep progressing. We’re in the process of figuring out medications that may help in treating both.” Dr. Ferrada added that because the source of the mutation is in the bone marrow, transplantation may be an effective option.

Laboratory work to identify potential treatments for VEXAS in studies of model organisms could identify treatments outside of the classic anti-inflammatory agents, such as targeting certain cell types in the bone marrow or the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, Dr. Beck said. “We think that however UBA1 works to initiate inflammation may be important not just in VEXAS but in other diseases. Rare diseases may be informing the mechanisms in common diseases.”

The VEXAS NEJM study was sponsored by the NIH Intramural Research Programs and by an EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program grant. Dr. Beck reported a patent pending on “Diagnosis and Treatment of VEXAS with Mosaic Missense Mutations in UBA1.”

[email protected]

Older men with a novel adult-onset, severe autoinflammatory syndrome known by the acronym VEXAS are likely hiding in plain sight in many adult rheumatology, hematology, and dermatology practices. New clinical features are being described to fill out the clinical profile of such patients who may be currently misdiagnosed with other conditions, according to researchers who first described the syndrome in the last quarter of 2020.

Courtesy Dr. Marcela Ferrada

VEXAS is often misdiagnosed as treatment-refractory relapsing polychondritis, polyarteritis nodosa, Sweet syndrome, or giant cell arteritis. These seemingly unrelated disorders are actually tied together by a single thread recently unraveled by David B. Beck, MD, PhD, a clinical fellow at the National Human Genome Research Institute, and colleagues, including rheumatologist Marcela Ferrada, MD, and others at institutes of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. The connection between these disparate clinical presentations lies in somatic mutations in UBA1, a gene that initiates cytoplasmic ubiquitylation, a process by which misfolded proteins are tagged for degradation. VEXAS appears primarily limited to men because the UBA1 gene lies on the X chromosome, although it may be possible for women to have it because of an acquired loss of X chromosome.

VEXAS is an acronym for:

• Vacuoles in bone marrow cells
• E-1 activating enzyme, which is what UBA1 encodes for
• X-linked
• Autoinflammatory
• Somatic mutation featuring hematologic mosaicism

Dr. Beck said that VEXAS is “probably affecting thousands of Americans,” but it is tough to say this early in the understanding of the disease. He estimated that the prevalence of VEXAS could be 1 per 20,000-30,000 individuals.
 

A new way of looking for disease

VEXAS has caused a major stir among geneticists because of the novel manner in which Dr. Beck and his coinvestigators made their discovery. Instead of starting out in the traditional path to discovery of a new genetic disease – that is, by looking for clinical similarities among patients with undiagnosed diseases and then conducting a search for a gene or genes that might explain the shared patient symptoms – the investigators took a genotype-first approach. They scanned the mapped genomic sequences of patients in the National Institutes of Health Undiagnosed Diseases Network, which led them to zero in on mutations in UBA1 as their top candidate.

“We targeted the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, because it has been implicated in many autoinflammatory diseases – for example, HA20 [A20 haploinsufficiency] and CANDLE syndrome [Chronic Atypical Neutrophilic Dermatosis with Lipodystrophy and Elevated temperature]. Many of these recurrent inflammatory diseases are caused by mutations within this pathway,” Dr. Beck said in an interview.

Next, they analyzed the genomes of patients in other NIH databases and patients from other study populations at the University College London and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in the United Kingdom in a search for UBA1 somatic mutations, eventually identifying 25 men with the shared features they called VEXAS. These 25 formed the basis for their initial report on the syndrome in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Most autoinflammatory diseases appear in childhood because they stem from germline mutations. VEXAS syndrome, because of somatic mutations with mosaicism, appears to manifest later in life: The median age of the initial 25-man cohort was 64 years, ranging from 45 to 80 years. It’s a severe disorder. By the time the investigators were preparing their paper for publication, 10 of the 25 patients, or 40%, had died.

“I think that somatic mutations may account for a significant percentage of severe. adult-onset rheumatologic diseases, and it may change the way we think about treating them based on having a genetic diagnosis,” Dr. Beck said.

“This approach could be expanded to look at other pathways we know are important in inflammation, or alternatively, it could be completely unbiased and look for any shared variation that occurs across undiagnosed patients with inflammatory diseases. I think that one thing that’s important about our study is that previously we had been looking for mutations that really in most cases were the same sort of germline mutations present in [pediatric] patients who have disease at early onset, but now we’re thinking about things differently. There may be a different type of genetics that drives adult-onset rheumatologic disease, and this would be somatic mutations which are not present in every cell of the body, just in the blood, and that’s why there’s just this blood-based disease.”
 

When to suspect VEXAS syndrome

Consider the possibility of VEXAS in middle-aged or older men in a rheumatology clinic with characteristics suggestive of treatment-refractory relapsing polychondritis, giant cell arteritis, polyarteritis nodosa, or Sweet syndrome. In the original series of 25 men, 15 were diagnosed with relapsing polychondritis, 8 with Sweet syndrome, 3 with polyarteritis nodosa, and 1 with giant cell arteritis.

Men with VEXAS often have periodic fevers, pulmonary infiltrates, a history of unprovoked venous thromboembolic events, neutrophilic dermatoses, and/or hematologic abnormalities such as myelodysplastic syndrome, multiple myeloma, or monoclonal gammopathy of unknown origin.

Dr. Katherine R. Calvo, M.D., Ph.D., NIH Clinical Center

Bone marrow biopsy will show vacuoles in myeloid and erythroid precursor cells. Inflammatory marker levels are very high: In the NIH series, the median C-reactive protein was 73 mg/L and median erythrocyte sedimentation rate was 97 mm/hr. The diagnosis of VEXAS can be confirmed by genetic testing performed by Dr. Beck and his NIH coworkers ([email protected]).

In interviews, Dr. Beck and Dr. Ferrada emphasized that management of VEXAS requires a multidisciplinary team of clinicians including rheumatologists, hematologists, and dermatologists.

Dr. Ferrada said that rheumatologists could suspect VEXAS in patients who have very high inflammatory markers and do not have a clear diagnosis or do not meet all criteria for other rheumatologic diseases, particularly in older men, but it’s possible in younger men as well. Hematologists could also consider VEXAS in patients with macrocytic anemia or macrocytosis without an explanation and inflammatory features, she said.

Dr. Ferrada, Dr. Beck, and colleagues also published a study in Arthritis & Rheumatology that presents a useful clinical algorithm for deciding whether to order genetic screening for VEXAS in patients with relapsing polychondritis.

First off, Dr. Ferrada and colleagues performed whole-exome sequencing and testing for UBA1 variants in an observational cohort of 92 relapsing polychondritis patients to determine the prevalence of VEXAS, which turned out to be 8%. They added an additional 6 patients with relapsing polychondritis and VEXAS from other cohorts, for a total of 13. The investigators determined that patients with VEXAS were older at disease onset, and more likely to have fever, ear chondritis, DVT, pulmonary infiltrates, skin involvement, and periorbital edema. In contrast, the RP cohort had a significantly higher prevalence of airway chondritis, joint involvement, and vestibular symptoms.

Courtesy Dr. Marcela Ferrada

Myelodysplastic syndrome and hematologic abnormalities

While patients with both myelodysplastic syndrome and relapsing polychondritis have been known in the literature for many years, it’s not until now that researchers are seeing a connection between the two, Dr. Ferrada said.

A majority of the VEXAS patients in the NEJM study had a workup for myelodysplastic syndrome, but only 24% met criteria. However, many were within the spectrum of myelodysplastic disease and some did not meet criteria because their anemia was attributed to a rheumatologic diagnosis and they did not have a known genetic driver of myelodysplastic syndrome, Dr. Beck said. It also fits with this new evidence that UBA1 is probably a driver of myelodysplastic syndrome in and of itself, and that anemia and hematologic involvement are not secondary to the rheumatologic disease; they are linked to the same disease process.

Dr. Beck said that there may be a subset of patients who present with primarily hematologic manifestations, noting the NEJM study could have ascertainment bias because the researchers analyzed mainly patients presenting to their clinic with relapsing polychondritis and severe inflammation. NIH researchers also are still looking in their cohort for any association with hematologic malignancies that preceded clinical manifestations, he said.
 

More cases reported

As of early April, another 27 cases had been reported in the literature as more researchers have begun to look for patients with UBA1 mutations, some with additional presenting clinical features associated with VEXAS, including chronic progressive inflammatory arthritis, Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease, spondyloarthritis, and bacterial pneumonia.

“Many times with rare diseases, we can’t get enough patients to understand the full spectrum of the disease, but this disease seems to be far more common than we would have expected. We’re actually getting many referrals,” Dr. Beck said.

It appears so far that the range of somatic UBA1 mutations that have been discovered in VEXAS patients does make a difference in the severity of clinical presentation and could potentially be useful in prognosis, Dr. Beck said.

Right now, NIH researchers are asking patients about their natural clinical course, assessing disease activity, and determining which treatments get a response, with the ultimate goal of a treatment trial at the NIH.

Treatment

Developing better treatments for VEXAS syndrome is a priority. In the initial report on VEXAS, the researchers found that the only reliably effective therapy is high-dose corticosteroids. Dr. Ferrada said that NIH investigators have begun thinking about agents that target both the hematologic and inflammatory features of VEXAS. “Most patients get exposed to treatments that are targeted to decrease the inflammatory process, and some of these treatments help partially but not completely to decrease the amount of steroids that patients are taking. For example, one of the medications is tocilizumab. [It was used in] patients who had previous diagnosis of relapsing polychondritis, but they still had to take steroids and their hematologic manifestations keep progressing. We’re in the process of figuring out medications that may help in treating both.” Dr. Ferrada added that because the source of the mutation is in the bone marrow, transplantation may be an effective option.

Laboratory work to identify potential treatments for VEXAS in studies of model organisms could identify treatments outside of the classic anti-inflammatory agents, such as targeting certain cell types in the bone marrow or the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, Dr. Beck said. “We think that however UBA1 works to initiate inflammation may be important not just in VEXAS but in other diseases. Rare diseases may be informing the mechanisms in common diseases.”

The VEXAS NEJM study was sponsored by the NIH Intramural Research Programs and by an EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program grant. Dr. Beck reported a patent pending on “Diagnosis and Treatment of VEXAS with Mosaic Missense Mutations in UBA1.”

[email protected]