User login
-
Ivabradine knocks down heart rate, symptoms in POTS
The heart failure drug ivabradine (Corlanor) can provide relief from the elevated heart rate and often debilitating symptoms associated with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a new study suggests.
Ivabradine significantly lowered standing heart rate, compared with placebo (77.9 vs. 94.2 beats/min; P < .001). The typical surge in heart rate that occurs upon standing in these patients was also blunted, compared with baseline (13.0 vs. 21.4 beats/min; P = .001).
“There are really not a lot of great options for patients with POTS and, mechanistically, ivabradine just make sense because it’s a drug that lowers heart rate very selectively and doesn’t lower blood pressure,” lead study author Pam R. Taub, MD, told this news organization.
Surprisingly, the reduction in heart rate translated into improved physical (P = .008) and social (P = .021) functioning after just 1 month of ivabradine, without any other background POTS medications or a change in nonpharmacologic therapies, she said. “What’s really nice to see is when you tackle a really significant part of the disease, which is the elevated heart rate, just how much better they feel.”
POTS patients are mostly healthy, active young women, who after some inciting event – such as viral infection, trauma, or surgery – experience an increase in heart rate of at least 30 beats/min upon standing accompanied by a range of symptoms, including dizziness, palpitations, brain fog, and fatigue.
A COVID connection?
The study enrolled patients with hyperadrenergic POTS as the predominant subtype, but another group to keep in mind that might benefit is the post-COVID POTS patient, said Dr. Taub, from the University of California, San Diego.
“We’re seeing an incredible number of patients post COVID that meet the criteria for POTS, and a lot of these patients also have COVID fatigue,” she said. “So clinically, myself and many other cardiologists who understand ivabradine have been using it off-label for the COVID patients, as long as they meet the criteria. You don’t want to use it in every COVID patient, but if someone’s predominant complaint is that their heart rate is going up when they’re standing and they’re debilitated by it, this is a drug to consider.”
Anecdotal findings in patients with long-hauler COVID need to be translated into rigorous research protocols, but mechanistically, whether it’s POTS from COVID or from another type of infection – like Lyme disease or some other viral syndrome – it should work the same, Dr. Taub said. “POTS is POTS.”
There are no first-line drugs for POTS, and current class IIb recommendations include midodrine, which increases blood pressure and can make people feel awful, and fludrocortisone, which can cause a lot of weight gain and fluid retention, she observed. Other agents that lower heart rate, like beta-blockers, also lower blood pressure and can aggravate depression and fatigue.
Ivabradine regulates heart rate by specifically blocking the Ifunny channel of the sinoatrial node. It was approved in 2015 in the United States to reduce hospitalizations in patients with systolic heart failure, and it also has a second class IIb recommendation for inappropriate sinus tachycardia.
The present study, reported in the Feb. 23 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, is the first randomized clinical trial using ivabradine to treat POTS.
A total of 26 patients with POTS were started on ivabradine 5 mg or placebo twice daily for 1 month, then were crossed over to the other treatment for 1 month after a 1-week washout period. Six patients were started on a 2.5-mg twice-daily dose. Doses were adjusted during the study based on the patient’s heart rate response and tolerance. Patients had seven clinic visits in which norepinephrine (NE) levels were measured and head-up tilt testing conducted.
Four patients in the ivabradine arm withdrew because of adverse effects, and one withdrew during crossover.
Among the 22 patients who completed the study, exploratory analyses showed a strong trend for greater reduction in plasma NE upon standing with ivabradine (P = .056). The effect was also more profound in patients with very high baseline standing NE levels (at least 1,000 pg/mL) than in those with lower NE levels (600 to 1,000 pg/mL).
“It makes sense because that means their sympathetic nervous system is more overactive; they have a higher heart rate,” Dr. Taub said. “So it’s a potential clinical tool that people can use in their practice to determine, ‘okay, is this a patient I should be considering ivabradine on?’ ”
Although the present study had only 22 patients, “it should definitely be looked at as a step forward, both in terms of ivabradine specifically and in terms of setting the standard for the types of studies we want to see in our patients,” Satish R. Raj, MD, MSCI, University of Calgary (Alta.), said in an interview.
In a related editorial, however, Dr. Raj and coauthor Robert S. Sheldon, MD, PhD, also from the University of Calgary, point out that the standing heart rate in the placebo phase was only 94 beats/min, “suggesting that these patients may be affected only mildly by their POTS.”
Asked about the point, Dr. Taub said: “I don’t know if I agree with that.” She noted that the diagnosis of POTS was confirmed by tilt-table testing and NE levels and that patients’ symptoms vary from day to day. “The standard deviation was plus or minus 16.8, so there’s variability.”
Both Dr. Raj and Dr. Taub said they expect the results will be included in the next scientific statement for POTS, but in the meantime, it may be a struggle to get the drug covered by insurance.
“The challenge is that this is a very off-label use for this medication, and the medication’s not cheap,” Dr. Raj observed. The price for 60 tablets, which is about a 1-month supply, is $485 on GoodRx.
Another question going forward, he said, is whether ivabradine is superior to beta-blockers, which will be studied in a 20-patient crossover trial sponsored by the University of Calgary that is about to launch. The primary completion date is set for 2024.
The study was supported by a grant from Amgen. Dr. Taub has served as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Esperion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; is a shareholder in Epirium Bio; and has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Department of Homeland Security/FEMA. Dr. Raj has received a research grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and research grants from Dysautonomia International to address the pathophysiology of POTS. Dr. Sheldon has received a research grant from Dysautonomia International for a clinical trial assessing ivabradine and propranolol for the treatment of POTS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The heart failure drug ivabradine (Corlanor) can provide relief from the elevated heart rate and often debilitating symptoms associated with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a new study suggests.
Ivabradine significantly lowered standing heart rate, compared with placebo (77.9 vs. 94.2 beats/min; P < .001). The typical surge in heart rate that occurs upon standing in these patients was also blunted, compared with baseline (13.0 vs. 21.4 beats/min; P = .001).
“There are really not a lot of great options for patients with POTS and, mechanistically, ivabradine just make sense because it’s a drug that lowers heart rate very selectively and doesn’t lower blood pressure,” lead study author Pam R. Taub, MD, told this news organization.
Surprisingly, the reduction in heart rate translated into improved physical (P = .008) and social (P = .021) functioning after just 1 month of ivabradine, without any other background POTS medications or a change in nonpharmacologic therapies, she said. “What’s really nice to see is when you tackle a really significant part of the disease, which is the elevated heart rate, just how much better they feel.”
POTS patients are mostly healthy, active young women, who after some inciting event – such as viral infection, trauma, or surgery – experience an increase in heart rate of at least 30 beats/min upon standing accompanied by a range of symptoms, including dizziness, palpitations, brain fog, and fatigue.
A COVID connection?
The study enrolled patients with hyperadrenergic POTS as the predominant subtype, but another group to keep in mind that might benefit is the post-COVID POTS patient, said Dr. Taub, from the University of California, San Diego.
“We’re seeing an incredible number of patients post COVID that meet the criteria for POTS, and a lot of these patients also have COVID fatigue,” she said. “So clinically, myself and many other cardiologists who understand ivabradine have been using it off-label for the COVID patients, as long as they meet the criteria. You don’t want to use it in every COVID patient, but if someone’s predominant complaint is that their heart rate is going up when they’re standing and they’re debilitated by it, this is a drug to consider.”
Anecdotal findings in patients with long-hauler COVID need to be translated into rigorous research protocols, but mechanistically, whether it’s POTS from COVID or from another type of infection – like Lyme disease or some other viral syndrome – it should work the same, Dr. Taub said. “POTS is POTS.”
There are no first-line drugs for POTS, and current class IIb recommendations include midodrine, which increases blood pressure and can make people feel awful, and fludrocortisone, which can cause a lot of weight gain and fluid retention, she observed. Other agents that lower heart rate, like beta-blockers, also lower blood pressure and can aggravate depression and fatigue.
Ivabradine regulates heart rate by specifically blocking the Ifunny channel of the sinoatrial node. It was approved in 2015 in the United States to reduce hospitalizations in patients with systolic heart failure, and it also has a second class IIb recommendation for inappropriate sinus tachycardia.
The present study, reported in the Feb. 23 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, is the first randomized clinical trial using ivabradine to treat POTS.
A total of 26 patients with POTS were started on ivabradine 5 mg or placebo twice daily for 1 month, then were crossed over to the other treatment for 1 month after a 1-week washout period. Six patients were started on a 2.5-mg twice-daily dose. Doses were adjusted during the study based on the patient’s heart rate response and tolerance. Patients had seven clinic visits in which norepinephrine (NE) levels were measured and head-up tilt testing conducted.
Four patients in the ivabradine arm withdrew because of adverse effects, and one withdrew during crossover.
Among the 22 patients who completed the study, exploratory analyses showed a strong trend for greater reduction in plasma NE upon standing with ivabradine (P = .056). The effect was also more profound in patients with very high baseline standing NE levels (at least 1,000 pg/mL) than in those with lower NE levels (600 to 1,000 pg/mL).
“It makes sense because that means their sympathetic nervous system is more overactive; they have a higher heart rate,” Dr. Taub said. “So it’s a potential clinical tool that people can use in their practice to determine, ‘okay, is this a patient I should be considering ivabradine on?’ ”
Although the present study had only 22 patients, “it should definitely be looked at as a step forward, both in terms of ivabradine specifically and in terms of setting the standard for the types of studies we want to see in our patients,” Satish R. Raj, MD, MSCI, University of Calgary (Alta.), said in an interview.
In a related editorial, however, Dr. Raj and coauthor Robert S. Sheldon, MD, PhD, also from the University of Calgary, point out that the standing heart rate in the placebo phase was only 94 beats/min, “suggesting that these patients may be affected only mildly by their POTS.”
Asked about the point, Dr. Taub said: “I don’t know if I agree with that.” She noted that the diagnosis of POTS was confirmed by tilt-table testing and NE levels and that patients’ symptoms vary from day to day. “The standard deviation was plus or minus 16.8, so there’s variability.”
Both Dr. Raj and Dr. Taub said they expect the results will be included in the next scientific statement for POTS, but in the meantime, it may be a struggle to get the drug covered by insurance.
“The challenge is that this is a very off-label use for this medication, and the medication’s not cheap,” Dr. Raj observed. The price for 60 tablets, which is about a 1-month supply, is $485 on GoodRx.
Another question going forward, he said, is whether ivabradine is superior to beta-blockers, which will be studied in a 20-patient crossover trial sponsored by the University of Calgary that is about to launch. The primary completion date is set for 2024.
The study was supported by a grant from Amgen. Dr. Taub has served as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Esperion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; is a shareholder in Epirium Bio; and has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Department of Homeland Security/FEMA. Dr. Raj has received a research grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and research grants from Dysautonomia International to address the pathophysiology of POTS. Dr. Sheldon has received a research grant from Dysautonomia International for a clinical trial assessing ivabradine and propranolol for the treatment of POTS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The heart failure drug ivabradine (Corlanor) can provide relief from the elevated heart rate and often debilitating symptoms associated with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a new study suggests.
Ivabradine significantly lowered standing heart rate, compared with placebo (77.9 vs. 94.2 beats/min; P < .001). The typical surge in heart rate that occurs upon standing in these patients was also blunted, compared with baseline (13.0 vs. 21.4 beats/min; P = .001).
“There are really not a lot of great options for patients with POTS and, mechanistically, ivabradine just make sense because it’s a drug that lowers heart rate very selectively and doesn’t lower blood pressure,” lead study author Pam R. Taub, MD, told this news organization.
Surprisingly, the reduction in heart rate translated into improved physical (P = .008) and social (P = .021) functioning after just 1 month of ivabradine, without any other background POTS medications or a change in nonpharmacologic therapies, she said. “What’s really nice to see is when you tackle a really significant part of the disease, which is the elevated heart rate, just how much better they feel.”
POTS patients are mostly healthy, active young women, who after some inciting event – such as viral infection, trauma, or surgery – experience an increase in heart rate of at least 30 beats/min upon standing accompanied by a range of symptoms, including dizziness, palpitations, brain fog, and fatigue.
A COVID connection?
The study enrolled patients with hyperadrenergic POTS as the predominant subtype, but another group to keep in mind that might benefit is the post-COVID POTS patient, said Dr. Taub, from the University of California, San Diego.
“We’re seeing an incredible number of patients post COVID that meet the criteria for POTS, and a lot of these patients also have COVID fatigue,” she said. “So clinically, myself and many other cardiologists who understand ivabradine have been using it off-label for the COVID patients, as long as they meet the criteria. You don’t want to use it in every COVID patient, but if someone’s predominant complaint is that their heart rate is going up when they’re standing and they’re debilitated by it, this is a drug to consider.”
Anecdotal findings in patients with long-hauler COVID need to be translated into rigorous research protocols, but mechanistically, whether it’s POTS from COVID or from another type of infection – like Lyme disease or some other viral syndrome – it should work the same, Dr. Taub said. “POTS is POTS.”
There are no first-line drugs for POTS, and current class IIb recommendations include midodrine, which increases blood pressure and can make people feel awful, and fludrocortisone, which can cause a lot of weight gain and fluid retention, she observed. Other agents that lower heart rate, like beta-blockers, also lower blood pressure and can aggravate depression and fatigue.
Ivabradine regulates heart rate by specifically blocking the Ifunny channel of the sinoatrial node. It was approved in 2015 in the United States to reduce hospitalizations in patients with systolic heart failure, and it also has a second class IIb recommendation for inappropriate sinus tachycardia.
The present study, reported in the Feb. 23 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, is the first randomized clinical trial using ivabradine to treat POTS.
A total of 26 patients with POTS were started on ivabradine 5 mg or placebo twice daily for 1 month, then were crossed over to the other treatment for 1 month after a 1-week washout period. Six patients were started on a 2.5-mg twice-daily dose. Doses were adjusted during the study based on the patient’s heart rate response and tolerance. Patients had seven clinic visits in which norepinephrine (NE) levels were measured and head-up tilt testing conducted.
Four patients in the ivabradine arm withdrew because of adverse effects, and one withdrew during crossover.
Among the 22 patients who completed the study, exploratory analyses showed a strong trend for greater reduction in plasma NE upon standing with ivabradine (P = .056). The effect was also more profound in patients with very high baseline standing NE levels (at least 1,000 pg/mL) than in those with lower NE levels (600 to 1,000 pg/mL).
“It makes sense because that means their sympathetic nervous system is more overactive; they have a higher heart rate,” Dr. Taub said. “So it’s a potential clinical tool that people can use in their practice to determine, ‘okay, is this a patient I should be considering ivabradine on?’ ”
Although the present study had only 22 patients, “it should definitely be looked at as a step forward, both in terms of ivabradine specifically and in terms of setting the standard for the types of studies we want to see in our patients,” Satish R. Raj, MD, MSCI, University of Calgary (Alta.), said in an interview.
In a related editorial, however, Dr. Raj and coauthor Robert S. Sheldon, MD, PhD, also from the University of Calgary, point out that the standing heart rate in the placebo phase was only 94 beats/min, “suggesting that these patients may be affected only mildly by their POTS.”
Asked about the point, Dr. Taub said: “I don’t know if I agree with that.” She noted that the diagnosis of POTS was confirmed by tilt-table testing and NE levels and that patients’ symptoms vary from day to day. “The standard deviation was plus or minus 16.8, so there’s variability.”
Both Dr. Raj and Dr. Taub said they expect the results will be included in the next scientific statement for POTS, but in the meantime, it may be a struggle to get the drug covered by insurance.
“The challenge is that this is a very off-label use for this medication, and the medication’s not cheap,” Dr. Raj observed. The price for 60 tablets, which is about a 1-month supply, is $485 on GoodRx.
Another question going forward, he said, is whether ivabradine is superior to beta-blockers, which will be studied in a 20-patient crossover trial sponsored by the University of Calgary that is about to launch. The primary completion date is set for 2024.
The study was supported by a grant from Amgen. Dr. Taub has served as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Esperion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; is a shareholder in Epirium Bio; and has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Department of Homeland Security/FEMA. Dr. Raj has received a research grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and research grants from Dysautonomia International to address the pathophysiology of POTS. Dr. Sheldon has received a research grant from Dysautonomia International for a clinical trial assessing ivabradine and propranolol for the treatment of POTS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Routine COVID-19 screening unnecessary for cancer outpatients
There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.
The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.
“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).
Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.
Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.
Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.
The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.
Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).
There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.
The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.
“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.
“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”
Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.
Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.
Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.
COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.
Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.
The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.
There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.
The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.
“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).
Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.
Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.
Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.
The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.
Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).
There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.
The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.
“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.
“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”
Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.
Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.
Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.
COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.
Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.
The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.
There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.
The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.
“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).
Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.
Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.
Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.
The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.
Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).
There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.
The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.
“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.
“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”
Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.
Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.
Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.
COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.
Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.
The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.
FROM AACR: COVID-19 AND CANCER 2021
Roots of physician burnout: It’s the work load
Work load, not personal vulnerability, may be at the root of the current physician burnout crisis, a recent study has concluded.
The cutting-edge research utilized cognitive theory and work load analysis to get at the source of burnout among practitioners. The findings indicate that, although some institutions continue to emphasize personal responsibility of physicians to address the issue, it may be the amount and structure of the work itself that triggers burnout in doctors.
“We evaluated the cognitive load of a clinical workday in a national sample of U.S. physicians and its relationship with burnout and professional satisfaction,” wrote Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora and coauthors. The results were reported in the Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.
The researchers investigated whether task load correlated with burnout scores in a large national study of U.S. physicians from October 2017 to March 2018.
As the delivery of health care becomes more complex, physicians are charged with ever-increasing amount of administrative and cognitive tasks. Recent evidence indicates that this growing complexity of work is tied to a greater risk of burnout in physicians, compared with workers in other fields. Cognitive load theory, pioneered by psychologist Jonathan Sweller, identified limitations in working memory that humans depend on to carry out cognitive tasks. Cognitive load refers to the amount of working memory used, which can be reduced in the presence of external emotional or physiological stressors. While a potential link between cognitive load and burnout may seem self-evident, the correlation between the cognitive load of physicians and burnout has not been evaluated in a large-scale study until recently.
Physician task load (PTL) was measured using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a validated questionnaire frequently used to evaluate the cognitive load of work environments, including health care environments. Four domains (perception of effort and mental, physical, and temporal demands) were used to calculate the total PTL score.
Burnout was evaluated using the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization scales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, a validated tool considered the gold standard for measurement.
The survey sample consisted of physicians of all specialties and was assembled using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, an almost complete record of all U.S. physicians independent of AMA membership. All responses were anonymous and participation was voluntary.
Results
Among 30,456 physicians who received the survey, 5,197 (17.1%) responded. In total, 5,276 physicians were included in the analysis.
The median age of respondents was 53 years, and 61.8% self-identified as male. Twenty-four specialties were identified: 23.8% were from a primary care discipline and internal medicine represented the largest respondent group (12.1%).
Almost half of respondents (49.7%) worked in private practice, and 44.8% had been in practice for 21 years or longer.
Overall, 44.0% had at least one symptom of burnout, 38.8% of participants scored in the high range for emotional exhaustion, and 27.4% scored in the high range for depersonalization. The mean score in task load dimension varied by specialty.
The mean PTL score was 260.9 (standard deviation, 71.4). The specialties with the highest PTL score were emergency medicine (369.8), urology (353.7), general surgery subspecialties (343.9), internal medicine subspecialties (342.2), and radiology (341.6).
Aside from specialty, PTL scores also varied by practice setting, gender, age, number of hours worked per week, number of nights on call per week, and years in practice.
The researchers observed a dose response relationship between PTL and risk of burnout. For every 40-point (10%) reduction in PTL, there was 33% lower odds of experiencing burnout (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.70; P < .0001). Multivariable analyses also indicated that PTL was a significant predictor of burnout, independent of practice setting, specialty, age, gender, and hours worked.
Organizational strategies to reduce physician burnout
Coauthors of the study, Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and Colin P. West, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., are both experts on physician well-being and are passionate about finding new ways to reduce physician distress and improving health care delivery.
“Authentic efforts to address this problem must move beyond personal resilience,” Dr. Shanafelt said in an interview. “Organizations that fail to get serious about this issue are going to be left behind and struggle in the war for talent.
“Much like our efforts to improve quality, advancing clinician well-being requires organizations to make it a priority and establish the structure, process, and leadership to promote the desired outcomes,” said Dr. Shanafelt.
One potential strategy for improvement is appointing a chief wellness officer, a dedicated individual within the health care system that leads the organizational effort, explained Dr. Shanafelt. “Over 30 vanguard institutions across the United States have already taken this step.”
Dr. West, a coauthor of the study, explained that conducting an analysis of PTL is fairly straightforward for hospitals and individual institutions. “The NASA-TLX tool is widely available, free to use, and not overly complex, and it could be used to provide insight into physician effort and mental, physical, and temporal demand levels,” he said in an interview.
“Deeper evaluations could follow to identify specific potential solutions, particularly system-level approaches to alleviate PTL,” Dr. West explained. “In the short term, such analyses and solutions would have costs, but helping physicians work more optimally and with less chronic strain from excessive task load would save far more than these costs overall.”
Dr. West also noted that physician burnout is very expensive to a health care system, and strategies to promote physician well-being would be a prudent financial decision long term for health care organizations.
Dr. Harry, lead author of the study, agreed with Dr. West, noting that “quality improvement literature has demonstrated that improvements in inefficiencies that lead to increased demand in the workplace often has the benefit of reduced cost.
“Many studies have demonstrated the risk of turnover due to burnout and the significant cost of physician turn over,” she said in an interview. “This cost avoidance is well worth the investment in improved operations to minimize unnecessary task load.”
Dr. Harry also recommended the NASA-TLX tool as a free resource for health systems and organizations. She noted that future studies will further validate the reliability of the tool.
“At the core, we need to focus on system redesign at both the micro and the macro level,” Dr. Harry said. “Each health system will need to assess inefficiencies in their work flow, while regulatory bodies need to consider the downstream task load of mandates and reporting requirements, all of which contribute to more cognitive load.”
The study was supported by funding from the Stanford Medicine WellMD Center, the American Medical Association, and the Mayo Clinic department of medicine program on physician well-being. Coauthors Lotte N. Dyrbye, MD, and Dr. Shanafelt are coinventors of the Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-Being Index, Nurse Well-Being, and Well-Being Index. Mayo Clinic holds the copyright to these instruments and has licensed them for external use. Dr. Dyrbye and Dr. Shanafelt receive a portion of any royalties paid to Mayo Clinic. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
Work load, not personal vulnerability, may be at the root of the current physician burnout crisis, a recent study has concluded.
The cutting-edge research utilized cognitive theory and work load analysis to get at the source of burnout among practitioners. The findings indicate that, although some institutions continue to emphasize personal responsibility of physicians to address the issue, it may be the amount and structure of the work itself that triggers burnout in doctors.
“We evaluated the cognitive load of a clinical workday in a national sample of U.S. physicians and its relationship with burnout and professional satisfaction,” wrote Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora and coauthors. The results were reported in the Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.
The researchers investigated whether task load correlated with burnout scores in a large national study of U.S. physicians from October 2017 to March 2018.
As the delivery of health care becomes more complex, physicians are charged with ever-increasing amount of administrative and cognitive tasks. Recent evidence indicates that this growing complexity of work is tied to a greater risk of burnout in physicians, compared with workers in other fields. Cognitive load theory, pioneered by psychologist Jonathan Sweller, identified limitations in working memory that humans depend on to carry out cognitive tasks. Cognitive load refers to the amount of working memory used, which can be reduced in the presence of external emotional or physiological stressors. While a potential link between cognitive load and burnout may seem self-evident, the correlation between the cognitive load of physicians and burnout has not been evaluated in a large-scale study until recently.
Physician task load (PTL) was measured using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a validated questionnaire frequently used to evaluate the cognitive load of work environments, including health care environments. Four domains (perception of effort and mental, physical, and temporal demands) were used to calculate the total PTL score.
Burnout was evaluated using the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization scales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, a validated tool considered the gold standard for measurement.
The survey sample consisted of physicians of all specialties and was assembled using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, an almost complete record of all U.S. physicians independent of AMA membership. All responses were anonymous and participation was voluntary.
Results
Among 30,456 physicians who received the survey, 5,197 (17.1%) responded. In total, 5,276 physicians were included in the analysis.
The median age of respondents was 53 years, and 61.8% self-identified as male. Twenty-four specialties were identified: 23.8% were from a primary care discipline and internal medicine represented the largest respondent group (12.1%).
Almost half of respondents (49.7%) worked in private practice, and 44.8% had been in practice for 21 years or longer.
Overall, 44.0% had at least one symptom of burnout, 38.8% of participants scored in the high range for emotional exhaustion, and 27.4% scored in the high range for depersonalization. The mean score in task load dimension varied by specialty.
The mean PTL score was 260.9 (standard deviation, 71.4). The specialties with the highest PTL score were emergency medicine (369.8), urology (353.7), general surgery subspecialties (343.9), internal medicine subspecialties (342.2), and radiology (341.6).
Aside from specialty, PTL scores also varied by practice setting, gender, age, number of hours worked per week, number of nights on call per week, and years in practice.
The researchers observed a dose response relationship between PTL and risk of burnout. For every 40-point (10%) reduction in PTL, there was 33% lower odds of experiencing burnout (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.70; P < .0001). Multivariable analyses also indicated that PTL was a significant predictor of burnout, independent of practice setting, specialty, age, gender, and hours worked.
Organizational strategies to reduce physician burnout
Coauthors of the study, Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and Colin P. West, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., are both experts on physician well-being and are passionate about finding new ways to reduce physician distress and improving health care delivery.
“Authentic efforts to address this problem must move beyond personal resilience,” Dr. Shanafelt said in an interview. “Organizations that fail to get serious about this issue are going to be left behind and struggle in the war for talent.
“Much like our efforts to improve quality, advancing clinician well-being requires organizations to make it a priority and establish the structure, process, and leadership to promote the desired outcomes,” said Dr. Shanafelt.
One potential strategy for improvement is appointing a chief wellness officer, a dedicated individual within the health care system that leads the organizational effort, explained Dr. Shanafelt. “Over 30 vanguard institutions across the United States have already taken this step.”
Dr. West, a coauthor of the study, explained that conducting an analysis of PTL is fairly straightforward for hospitals and individual institutions. “The NASA-TLX tool is widely available, free to use, and not overly complex, and it could be used to provide insight into physician effort and mental, physical, and temporal demand levels,” he said in an interview.
“Deeper evaluations could follow to identify specific potential solutions, particularly system-level approaches to alleviate PTL,” Dr. West explained. “In the short term, such analyses and solutions would have costs, but helping physicians work more optimally and with less chronic strain from excessive task load would save far more than these costs overall.”
Dr. West also noted that physician burnout is very expensive to a health care system, and strategies to promote physician well-being would be a prudent financial decision long term for health care organizations.
Dr. Harry, lead author of the study, agreed with Dr. West, noting that “quality improvement literature has demonstrated that improvements in inefficiencies that lead to increased demand in the workplace often has the benefit of reduced cost.
“Many studies have demonstrated the risk of turnover due to burnout and the significant cost of physician turn over,” she said in an interview. “This cost avoidance is well worth the investment in improved operations to minimize unnecessary task load.”
Dr. Harry also recommended the NASA-TLX tool as a free resource for health systems and organizations. She noted that future studies will further validate the reliability of the tool.
“At the core, we need to focus on system redesign at both the micro and the macro level,” Dr. Harry said. “Each health system will need to assess inefficiencies in their work flow, while regulatory bodies need to consider the downstream task load of mandates and reporting requirements, all of which contribute to more cognitive load.”
The study was supported by funding from the Stanford Medicine WellMD Center, the American Medical Association, and the Mayo Clinic department of medicine program on physician well-being. Coauthors Lotte N. Dyrbye, MD, and Dr. Shanafelt are coinventors of the Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-Being Index, Nurse Well-Being, and Well-Being Index. Mayo Clinic holds the copyright to these instruments and has licensed them for external use. Dr. Dyrbye and Dr. Shanafelt receive a portion of any royalties paid to Mayo Clinic. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
Work load, not personal vulnerability, may be at the root of the current physician burnout crisis, a recent study has concluded.
The cutting-edge research utilized cognitive theory and work load analysis to get at the source of burnout among practitioners. The findings indicate that, although some institutions continue to emphasize personal responsibility of physicians to address the issue, it may be the amount and structure of the work itself that triggers burnout in doctors.
“We evaluated the cognitive load of a clinical workday in a national sample of U.S. physicians and its relationship with burnout and professional satisfaction,” wrote Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora and coauthors. The results were reported in the Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.
The researchers investigated whether task load correlated with burnout scores in a large national study of U.S. physicians from October 2017 to March 2018.
As the delivery of health care becomes more complex, physicians are charged with ever-increasing amount of administrative and cognitive tasks. Recent evidence indicates that this growing complexity of work is tied to a greater risk of burnout in physicians, compared with workers in other fields. Cognitive load theory, pioneered by psychologist Jonathan Sweller, identified limitations in working memory that humans depend on to carry out cognitive tasks. Cognitive load refers to the amount of working memory used, which can be reduced in the presence of external emotional or physiological stressors. While a potential link between cognitive load and burnout may seem self-evident, the correlation between the cognitive load of physicians and burnout has not been evaluated in a large-scale study until recently.
Physician task load (PTL) was measured using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a validated questionnaire frequently used to evaluate the cognitive load of work environments, including health care environments. Four domains (perception of effort and mental, physical, and temporal demands) were used to calculate the total PTL score.
Burnout was evaluated using the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization scales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, a validated tool considered the gold standard for measurement.
The survey sample consisted of physicians of all specialties and was assembled using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, an almost complete record of all U.S. physicians independent of AMA membership. All responses were anonymous and participation was voluntary.
Results
Among 30,456 physicians who received the survey, 5,197 (17.1%) responded. In total, 5,276 physicians were included in the analysis.
The median age of respondents was 53 years, and 61.8% self-identified as male. Twenty-four specialties were identified: 23.8% were from a primary care discipline and internal medicine represented the largest respondent group (12.1%).
Almost half of respondents (49.7%) worked in private practice, and 44.8% had been in practice for 21 years or longer.
Overall, 44.0% had at least one symptom of burnout, 38.8% of participants scored in the high range for emotional exhaustion, and 27.4% scored in the high range for depersonalization. The mean score in task load dimension varied by specialty.
The mean PTL score was 260.9 (standard deviation, 71.4). The specialties with the highest PTL score were emergency medicine (369.8), urology (353.7), general surgery subspecialties (343.9), internal medicine subspecialties (342.2), and radiology (341.6).
Aside from specialty, PTL scores also varied by practice setting, gender, age, number of hours worked per week, number of nights on call per week, and years in practice.
The researchers observed a dose response relationship between PTL and risk of burnout. For every 40-point (10%) reduction in PTL, there was 33% lower odds of experiencing burnout (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.70; P < .0001). Multivariable analyses also indicated that PTL was a significant predictor of burnout, independent of practice setting, specialty, age, gender, and hours worked.
Organizational strategies to reduce physician burnout
Coauthors of the study, Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and Colin P. West, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., are both experts on physician well-being and are passionate about finding new ways to reduce physician distress and improving health care delivery.
“Authentic efforts to address this problem must move beyond personal resilience,” Dr. Shanafelt said in an interview. “Organizations that fail to get serious about this issue are going to be left behind and struggle in the war for talent.
“Much like our efforts to improve quality, advancing clinician well-being requires organizations to make it a priority and establish the structure, process, and leadership to promote the desired outcomes,” said Dr. Shanafelt.
One potential strategy for improvement is appointing a chief wellness officer, a dedicated individual within the health care system that leads the organizational effort, explained Dr. Shanafelt. “Over 30 vanguard institutions across the United States have already taken this step.”
Dr. West, a coauthor of the study, explained that conducting an analysis of PTL is fairly straightforward for hospitals and individual institutions. “The NASA-TLX tool is widely available, free to use, and not overly complex, and it could be used to provide insight into physician effort and mental, physical, and temporal demand levels,” he said in an interview.
“Deeper evaluations could follow to identify specific potential solutions, particularly system-level approaches to alleviate PTL,” Dr. West explained. “In the short term, such analyses and solutions would have costs, but helping physicians work more optimally and with less chronic strain from excessive task load would save far more than these costs overall.”
Dr. West also noted that physician burnout is very expensive to a health care system, and strategies to promote physician well-being would be a prudent financial decision long term for health care organizations.
Dr. Harry, lead author of the study, agreed with Dr. West, noting that “quality improvement literature has demonstrated that improvements in inefficiencies that lead to increased demand in the workplace often has the benefit of reduced cost.
“Many studies have demonstrated the risk of turnover due to burnout and the significant cost of physician turn over,” she said in an interview. “This cost avoidance is well worth the investment in improved operations to minimize unnecessary task load.”
Dr. Harry also recommended the NASA-TLX tool as a free resource for health systems and organizations. She noted that future studies will further validate the reliability of the tool.
“At the core, we need to focus on system redesign at both the micro and the macro level,” Dr. Harry said. “Each health system will need to assess inefficiencies in their work flow, while regulatory bodies need to consider the downstream task load of mandates and reporting requirements, all of which contribute to more cognitive load.”
The study was supported by funding from the Stanford Medicine WellMD Center, the American Medical Association, and the Mayo Clinic department of medicine program on physician well-being. Coauthors Lotte N. Dyrbye, MD, and Dr. Shanafelt are coinventors of the Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-Being Index, Nurse Well-Being, and Well-Being Index. Mayo Clinic holds the copyright to these instruments and has licensed them for external use. Dr. Dyrbye and Dr. Shanafelt receive a portion of any royalties paid to Mayo Clinic. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM THE JOINT COMMISSION JOURNAL ON QUALITY AND PATIENT SAFETY
CDC chief lays out attack plan for COVID variants
earlier this week.
As part of JAMA’s Q&A series with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, Dr. Walensky referenced the blueprint she coathored with Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and Henry T. Walke, MD, MPH, of the CDC, which was published on Feb. 17 in JAMA.
In the viewpoint article, they explain that the Department of Health & Human Services has established the SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group to improve coordination among the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense.
Dr. Walensky said the first objective is to reinforce vigilance regarding public health mitigation strategies to decrease the amount of virus that’s circulating.
As part of that strategy, she said, the CDC strongly urges against nonessential travel.
In addition, public health leaders are working on a surveillance system to better understand the SARS-CoV-2 variants. That will take ramping up genome sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ensuring that sampling is geographically representative.
She said the CDC is partnering with state health labs to obtain about 750 samples every week and is teaming up with commercial labs and academic centers to obtain an interim target of 6,000 samples per week.
She acknowledged the United States “is not where we need to be” with sequencing but has come a long way since January. At that time, they were sequencing 250 samples every week; they are currently sequencing thousands each week.
Data analysis is another concern: “We need to be able to understand at the basic science level what the information means,” Dr. Walensky said.
Researchers aren’t sure how the variants might affect use of convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatments. It is expected that 5% of persons who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will nevertheless contract the disease. Sequencing will help answer whether such persons who have been vaccinated and who subsequently contract the virus are among those 5% or whether have been infected by a variant that evades the vaccine.
Accelerating vaccine administration globally and in the United States is essential, Dr. Walensky said.
As of Feb. 17, 56 million doses had been administered in the United States.
Top three threats
She updated the numbers on the three biggest variant threats.
Regarding B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom, she said: “So far, we’ve had over 1,200 cases in 41 states.” She noted that the variant is likely to be about 50% more transmissible and 30% to 50% more virulent.
“So far, it looks like that strain doesn’t have any real decrease in susceptibility to our vaccines,” she said.
The strain from South Africa (B.1.351) has been found in 19 cases in the United States.
The P.1. variant, which originated in Brazil, has been identified in two cases in two states.
Outlook for March and April
Dr. Bauchner asked Dr. Walensky what she envisions for March and April. He noted that public optimism is high in light of the continued reductions in COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as the fact that warmer weather is coming and that more vaccinations are on the horizon.
“While I really am hopeful for what could happen in March and April,” Dr. Walensky said, “I really do know that this could go bad so fast. We saw it in November. We saw it in December.”
CDC models have projected that, by March, the more transmissible B.1.1.7 strain is likely to be the dominant strain, she reiterated.
“I worry that it will be spring, and we will all have had enough,” Dr. Walensky said. She noted that some states are already relaxing mask mandates.
“Around that time, life will look and feel a little better, and the motivation for those who might be vaccine hesitant may be diminished,” she said.
Dr. Bauchner also asked her to weigh in on whether a third vaccine, from Johnson & Johnson (J&J), may soon gain FDA emergency-use authorization – and whether its lower expected efficacy rate may result in a tiered system of vaccinations, with higher-risk populations receiving the more efficacious vaccines.
Dr. Walensky said more data are needed before that question can be answered.
“It may very well be that the data point us to the best populations in which to use this vaccine,” she said.
In phase 3 data, the J&J vaccine was shown to be 72% effective in the United States for moderate to severe disease.
Dr. Walensky said it’s important to remember that the projected efficacy for that vaccine is higher than that for the flu shot as well as many other vaccines currently in use for other diseases.
She said it also has several advantages. The vaccine has less-stringent storage requirements, requires just one dose, and protects against hospitalization and death, although it’s less efficacious in protecting against contracting the disease.
“I think many people would opt to get that one if they could get it sooner,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
earlier this week.
As part of JAMA’s Q&A series with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, Dr. Walensky referenced the blueprint she coathored with Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and Henry T. Walke, MD, MPH, of the CDC, which was published on Feb. 17 in JAMA.
In the viewpoint article, they explain that the Department of Health & Human Services has established the SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group to improve coordination among the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense.
Dr. Walensky said the first objective is to reinforce vigilance regarding public health mitigation strategies to decrease the amount of virus that’s circulating.
As part of that strategy, she said, the CDC strongly urges against nonessential travel.
In addition, public health leaders are working on a surveillance system to better understand the SARS-CoV-2 variants. That will take ramping up genome sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ensuring that sampling is geographically representative.
She said the CDC is partnering with state health labs to obtain about 750 samples every week and is teaming up with commercial labs and academic centers to obtain an interim target of 6,000 samples per week.
She acknowledged the United States “is not where we need to be” with sequencing but has come a long way since January. At that time, they were sequencing 250 samples every week; they are currently sequencing thousands each week.
Data analysis is another concern: “We need to be able to understand at the basic science level what the information means,” Dr. Walensky said.
Researchers aren’t sure how the variants might affect use of convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatments. It is expected that 5% of persons who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will nevertheless contract the disease. Sequencing will help answer whether such persons who have been vaccinated and who subsequently contract the virus are among those 5% or whether have been infected by a variant that evades the vaccine.
Accelerating vaccine administration globally and in the United States is essential, Dr. Walensky said.
As of Feb. 17, 56 million doses had been administered in the United States.
Top three threats
She updated the numbers on the three biggest variant threats.
Regarding B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom, she said: “So far, we’ve had over 1,200 cases in 41 states.” She noted that the variant is likely to be about 50% more transmissible and 30% to 50% more virulent.
“So far, it looks like that strain doesn’t have any real decrease in susceptibility to our vaccines,” she said.
The strain from South Africa (B.1.351) has been found in 19 cases in the United States.
The P.1. variant, which originated in Brazil, has been identified in two cases in two states.
Outlook for March and April
Dr. Bauchner asked Dr. Walensky what she envisions for March and April. He noted that public optimism is high in light of the continued reductions in COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as the fact that warmer weather is coming and that more vaccinations are on the horizon.
“While I really am hopeful for what could happen in March and April,” Dr. Walensky said, “I really do know that this could go bad so fast. We saw it in November. We saw it in December.”
CDC models have projected that, by March, the more transmissible B.1.1.7 strain is likely to be the dominant strain, she reiterated.
“I worry that it will be spring, and we will all have had enough,” Dr. Walensky said. She noted that some states are already relaxing mask mandates.
“Around that time, life will look and feel a little better, and the motivation for those who might be vaccine hesitant may be diminished,” she said.
Dr. Bauchner also asked her to weigh in on whether a third vaccine, from Johnson & Johnson (J&J), may soon gain FDA emergency-use authorization – and whether its lower expected efficacy rate may result in a tiered system of vaccinations, with higher-risk populations receiving the more efficacious vaccines.
Dr. Walensky said more data are needed before that question can be answered.
“It may very well be that the data point us to the best populations in which to use this vaccine,” she said.
In phase 3 data, the J&J vaccine was shown to be 72% effective in the United States for moderate to severe disease.
Dr. Walensky said it’s important to remember that the projected efficacy for that vaccine is higher than that for the flu shot as well as many other vaccines currently in use for other diseases.
She said it also has several advantages. The vaccine has less-stringent storage requirements, requires just one dose, and protects against hospitalization and death, although it’s less efficacious in protecting against contracting the disease.
“I think many people would opt to get that one if they could get it sooner,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
earlier this week.
As part of JAMA’s Q&A series with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, Dr. Walensky referenced the blueprint she coathored with Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and Henry T. Walke, MD, MPH, of the CDC, which was published on Feb. 17 in JAMA.
In the viewpoint article, they explain that the Department of Health & Human Services has established the SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group to improve coordination among the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense.
Dr. Walensky said the first objective is to reinforce vigilance regarding public health mitigation strategies to decrease the amount of virus that’s circulating.
As part of that strategy, she said, the CDC strongly urges against nonessential travel.
In addition, public health leaders are working on a surveillance system to better understand the SARS-CoV-2 variants. That will take ramping up genome sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ensuring that sampling is geographically representative.
She said the CDC is partnering with state health labs to obtain about 750 samples every week and is teaming up with commercial labs and academic centers to obtain an interim target of 6,000 samples per week.
She acknowledged the United States “is not where we need to be” with sequencing but has come a long way since January. At that time, they were sequencing 250 samples every week; they are currently sequencing thousands each week.
Data analysis is another concern: “We need to be able to understand at the basic science level what the information means,” Dr. Walensky said.
Researchers aren’t sure how the variants might affect use of convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatments. It is expected that 5% of persons who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will nevertheless contract the disease. Sequencing will help answer whether such persons who have been vaccinated and who subsequently contract the virus are among those 5% or whether have been infected by a variant that evades the vaccine.
Accelerating vaccine administration globally and in the United States is essential, Dr. Walensky said.
As of Feb. 17, 56 million doses had been administered in the United States.
Top three threats
She updated the numbers on the three biggest variant threats.
Regarding B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom, she said: “So far, we’ve had over 1,200 cases in 41 states.” She noted that the variant is likely to be about 50% more transmissible and 30% to 50% more virulent.
“So far, it looks like that strain doesn’t have any real decrease in susceptibility to our vaccines,” she said.
The strain from South Africa (B.1.351) has been found in 19 cases in the United States.
The P.1. variant, which originated in Brazil, has been identified in two cases in two states.
Outlook for March and April
Dr. Bauchner asked Dr. Walensky what she envisions for March and April. He noted that public optimism is high in light of the continued reductions in COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as the fact that warmer weather is coming and that more vaccinations are on the horizon.
“While I really am hopeful for what could happen in March and April,” Dr. Walensky said, “I really do know that this could go bad so fast. We saw it in November. We saw it in December.”
CDC models have projected that, by March, the more transmissible B.1.1.7 strain is likely to be the dominant strain, she reiterated.
“I worry that it will be spring, and we will all have had enough,” Dr. Walensky said. She noted that some states are already relaxing mask mandates.
“Around that time, life will look and feel a little better, and the motivation for those who might be vaccine hesitant may be diminished,” she said.
Dr. Bauchner also asked her to weigh in on whether a third vaccine, from Johnson & Johnson (J&J), may soon gain FDA emergency-use authorization – and whether its lower expected efficacy rate may result in a tiered system of vaccinations, with higher-risk populations receiving the more efficacious vaccines.
Dr. Walensky said more data are needed before that question can be answered.
“It may very well be that the data point us to the best populations in which to use this vaccine,” she said.
In phase 3 data, the J&J vaccine was shown to be 72% effective in the United States for moderate to severe disease.
Dr. Walensky said it’s important to remember that the projected efficacy for that vaccine is higher than that for the flu shot as well as many other vaccines currently in use for other diseases.
She said it also has several advantages. The vaccine has less-stringent storage requirements, requires just one dose, and protects against hospitalization and death, although it’s less efficacious in protecting against contracting the disease.
“I think many people would opt to get that one if they could get it sooner,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CAR T-cell products shine in real-world setting, reveal new insights
Real-world experience with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphomas compares favorably with experience in commercial and trial settings and provides new insights for predicting outcomes, according to Paolo Corradini, MD.
The 12-month duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in 152 real-world patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel; Kymriah) for an approved indication were 48.4% and 26.4%, respectively, data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and published in November 2020 in Blood Advances showed.
who relapsed or were refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Corradini said at the third European CAR T-cell Meeting, jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.
A clinical update of the JULIET trial, as presented by Dr. Corradini and colleagues in a poster at the 2020 annual conference of the American Society of Hematology, showed a relapse-free probability of 60.4% at 24 and 30 months among 61 patients with an initial response.
The 12- and 36-month PFS rates as of February 2020, with median follow-up of 40.3 months, were 33% and 31%, respectively, and no new safety signals were identified, said Dr. Corradini, chair of hematology at the University of Milan.
Similarly, real-world data from the U.S. Lymphoma CAR T Consortium showing median PFS of 8.3 months at median follow-up of 12.9 months in 275 patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; YESCARTA) were comparable with outcomes in the ZUMA-1 registrational trial, he noted.
An ongoing response was seen at 2 years in 39% of patients in ZUMA-1, and 3-year survival was 47%, according to an update reported at ASH 2019.
Of note, 43% of patients in the real-world study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in September 2020, would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis.
Predicting outcomes
The real-world data also demonstrated that performance status and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels can predict outcomes: Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 versus less than 2, and elevated LDH had shorter PFS and overall survival (OS) on both univariate and multivariate analysis, Dr. Corradini noted.
A subsequent multicenter study showed similar response rates of 70% and 68% in ZUMA-1-eligible and noneligible patients, but significantly improved DOR, PFS, and OS outcomes among the ZUMA-1-eligible patients.
The authors also looked for “clinical predictive factors or some easy clinical biomarkers to predict the outcomes in our patients receiving CAR T-cells,” and found that C-reactive protein levels of more than 30 mg at infusion were associated with poorer DOR, PFS, and OS, he said.
In 60 patients in another U.S. study of both tisa-cel- and axi-cel-treated patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1-year event-free survival and OS were 40% and 69%, and Dr. Corradini’s experience with 55 patients at the University of Milan similarly showed 1-year PFS and OS of 40% and 70%, respectively.
“So all these studies support the notion that the results of CAR T-cells in real-world practice are durable for our patients, and are very similar to results obtained in the studies,” he said.
Other factors that have been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy include systemic bridging therapy, high metabolic tumor volume, and extranodal involvement; patients with these characteristics, along with those who have poor ECOG performance status or elevated LDH or CRP levels, do not comprise “a group to exclude from CAR T-cell therapy, but rather ... a group for whom there is an unmet need with our currently available treatments,” he said, adding: “So, it’s a group for which we have to do clinical trials and studies to improve the outcomes of our patient with large B-cell lymphomas.”
“These are all real-world data with commercially available products, he noted.
Product selection
Tisa-cel received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2017 and is used to treat relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in those aged up to 25 years, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or is refractory after at least two prior lines of therapy.
Axi-cel was also approved in 2017 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in February 2021, after Dr. Corradini’s meeting presentation, the FDA granted a third approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi) for this indication.
The information to date from both the trial and real-world settings are limited with respect to showing any differences in outcomes between the CAR T-cell products, but provide “an initial suggestion” that outcomes with tisa-cel and axi-cel are comparable, he said, adding that decisions should be strictly based on product registration data given the absence of reliable data for choosing one product over another.
Dr. Corradini reported honoraria and/or payment for travel and accommodations from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, and a number of other pharmaceutical companies.
Real-world experience with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphomas compares favorably with experience in commercial and trial settings and provides new insights for predicting outcomes, according to Paolo Corradini, MD.
The 12-month duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in 152 real-world patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel; Kymriah) for an approved indication were 48.4% and 26.4%, respectively, data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and published in November 2020 in Blood Advances showed.
who relapsed or were refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Corradini said at the third European CAR T-cell Meeting, jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.
A clinical update of the JULIET trial, as presented by Dr. Corradini and colleagues in a poster at the 2020 annual conference of the American Society of Hematology, showed a relapse-free probability of 60.4% at 24 and 30 months among 61 patients with an initial response.
The 12- and 36-month PFS rates as of February 2020, with median follow-up of 40.3 months, were 33% and 31%, respectively, and no new safety signals were identified, said Dr. Corradini, chair of hematology at the University of Milan.
Similarly, real-world data from the U.S. Lymphoma CAR T Consortium showing median PFS of 8.3 months at median follow-up of 12.9 months in 275 patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; YESCARTA) were comparable with outcomes in the ZUMA-1 registrational trial, he noted.
An ongoing response was seen at 2 years in 39% of patients in ZUMA-1, and 3-year survival was 47%, according to an update reported at ASH 2019.
Of note, 43% of patients in the real-world study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in September 2020, would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis.
Predicting outcomes
The real-world data also demonstrated that performance status and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels can predict outcomes: Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 versus less than 2, and elevated LDH had shorter PFS and overall survival (OS) on both univariate and multivariate analysis, Dr. Corradini noted.
A subsequent multicenter study showed similar response rates of 70% and 68% in ZUMA-1-eligible and noneligible patients, but significantly improved DOR, PFS, and OS outcomes among the ZUMA-1-eligible patients.
The authors also looked for “clinical predictive factors or some easy clinical biomarkers to predict the outcomes in our patients receiving CAR T-cells,” and found that C-reactive protein levels of more than 30 mg at infusion were associated with poorer DOR, PFS, and OS, he said.
In 60 patients in another U.S. study of both tisa-cel- and axi-cel-treated patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1-year event-free survival and OS were 40% and 69%, and Dr. Corradini’s experience with 55 patients at the University of Milan similarly showed 1-year PFS and OS of 40% and 70%, respectively.
“So all these studies support the notion that the results of CAR T-cells in real-world practice are durable for our patients, and are very similar to results obtained in the studies,” he said.
Other factors that have been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy include systemic bridging therapy, high metabolic tumor volume, and extranodal involvement; patients with these characteristics, along with those who have poor ECOG performance status or elevated LDH or CRP levels, do not comprise “a group to exclude from CAR T-cell therapy, but rather ... a group for whom there is an unmet need with our currently available treatments,” he said, adding: “So, it’s a group for which we have to do clinical trials and studies to improve the outcomes of our patient with large B-cell lymphomas.”
“These are all real-world data with commercially available products, he noted.
Product selection
Tisa-cel received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2017 and is used to treat relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in those aged up to 25 years, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or is refractory after at least two prior lines of therapy.
Axi-cel was also approved in 2017 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in February 2021, after Dr. Corradini’s meeting presentation, the FDA granted a third approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi) for this indication.
The information to date from both the trial and real-world settings are limited with respect to showing any differences in outcomes between the CAR T-cell products, but provide “an initial suggestion” that outcomes with tisa-cel and axi-cel are comparable, he said, adding that decisions should be strictly based on product registration data given the absence of reliable data for choosing one product over another.
Dr. Corradini reported honoraria and/or payment for travel and accommodations from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, and a number of other pharmaceutical companies.
Real-world experience with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphomas compares favorably with experience in commercial and trial settings and provides new insights for predicting outcomes, according to Paolo Corradini, MD.
The 12-month duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in 152 real-world patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel; Kymriah) for an approved indication were 48.4% and 26.4%, respectively, data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and published in November 2020 in Blood Advances showed.
who relapsed or were refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Corradini said at the third European CAR T-cell Meeting, jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.
A clinical update of the JULIET trial, as presented by Dr. Corradini and colleagues in a poster at the 2020 annual conference of the American Society of Hematology, showed a relapse-free probability of 60.4% at 24 and 30 months among 61 patients with an initial response.
The 12- and 36-month PFS rates as of February 2020, with median follow-up of 40.3 months, were 33% and 31%, respectively, and no new safety signals were identified, said Dr. Corradini, chair of hematology at the University of Milan.
Similarly, real-world data from the U.S. Lymphoma CAR T Consortium showing median PFS of 8.3 months at median follow-up of 12.9 months in 275 patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; YESCARTA) were comparable with outcomes in the ZUMA-1 registrational trial, he noted.
An ongoing response was seen at 2 years in 39% of patients in ZUMA-1, and 3-year survival was 47%, according to an update reported at ASH 2019.
Of note, 43% of patients in the real-world study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in September 2020, would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis.
Predicting outcomes
The real-world data also demonstrated that performance status and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels can predict outcomes: Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 versus less than 2, and elevated LDH had shorter PFS and overall survival (OS) on both univariate and multivariate analysis, Dr. Corradini noted.
A subsequent multicenter study showed similar response rates of 70% and 68% in ZUMA-1-eligible and noneligible patients, but significantly improved DOR, PFS, and OS outcomes among the ZUMA-1-eligible patients.
The authors also looked for “clinical predictive factors or some easy clinical biomarkers to predict the outcomes in our patients receiving CAR T-cells,” and found that C-reactive protein levels of more than 30 mg at infusion were associated with poorer DOR, PFS, and OS, he said.
In 60 patients in another U.S. study of both tisa-cel- and axi-cel-treated patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1-year event-free survival and OS were 40% and 69%, and Dr. Corradini’s experience with 55 patients at the University of Milan similarly showed 1-year PFS and OS of 40% and 70%, respectively.
“So all these studies support the notion that the results of CAR T-cells in real-world practice are durable for our patients, and are very similar to results obtained in the studies,” he said.
Other factors that have been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy include systemic bridging therapy, high metabolic tumor volume, and extranodal involvement; patients with these characteristics, along with those who have poor ECOG performance status or elevated LDH or CRP levels, do not comprise “a group to exclude from CAR T-cell therapy, but rather ... a group for whom there is an unmet need with our currently available treatments,” he said, adding: “So, it’s a group for which we have to do clinical trials and studies to improve the outcomes of our patient with large B-cell lymphomas.”
“These are all real-world data with commercially available products, he noted.
Product selection
Tisa-cel received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2017 and is used to treat relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in those aged up to 25 years, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or is refractory after at least two prior lines of therapy.
Axi-cel was also approved in 2017 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in February 2021, after Dr. Corradini’s meeting presentation, the FDA granted a third approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi) for this indication.
The information to date from both the trial and real-world settings are limited with respect to showing any differences in outcomes between the CAR T-cell products, but provide “an initial suggestion” that outcomes with tisa-cel and axi-cel are comparable, he said, adding that decisions should be strictly based on product registration data given the absence of reliable data for choosing one product over another.
Dr. Corradini reported honoraria and/or payment for travel and accommodations from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, and a number of other pharmaceutical companies.
FROM CART21
Alien cells may explain COVID-19 brain fog
, a new report suggests.
The authors report five separate post-mortem cases from patients who died with COVID-19 in which large cells resembling megakaryocytes were identified in cortical capillaries. Immunohistochemistry subsequently confirmed their megakaryocyte identity.
They point out that the finding is of interest as – to their knowledge – megakaryocytes have not been found in the brain before.
The observations are described in a research letter published online Feb. 12 in JAMA Neurology.
Bone marrow cells in the brain
Lead author David Nauen, MD, PhD, a neuropathologist from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, reported that he identified these cells in the first analysis of post-mortem brain tissue from a patient who had COVID-19.
“Some other viruses cause changes in the brain such as encephalopathy, and as neurologic symptoms are often reported in COVID-19, I was curious to see if similar effects were seen in brain post-mortem samples from patients who had died with the infection,” Dr. Nauen said.
On his first analysis of the brain tissue of a patient who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen saw no evidence of viral encephalitis, but he observed some “unusually large” cells in the brain capillaries.
“I was taken aback; I couldn’t figure out what they were. Then I realized these cells were megakaryocytes from the bone marrow. I have never seen these cells in the brain before. I asked several colleagues and none of them had either. After extensive literature searches, I could find no evidence of megakaryocytes being in the brain,” Dr. Nauen noted.
Megakaryocytes, he explained, are “very large cells, and the brain capillaries are very small – just large enough to let red blood cells and lymphocytes pass through. To see these very large cells in such vessels is extremely unusual. It looks like they are causing occlusions.”
By occluding flow through individual capillaries, these large cells could cause ischemic alteration in a distinct pattern, potentially resulting in an atypical form of neurologic impairment, the authors suggest.
“This might alter the hemodynamics and put pressure on other vessels, possibly contributing to the increased risk of stroke that has been reported in COVID-19,” Dr. Nauen said. None of the samples he examined came from patients with COVID-19 who had had a stroke, he reported.
Other than the presence of megakaryocytes in the capillaries, the brain looked normal, he said. He has now examined samples from 15 brains of patients who had COVID-19 and megakaryocytes have been found in the brain capillaries in five cases.
New neurologic complication
Classic encephalitis found with other viruses has not been reported in brain post-mortem examinations from patients who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen noted. “The cognitive issues such as grogginess associated with COVID-19 would indicate problems with the cortex but that hasn’t been documented. This occlusion of a multitude of tiny vessels by megalokaryocytes may offer some explanation of the cognitive issues. This is a new kind of vascular insult seen on pathology, and suggests a new kind of neurologic complication,” he added.
The big question is what these megakaryocytes are doing in the brain.
“Megakaryocytes are bone marrow cells. They are not immune cells. Their job is to produce platelets to help the blood clot. They are not normally found outside the bone marrow, but they have been reported in other organs in COVID-19 patients.
“But the big puzzle associated with finding them in the brain is how they get through the very fine network of blood vessels in the lungs. The geometry just doesn’t work. We don’t know which part of the COVID inflammatory response makes this happen,” said Dr. Nauen.
The authors suggest one possibility is that altered endothelial or other signaling is recruiting megakaryocytes into the circulation and somehow permitting them to pass through the lungs.
“We need to try and understand if there is anything distinctive about these megakaryocytes – which proteins are they expressing that may explain why they are behaving in such an unusual way,” said Dr. Nauen.
Noting that many patients with severe COVID-19 have problems with clotting, and megakaryocytes are part of the clotting system, he speculated that some sort of aberrant message is being sent to these cells.
“It is notable that we found megakaryocytes in cortical capillaries in 33% of cases examined. Because the standard brain autopsy sections taken sampled at random [are] only a minute portion of the cortical volume, finding these cells suggests the total burden could be considerable,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Nauen added that to his knowledge, this is the first report of such observations, and the next step is to look for similar findings in larger sample sizes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new report suggests.
The authors report five separate post-mortem cases from patients who died with COVID-19 in which large cells resembling megakaryocytes were identified in cortical capillaries. Immunohistochemistry subsequently confirmed their megakaryocyte identity.
They point out that the finding is of interest as – to their knowledge – megakaryocytes have not been found in the brain before.
The observations are described in a research letter published online Feb. 12 in JAMA Neurology.
Bone marrow cells in the brain
Lead author David Nauen, MD, PhD, a neuropathologist from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, reported that he identified these cells in the first analysis of post-mortem brain tissue from a patient who had COVID-19.
“Some other viruses cause changes in the brain such as encephalopathy, and as neurologic symptoms are often reported in COVID-19, I was curious to see if similar effects were seen in brain post-mortem samples from patients who had died with the infection,” Dr. Nauen said.
On his first analysis of the brain tissue of a patient who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen saw no evidence of viral encephalitis, but he observed some “unusually large” cells in the brain capillaries.
“I was taken aback; I couldn’t figure out what they were. Then I realized these cells were megakaryocytes from the bone marrow. I have never seen these cells in the brain before. I asked several colleagues and none of them had either. After extensive literature searches, I could find no evidence of megakaryocytes being in the brain,” Dr. Nauen noted.
Megakaryocytes, he explained, are “very large cells, and the brain capillaries are very small – just large enough to let red blood cells and lymphocytes pass through. To see these very large cells in such vessels is extremely unusual. It looks like they are causing occlusions.”
By occluding flow through individual capillaries, these large cells could cause ischemic alteration in a distinct pattern, potentially resulting in an atypical form of neurologic impairment, the authors suggest.
“This might alter the hemodynamics and put pressure on other vessels, possibly contributing to the increased risk of stroke that has been reported in COVID-19,” Dr. Nauen said. None of the samples he examined came from patients with COVID-19 who had had a stroke, he reported.
Other than the presence of megakaryocytes in the capillaries, the brain looked normal, he said. He has now examined samples from 15 brains of patients who had COVID-19 and megakaryocytes have been found in the brain capillaries in five cases.
New neurologic complication
Classic encephalitis found with other viruses has not been reported in brain post-mortem examinations from patients who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen noted. “The cognitive issues such as grogginess associated with COVID-19 would indicate problems with the cortex but that hasn’t been documented. This occlusion of a multitude of tiny vessels by megalokaryocytes may offer some explanation of the cognitive issues. This is a new kind of vascular insult seen on pathology, and suggests a new kind of neurologic complication,” he added.
The big question is what these megakaryocytes are doing in the brain.
“Megakaryocytes are bone marrow cells. They are not immune cells. Their job is to produce platelets to help the blood clot. They are not normally found outside the bone marrow, but they have been reported in other organs in COVID-19 patients.
“But the big puzzle associated with finding them in the brain is how they get through the very fine network of blood vessels in the lungs. The geometry just doesn’t work. We don’t know which part of the COVID inflammatory response makes this happen,” said Dr. Nauen.
The authors suggest one possibility is that altered endothelial or other signaling is recruiting megakaryocytes into the circulation and somehow permitting them to pass through the lungs.
“We need to try and understand if there is anything distinctive about these megakaryocytes – which proteins are they expressing that may explain why they are behaving in such an unusual way,” said Dr. Nauen.
Noting that many patients with severe COVID-19 have problems with clotting, and megakaryocytes are part of the clotting system, he speculated that some sort of aberrant message is being sent to these cells.
“It is notable that we found megakaryocytes in cortical capillaries in 33% of cases examined. Because the standard brain autopsy sections taken sampled at random [are] only a minute portion of the cortical volume, finding these cells suggests the total burden could be considerable,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Nauen added that to his knowledge, this is the first report of such observations, and the next step is to look for similar findings in larger sample sizes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new report suggests.
The authors report five separate post-mortem cases from patients who died with COVID-19 in which large cells resembling megakaryocytes were identified in cortical capillaries. Immunohistochemistry subsequently confirmed their megakaryocyte identity.
They point out that the finding is of interest as – to their knowledge – megakaryocytes have not been found in the brain before.
The observations are described in a research letter published online Feb. 12 in JAMA Neurology.
Bone marrow cells in the brain
Lead author David Nauen, MD, PhD, a neuropathologist from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, reported that he identified these cells in the first analysis of post-mortem brain tissue from a patient who had COVID-19.
“Some other viruses cause changes in the brain such as encephalopathy, and as neurologic symptoms are often reported in COVID-19, I was curious to see if similar effects were seen in brain post-mortem samples from patients who had died with the infection,” Dr. Nauen said.
On his first analysis of the brain tissue of a patient who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen saw no evidence of viral encephalitis, but he observed some “unusually large” cells in the brain capillaries.
“I was taken aback; I couldn’t figure out what they were. Then I realized these cells were megakaryocytes from the bone marrow. I have never seen these cells in the brain before. I asked several colleagues and none of them had either. After extensive literature searches, I could find no evidence of megakaryocytes being in the brain,” Dr. Nauen noted.
Megakaryocytes, he explained, are “very large cells, and the brain capillaries are very small – just large enough to let red blood cells and lymphocytes pass through. To see these very large cells in such vessels is extremely unusual. It looks like they are causing occlusions.”
By occluding flow through individual capillaries, these large cells could cause ischemic alteration in a distinct pattern, potentially resulting in an atypical form of neurologic impairment, the authors suggest.
“This might alter the hemodynamics and put pressure on other vessels, possibly contributing to the increased risk of stroke that has been reported in COVID-19,” Dr. Nauen said. None of the samples he examined came from patients with COVID-19 who had had a stroke, he reported.
Other than the presence of megakaryocytes in the capillaries, the brain looked normal, he said. He has now examined samples from 15 brains of patients who had COVID-19 and megakaryocytes have been found in the brain capillaries in five cases.
New neurologic complication
Classic encephalitis found with other viruses has not been reported in brain post-mortem examinations from patients who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen noted. “The cognitive issues such as grogginess associated with COVID-19 would indicate problems with the cortex but that hasn’t been documented. This occlusion of a multitude of tiny vessels by megalokaryocytes may offer some explanation of the cognitive issues. This is a new kind of vascular insult seen on pathology, and suggests a new kind of neurologic complication,” he added.
The big question is what these megakaryocytes are doing in the brain.
“Megakaryocytes are bone marrow cells. They are not immune cells. Their job is to produce platelets to help the blood clot. They are not normally found outside the bone marrow, but they have been reported in other organs in COVID-19 patients.
“But the big puzzle associated with finding them in the brain is how they get through the very fine network of blood vessels in the lungs. The geometry just doesn’t work. We don’t know which part of the COVID inflammatory response makes this happen,” said Dr. Nauen.
The authors suggest one possibility is that altered endothelial or other signaling is recruiting megakaryocytes into the circulation and somehow permitting them to pass through the lungs.
“We need to try and understand if there is anything distinctive about these megakaryocytes – which proteins are they expressing that may explain why they are behaving in such an unusual way,” said Dr. Nauen.
Noting that many patients with severe COVID-19 have problems with clotting, and megakaryocytes are part of the clotting system, he speculated that some sort of aberrant message is being sent to these cells.
“It is notable that we found megakaryocytes in cortical capillaries in 33% of cases examined. Because the standard brain autopsy sections taken sampled at random [are] only a minute portion of the cortical volume, finding these cells suggests the total burden could be considerable,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Nauen added that to his knowledge, this is the first report of such observations, and the next step is to look for similar findings in larger sample sizes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Seen or viewed: A black hematologist’s perspective
After a long day in hematology clinic, I skimmed the inpatient list to see if any of my patients had been admitted. Seeing Ms. Short’s name (changed for privacy), a delightful African American woman I met during my early days of fellowship, had me making the trek to the hospital. She was living with multiple myeloma complicated by extramedullary manifestations that had significantly impacted her quality of life.
During our first encounter, she showed me a growing left subscapular mass the size of an orange that was erythematous, hot, painful, and irritated. As an enthusiastic first-year fellow, I wanted to be aggressive in addressing her concerns in response to her obvious distress about this mass. Ultimately, she left clinic with antibiotics and an appointment with radiation oncology to see if they could use radiation to shrink the subscapular mass.
When I went back in to discuss the plan with her, she grabbed my hand, looked me in my eyes and said: “Thank you, I’ve been mentioning this for a while and you’re the first person to get something done about it.” In that moment I knew that she felt seen.
By the time I made it over to the hospital, she was getting settled in her room to start another cycle of cytoreductive chemotherapy.
“I told them I had a Black doctor!” she exclaimed as I walked into her hospital room. “I was looking for you today in clinic ... I kept telling them I had a Black doctor, but the nurses kept telling me no, that there were only Black nurse practitioners.” She had repeatedly told the staff that I, her “Black doctor,” did indeed exist, and she went on to describe me as “you know, the [heavy-chested] and short Black doctor I saw early this fall.” To this day, her description still makes me chuckle.
Though I laughed at her description, it hurt that I had worked in a clinic for 6 months yet was invisible. Initially disappointed, I left Ms. Short’s room with a smile on my face, energized and encouraged.
My time with Ms. Short prompted me to ruminate on my experience as a Black physician. To put it in perspective, 5% of all physicians are Black, 2% are Black women, and 2.3% are oncologists, even though African Americans make up 13% of the general U.S. population. I reside in a space where I am simultaneously scrutinized because I am one of the few (or the only) Black physicians in the building, and yet I am invisible because my colleagues and coworkers routinely ignore my presence.
Black physicians, let alone hematologists, are so rare that nurses often cannot fathom that a Black woman could be more than a nurse practitioner. Sadly, this is the tip of the iceberg of some of the negative experiences I, and other Black doctors, have had.
How I present myself must be carefully curated to make progress in my career. My peers and superiors seem to hear me better when my hair is straight and not in its naturally curly state. My introversion has been interpreted as being standoffish or disinterested. Any tone other than happy is interpreted as “aggressive” or “angry”. Talking “too much” to Black support staff was reported to my program, as it was viewed as suspicious, disruptive, and “appearances matter”.
I am also expected to be nurturing in ways that White physicians are not required to be. In my presence, White physicians have denigrated an entire patient population that is disproportionately Black by calling them “sicklers.” If there is an interpersonal conflict, I must think about the long-term consequences of voicing my perspective. My non-Black colleagues do not have to think about these things.
Imagine dealing with this at work, then on your commute home being worried about the reality that you may be pulled over and become the next name on the ever-growing list of Black women and men murdered at the hands of police. The cognitive and emotional impact of being invisible is immense and cumulative over the years.
My Blackness creates a bias of inferiority that cannot be overcome by respectability, compliance, professionalism, training, and expertise. This is glaringly apparent on both sides of the physician-patient relationship. Black patients’ concerns are routinely overlooked and dismissed, as seen with Ms. Short, and are reflected in the Black maternal death rate, pain control in Black versus White patients, and personal experience as a patient and an advocate for my family members.
Patients have looked me in the face and said, “all lives matter,” displaying their refusal to recognize that systematic racism and inequality exist. These facts and experiences are the antithesis of “primum non nocere.”
Sadly, my and Ms. Short’s experiences are not singular ones, and racial bias in medicine is a diagnosed, but untreated cancer. Like the malignancies I treat, ignoring the problem has not made it go away; therefore, it continues to fester and spread, causing more destruction. It is of great importance and concern that all physicians recognize, reflect, and correct their implicit biases not only toward their patients, but also colleagues and trainees.
It seems that health care professionals can talk the talk, as many statements have been made against racism and implicit bias in medicine, but can we take true and meaningful action to begin the journey to equity and justice?
I would like to thank Adrienne Glover, MD, MaKenzie Hodge, MD, Maranatha McLean, MD, and Darion Showell, MD, for our stimulating conversations that helped me put pen to paper. I’d also like to thank my family for being my editors.
Daphanie D. Taylor, MD, is a hematology/oncology fellow PGY-6 at Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C.
References and further reading
Roy L. “‘It’s My Calling To Change The Statistics’: Why We Need More Black Female Physicians.” Forbes Magazine, 27 Feb. 2020.
“Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019.” Association of American Medical Colleges, 2019.
“Facts & Figures: Diversity in Oncology.” American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2020 Jan 16.
After a long day in hematology clinic, I skimmed the inpatient list to see if any of my patients had been admitted. Seeing Ms. Short’s name (changed for privacy), a delightful African American woman I met during my early days of fellowship, had me making the trek to the hospital. She was living with multiple myeloma complicated by extramedullary manifestations that had significantly impacted her quality of life.
During our first encounter, she showed me a growing left subscapular mass the size of an orange that was erythematous, hot, painful, and irritated. As an enthusiastic first-year fellow, I wanted to be aggressive in addressing her concerns in response to her obvious distress about this mass. Ultimately, she left clinic with antibiotics and an appointment with radiation oncology to see if they could use radiation to shrink the subscapular mass.
When I went back in to discuss the plan with her, she grabbed my hand, looked me in my eyes and said: “Thank you, I’ve been mentioning this for a while and you’re the first person to get something done about it.” In that moment I knew that she felt seen.
By the time I made it over to the hospital, she was getting settled in her room to start another cycle of cytoreductive chemotherapy.
“I told them I had a Black doctor!” she exclaimed as I walked into her hospital room. “I was looking for you today in clinic ... I kept telling them I had a Black doctor, but the nurses kept telling me no, that there were only Black nurse practitioners.” She had repeatedly told the staff that I, her “Black doctor,” did indeed exist, and she went on to describe me as “you know, the [heavy-chested] and short Black doctor I saw early this fall.” To this day, her description still makes me chuckle.
Though I laughed at her description, it hurt that I had worked in a clinic for 6 months yet was invisible. Initially disappointed, I left Ms. Short’s room with a smile on my face, energized and encouraged.
My time with Ms. Short prompted me to ruminate on my experience as a Black physician. To put it in perspective, 5% of all physicians are Black, 2% are Black women, and 2.3% are oncologists, even though African Americans make up 13% of the general U.S. population. I reside in a space where I am simultaneously scrutinized because I am one of the few (or the only) Black physicians in the building, and yet I am invisible because my colleagues and coworkers routinely ignore my presence.
Black physicians, let alone hematologists, are so rare that nurses often cannot fathom that a Black woman could be more than a nurse practitioner. Sadly, this is the tip of the iceberg of some of the negative experiences I, and other Black doctors, have had.
How I present myself must be carefully curated to make progress in my career. My peers and superiors seem to hear me better when my hair is straight and not in its naturally curly state. My introversion has been interpreted as being standoffish or disinterested. Any tone other than happy is interpreted as “aggressive” or “angry”. Talking “too much” to Black support staff was reported to my program, as it was viewed as suspicious, disruptive, and “appearances matter”.
I am also expected to be nurturing in ways that White physicians are not required to be. In my presence, White physicians have denigrated an entire patient population that is disproportionately Black by calling them “sicklers.” If there is an interpersonal conflict, I must think about the long-term consequences of voicing my perspective. My non-Black colleagues do not have to think about these things.
Imagine dealing with this at work, then on your commute home being worried about the reality that you may be pulled over and become the next name on the ever-growing list of Black women and men murdered at the hands of police. The cognitive and emotional impact of being invisible is immense and cumulative over the years.
My Blackness creates a bias of inferiority that cannot be overcome by respectability, compliance, professionalism, training, and expertise. This is glaringly apparent on both sides of the physician-patient relationship. Black patients’ concerns are routinely overlooked and dismissed, as seen with Ms. Short, and are reflected in the Black maternal death rate, pain control in Black versus White patients, and personal experience as a patient and an advocate for my family members.
Patients have looked me in the face and said, “all lives matter,” displaying their refusal to recognize that systematic racism and inequality exist. These facts and experiences are the antithesis of “primum non nocere.”
Sadly, my and Ms. Short’s experiences are not singular ones, and racial bias in medicine is a diagnosed, but untreated cancer. Like the malignancies I treat, ignoring the problem has not made it go away; therefore, it continues to fester and spread, causing more destruction. It is of great importance and concern that all physicians recognize, reflect, and correct their implicit biases not only toward their patients, but also colleagues and trainees.
It seems that health care professionals can talk the talk, as many statements have been made against racism and implicit bias in medicine, but can we take true and meaningful action to begin the journey to equity and justice?
I would like to thank Adrienne Glover, MD, MaKenzie Hodge, MD, Maranatha McLean, MD, and Darion Showell, MD, for our stimulating conversations that helped me put pen to paper. I’d also like to thank my family for being my editors.
Daphanie D. Taylor, MD, is a hematology/oncology fellow PGY-6 at Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C.
References and further reading
Roy L. “‘It’s My Calling To Change The Statistics’: Why We Need More Black Female Physicians.” Forbes Magazine, 27 Feb. 2020.
“Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019.” Association of American Medical Colleges, 2019.
“Facts & Figures: Diversity in Oncology.” American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2020 Jan 16.
After a long day in hematology clinic, I skimmed the inpatient list to see if any of my patients had been admitted. Seeing Ms. Short’s name (changed for privacy), a delightful African American woman I met during my early days of fellowship, had me making the trek to the hospital. She was living with multiple myeloma complicated by extramedullary manifestations that had significantly impacted her quality of life.
During our first encounter, she showed me a growing left subscapular mass the size of an orange that was erythematous, hot, painful, and irritated. As an enthusiastic first-year fellow, I wanted to be aggressive in addressing her concerns in response to her obvious distress about this mass. Ultimately, she left clinic with antibiotics and an appointment with radiation oncology to see if they could use radiation to shrink the subscapular mass.
When I went back in to discuss the plan with her, she grabbed my hand, looked me in my eyes and said: “Thank you, I’ve been mentioning this for a while and you’re the first person to get something done about it.” In that moment I knew that she felt seen.
By the time I made it over to the hospital, she was getting settled in her room to start another cycle of cytoreductive chemotherapy.
“I told them I had a Black doctor!” she exclaimed as I walked into her hospital room. “I was looking for you today in clinic ... I kept telling them I had a Black doctor, but the nurses kept telling me no, that there were only Black nurse practitioners.” She had repeatedly told the staff that I, her “Black doctor,” did indeed exist, and she went on to describe me as “you know, the [heavy-chested] and short Black doctor I saw early this fall.” To this day, her description still makes me chuckle.
Though I laughed at her description, it hurt that I had worked in a clinic for 6 months yet was invisible. Initially disappointed, I left Ms. Short’s room with a smile on my face, energized and encouraged.
My time with Ms. Short prompted me to ruminate on my experience as a Black physician. To put it in perspective, 5% of all physicians are Black, 2% are Black women, and 2.3% are oncologists, even though African Americans make up 13% of the general U.S. population. I reside in a space where I am simultaneously scrutinized because I am one of the few (or the only) Black physicians in the building, and yet I am invisible because my colleagues and coworkers routinely ignore my presence.
Black physicians, let alone hematologists, are so rare that nurses often cannot fathom that a Black woman could be more than a nurse practitioner. Sadly, this is the tip of the iceberg of some of the negative experiences I, and other Black doctors, have had.
How I present myself must be carefully curated to make progress in my career. My peers and superiors seem to hear me better when my hair is straight and not in its naturally curly state. My introversion has been interpreted as being standoffish or disinterested. Any tone other than happy is interpreted as “aggressive” or “angry”. Talking “too much” to Black support staff was reported to my program, as it was viewed as suspicious, disruptive, and “appearances matter”.
I am also expected to be nurturing in ways that White physicians are not required to be. In my presence, White physicians have denigrated an entire patient population that is disproportionately Black by calling them “sicklers.” If there is an interpersonal conflict, I must think about the long-term consequences of voicing my perspective. My non-Black colleagues do not have to think about these things.
Imagine dealing with this at work, then on your commute home being worried about the reality that you may be pulled over and become the next name on the ever-growing list of Black women and men murdered at the hands of police. The cognitive and emotional impact of being invisible is immense and cumulative over the years.
My Blackness creates a bias of inferiority that cannot be overcome by respectability, compliance, professionalism, training, and expertise. This is glaringly apparent on both sides of the physician-patient relationship. Black patients’ concerns are routinely overlooked and dismissed, as seen with Ms. Short, and are reflected in the Black maternal death rate, pain control in Black versus White patients, and personal experience as a patient and an advocate for my family members.
Patients have looked me in the face and said, “all lives matter,” displaying their refusal to recognize that systematic racism and inequality exist. These facts and experiences are the antithesis of “primum non nocere.”
Sadly, my and Ms. Short’s experiences are not singular ones, and racial bias in medicine is a diagnosed, but untreated cancer. Like the malignancies I treat, ignoring the problem has not made it go away; therefore, it continues to fester and spread, causing more destruction. It is of great importance and concern that all physicians recognize, reflect, and correct their implicit biases not only toward their patients, but also colleagues and trainees.
It seems that health care professionals can talk the talk, as many statements have been made against racism and implicit bias in medicine, but can we take true and meaningful action to begin the journey to equity and justice?
I would like to thank Adrienne Glover, MD, MaKenzie Hodge, MD, Maranatha McLean, MD, and Darion Showell, MD, for our stimulating conversations that helped me put pen to paper. I’d also like to thank my family for being my editors.
Daphanie D. Taylor, MD, is a hematology/oncology fellow PGY-6 at Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C.
References and further reading
Roy L. “‘It’s My Calling To Change The Statistics’: Why We Need More Black Female Physicians.” Forbes Magazine, 27 Feb. 2020.
“Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019.” Association of American Medical Colleges, 2019.
“Facts & Figures: Diversity in Oncology.” American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2020 Jan 16.
Chronic GVHD therapies offer hope for treating refractory disease
Despite improvements in prevention of graft-versus-host disease, chronic GVHD still occurs in 10%-50% of patients who undergo an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and these patients may require prolonged treatment with multiple lines of therapy, said a hematologist and transplant researcher.
“More effective, less toxic therapies for chronic GVHD are needed,” Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle said at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.
Dr. Lee reviewed clinical trials for chronic GVHD at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.
Although the incidence of chronic GVHD has gradually declined over the last 40 years and both relapse-free and overall survival following a chronic GVHD diagnosis have improved, “for patients who are diagnosed with chronic GVHD, they still will see many lines of therapy and many years of therapy,” she said.
Among 148 patients with chronic GVHD treated at her center, for example, 66% went on to two lines of therapy, 50% went on to three lines, 37% required four lines of therapy, and 20% needed five lines or more.
Salvage therapies for patients with chronic GVHD have evolved away from immunomodulators and immunosuppressants in the early 1990s, toward monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab in the early 2000s, to interleukin-2 and to tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and ibrutinib (Imbruvica).
There are currently 36 agents that are FDA approved for at least one indication and can also be prescribed for the treatment of chronic GVHD, Dr. Lee noted.
Treatment goals
Dr. Lee laid out six goals for treating patients with chronic GVHD. They include:
- Controlling current signs and symptoms, measured by response rates and patient-reported outcomes
- Preventing further tissue and organ damage
- Minimizing toxicity
- Maintaining graft-versus-tumor effect
- Achieving graft tolerance and stopping immunosuppression
- Decreasing nonrelapse mortality and improving survival
Active trials
Dr. Lee identified 33 trials with chronic GVHD as an indication that are currently recruiting, and an additional 13 trials that are active but closed to recruiting. The trials can be generally grouped by mechanism of action, and involve agents targeting T-regulatory cells, B cells and/or B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling, monocytes/macrophages, costimulatory blockage, a proteasome inhibition, Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitors, ROCK2 inhibitors, hedgehog pathway inhibition, cellular therapy, and organ-targeted therapy.
Most of the trials have overall response rate as the primary endpoint, and all but five are currently in phase 1 or 2. The currently active phase 3 trials include two with ibrutinib, one with the investigational agent itacitinib, one with ruxolitinib, and one with mesenchymal stem cells.
“I’ll note that, when results are reported, the denominator really matters for the overall response rate, especially if you’re talking about small trials, because if you require the patient to be treated with an agent for a certain period of time, and you take out all the people who didn’t make it to that time point, then your overall response rate looks better,” she said.
BTK inhibitors
The first-in-class Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib was the first and thus far only agent approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chronic GVHD. The approval was based on a single-arm, multicenter trial with 42 patients.
The ORR in this trial was 69%, consisting of 31% complete responses and 38% partial responses, with a duration of response longer than 10 months in slightly more than half of all patients. In all, 24% of patients had improvement of symptoms in two consecutive visits, and 29% continued on ibrutinib at the time of the primary analysis in 2017.
Based on these promising results, acalabrutinib, which is more potent and selective for BTK than ibrutinib, with no effect on either platelets or natural killer cells, is currently under investigation in a phase 2 trial in 50 patients at a dose of 100 mg orally twice daily.
JAK1/2 inhibition
The JAK1 inhibitor itacitinib failed to meet its primary ORR endpoint in the phase 3 GRAVITAS-301 study, according to a press release, but the manufacturer (Incyte) said that it is continuing its commitment to JAK inhibitors with ruxolitinib, which has shown activity against acute, steroid-refractory GVHD, and is being explored for prevention of chronic GVHD in the randomized, phase 3 REACH3 study.
The trial met its primary endpoint for a higher ORR at week 24 with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy, at 49.7% versus 25.6%, respectively, which translated into an odds ratio for response with the JAK inhibitor of 2.99 (P < .0001).
Selective T-cell expansion
Efavaleukin alfa is an IL-2-mutated protein (mutein), with a mutation in the IL-2RB-binding portion of IL-2 causing increased selectivity for regulatory T-cell expansion. It is bound to an IgG-Fc domain that is itself mutated, with reduced Fc receptor binding and IgG effector function to give it a longer half life. This agent is being studied in a phase 1/2 trial in a subcutaneous formulation delivered every 1 or 2 weeks to 68 patients.
Monocyte/macrophage depletion
Axatilimab is a high-affinity antibody targeting colony stimulating factor–1 receptor (CSF-1R) expressed on monocytes and macrophages. By blocking CSF-1R, it depletes circulation of nonclassical monocytes and prevents the differentiation and survival of M2 macrophages in tissue.
It is currently being investigated 30 patients in a phase 1/2 study in an intravenous formulation delivered over 30 minutes every 2-4 weeks.
Hedgehog pathway inhibition
There is evidence suggesting that hedgehog pathway inhibition can lessen fibrosis. Glasdegib (Daurismo) a potent selective oral inhibitor of the hedgehog signaling pathway, is approved for use with low-dose cytarabine for patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia aged older than 75 years or have comorbidities precluding intensive chemotherapy.
This agent is associated with drug intolerance because of muscle spasms, dysgeusia, and alopecia, however.
The drug is currently in phase 1/2 at a dose of 50 mg orally per day in 20 patients.
ROCK2 inhibition
Belumosudil (formerly KD025) “appears to rebalance the immune system,” Dr. Lee said. Investigators think that the drug dampens an autoaggressive inflammatory response by selective inhibition of ROCK2.
This drug has been studied in a dose-escalation study and a phase 2 trial, in which 132 participants were randomized to receive belumosudil 200 mg either once or twice daily.
At a median follow-up of 8 months, the ORR with belumosudil 200 mg once and twice daily was 73% and 74%, respectively. Similar results were seen in patients who had previously received either ruxolitinib or ibrutinib. High response rates were seen in patients with severe chronic GVHD, involvement of four or more organs and a refractory response to their last line of therapy.
Hard-to-manage patients
“We’re very hopeful for many of these agents, but we have to acknowledge that there are still many management dilemmas, patients that we just don’t really know what to do with,” Dr. Lee said. “These include patients who have bad sclerosis and fasciitis, nonhealing skin ulcers, bronchiolitis obliterans, serositis that can be very difficult to manage, severe keratoconjunctivitis that can be eyesight threatening, nonhealing mouth ulcers, esophageal structures, and always patients who have frequent infections.
“We are hopeful that some these agents will be useful for our patients who have severe manifestations, but often the number of patients with these manifestations in the trials is too low to say something specific about them,” she added.
‘Exciting time’
“It’s an exciting time because there are a lot of different drugs that are being studied for chronic GVHD,” commented Betty Hamilton, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic.
“I think that where the field is going in terms of treatment is recognizing that chronic GVHD is a pretty heterogeneous disease, and we have to learn even more about the underlying biologic pathways to be able to determine which class of drugs to use and when,” she said in an interview.
She agreed with Dr. Lee that the goals of treating patients with chronic GVHD include improving symptoms and quality, preventing progression, ideally tapering patients off immunosuppression, and achieving a balance between preventing negative consequences of GVHD while maintain the benefits of a graft-versus-leukemia effect.
“In our center, drug choice is based on physician preference and comfort with how often they’ve used the drug, patients’ comorbidities, toxicities of the drug, and logistical considerations,” Dr. Hamilton said.
Dr. Lee disclosed consulting activities for Pfizer and Kadmon, travel and lodging from Amgen, and research funding from those companies and others. Dr. Hamilton disclosed consulting for Syndax and Incyte.
Despite improvements in prevention of graft-versus-host disease, chronic GVHD still occurs in 10%-50% of patients who undergo an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and these patients may require prolonged treatment with multiple lines of therapy, said a hematologist and transplant researcher.
“More effective, less toxic therapies for chronic GVHD are needed,” Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle said at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.
Dr. Lee reviewed clinical trials for chronic GVHD at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.
Although the incidence of chronic GVHD has gradually declined over the last 40 years and both relapse-free and overall survival following a chronic GVHD diagnosis have improved, “for patients who are diagnosed with chronic GVHD, they still will see many lines of therapy and many years of therapy,” she said.
Among 148 patients with chronic GVHD treated at her center, for example, 66% went on to two lines of therapy, 50% went on to three lines, 37% required four lines of therapy, and 20% needed five lines or more.
Salvage therapies for patients with chronic GVHD have evolved away from immunomodulators and immunosuppressants in the early 1990s, toward monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab in the early 2000s, to interleukin-2 and to tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and ibrutinib (Imbruvica).
There are currently 36 agents that are FDA approved for at least one indication and can also be prescribed for the treatment of chronic GVHD, Dr. Lee noted.
Treatment goals
Dr. Lee laid out six goals for treating patients with chronic GVHD. They include:
- Controlling current signs and symptoms, measured by response rates and patient-reported outcomes
- Preventing further tissue and organ damage
- Minimizing toxicity
- Maintaining graft-versus-tumor effect
- Achieving graft tolerance and stopping immunosuppression
- Decreasing nonrelapse mortality and improving survival
Active trials
Dr. Lee identified 33 trials with chronic GVHD as an indication that are currently recruiting, and an additional 13 trials that are active but closed to recruiting. The trials can be generally grouped by mechanism of action, and involve agents targeting T-regulatory cells, B cells and/or B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling, monocytes/macrophages, costimulatory blockage, a proteasome inhibition, Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitors, ROCK2 inhibitors, hedgehog pathway inhibition, cellular therapy, and organ-targeted therapy.
Most of the trials have overall response rate as the primary endpoint, and all but five are currently in phase 1 or 2. The currently active phase 3 trials include two with ibrutinib, one with the investigational agent itacitinib, one with ruxolitinib, and one with mesenchymal stem cells.
“I’ll note that, when results are reported, the denominator really matters for the overall response rate, especially if you’re talking about small trials, because if you require the patient to be treated with an agent for a certain period of time, and you take out all the people who didn’t make it to that time point, then your overall response rate looks better,” she said.
BTK inhibitors
The first-in-class Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib was the first and thus far only agent approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chronic GVHD. The approval was based on a single-arm, multicenter trial with 42 patients.
The ORR in this trial was 69%, consisting of 31% complete responses and 38% partial responses, with a duration of response longer than 10 months in slightly more than half of all patients. In all, 24% of patients had improvement of symptoms in two consecutive visits, and 29% continued on ibrutinib at the time of the primary analysis in 2017.
Based on these promising results, acalabrutinib, which is more potent and selective for BTK than ibrutinib, with no effect on either platelets or natural killer cells, is currently under investigation in a phase 2 trial in 50 patients at a dose of 100 mg orally twice daily.
JAK1/2 inhibition
The JAK1 inhibitor itacitinib failed to meet its primary ORR endpoint in the phase 3 GRAVITAS-301 study, according to a press release, but the manufacturer (Incyte) said that it is continuing its commitment to JAK inhibitors with ruxolitinib, which has shown activity against acute, steroid-refractory GVHD, and is being explored for prevention of chronic GVHD in the randomized, phase 3 REACH3 study.
The trial met its primary endpoint for a higher ORR at week 24 with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy, at 49.7% versus 25.6%, respectively, which translated into an odds ratio for response with the JAK inhibitor of 2.99 (P < .0001).
Selective T-cell expansion
Efavaleukin alfa is an IL-2-mutated protein (mutein), with a mutation in the IL-2RB-binding portion of IL-2 causing increased selectivity for regulatory T-cell expansion. It is bound to an IgG-Fc domain that is itself mutated, with reduced Fc receptor binding and IgG effector function to give it a longer half life. This agent is being studied in a phase 1/2 trial in a subcutaneous formulation delivered every 1 or 2 weeks to 68 patients.
Monocyte/macrophage depletion
Axatilimab is a high-affinity antibody targeting colony stimulating factor–1 receptor (CSF-1R) expressed on monocytes and macrophages. By blocking CSF-1R, it depletes circulation of nonclassical monocytes and prevents the differentiation and survival of M2 macrophages in tissue.
It is currently being investigated 30 patients in a phase 1/2 study in an intravenous formulation delivered over 30 minutes every 2-4 weeks.
Hedgehog pathway inhibition
There is evidence suggesting that hedgehog pathway inhibition can lessen fibrosis. Glasdegib (Daurismo) a potent selective oral inhibitor of the hedgehog signaling pathway, is approved for use with low-dose cytarabine for patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia aged older than 75 years or have comorbidities precluding intensive chemotherapy.
This agent is associated with drug intolerance because of muscle spasms, dysgeusia, and alopecia, however.
The drug is currently in phase 1/2 at a dose of 50 mg orally per day in 20 patients.
ROCK2 inhibition
Belumosudil (formerly KD025) “appears to rebalance the immune system,” Dr. Lee said. Investigators think that the drug dampens an autoaggressive inflammatory response by selective inhibition of ROCK2.
This drug has been studied in a dose-escalation study and a phase 2 trial, in which 132 participants were randomized to receive belumosudil 200 mg either once or twice daily.
At a median follow-up of 8 months, the ORR with belumosudil 200 mg once and twice daily was 73% and 74%, respectively. Similar results were seen in patients who had previously received either ruxolitinib or ibrutinib. High response rates were seen in patients with severe chronic GVHD, involvement of four or more organs and a refractory response to their last line of therapy.
Hard-to-manage patients
“We’re very hopeful for many of these agents, but we have to acknowledge that there are still many management dilemmas, patients that we just don’t really know what to do with,” Dr. Lee said. “These include patients who have bad sclerosis and fasciitis, nonhealing skin ulcers, bronchiolitis obliterans, serositis that can be very difficult to manage, severe keratoconjunctivitis that can be eyesight threatening, nonhealing mouth ulcers, esophageal structures, and always patients who have frequent infections.
“We are hopeful that some these agents will be useful for our patients who have severe manifestations, but often the number of patients with these manifestations in the trials is too low to say something specific about them,” she added.
‘Exciting time’
“It’s an exciting time because there are a lot of different drugs that are being studied for chronic GVHD,” commented Betty Hamilton, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic.
“I think that where the field is going in terms of treatment is recognizing that chronic GVHD is a pretty heterogeneous disease, and we have to learn even more about the underlying biologic pathways to be able to determine which class of drugs to use and when,” she said in an interview.
She agreed with Dr. Lee that the goals of treating patients with chronic GVHD include improving symptoms and quality, preventing progression, ideally tapering patients off immunosuppression, and achieving a balance between preventing negative consequences of GVHD while maintain the benefits of a graft-versus-leukemia effect.
“In our center, drug choice is based on physician preference and comfort with how often they’ve used the drug, patients’ comorbidities, toxicities of the drug, and logistical considerations,” Dr. Hamilton said.
Dr. Lee disclosed consulting activities for Pfizer and Kadmon, travel and lodging from Amgen, and research funding from those companies and others. Dr. Hamilton disclosed consulting for Syndax and Incyte.
Despite improvements in prevention of graft-versus-host disease, chronic GVHD still occurs in 10%-50% of patients who undergo an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and these patients may require prolonged treatment with multiple lines of therapy, said a hematologist and transplant researcher.
“More effective, less toxic therapies for chronic GVHD are needed,” Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle said at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.
Dr. Lee reviewed clinical trials for chronic GVHD at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.
Although the incidence of chronic GVHD has gradually declined over the last 40 years and both relapse-free and overall survival following a chronic GVHD diagnosis have improved, “for patients who are diagnosed with chronic GVHD, they still will see many lines of therapy and many years of therapy,” she said.
Among 148 patients with chronic GVHD treated at her center, for example, 66% went on to two lines of therapy, 50% went on to three lines, 37% required four lines of therapy, and 20% needed five lines or more.
Salvage therapies for patients with chronic GVHD have evolved away from immunomodulators and immunosuppressants in the early 1990s, toward monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab in the early 2000s, to interleukin-2 and to tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and ibrutinib (Imbruvica).
There are currently 36 agents that are FDA approved for at least one indication and can also be prescribed for the treatment of chronic GVHD, Dr. Lee noted.
Treatment goals
Dr. Lee laid out six goals for treating patients with chronic GVHD. They include:
- Controlling current signs and symptoms, measured by response rates and patient-reported outcomes
- Preventing further tissue and organ damage
- Minimizing toxicity
- Maintaining graft-versus-tumor effect
- Achieving graft tolerance and stopping immunosuppression
- Decreasing nonrelapse mortality and improving survival
Active trials
Dr. Lee identified 33 trials with chronic GVHD as an indication that are currently recruiting, and an additional 13 trials that are active but closed to recruiting. The trials can be generally grouped by mechanism of action, and involve agents targeting T-regulatory cells, B cells and/or B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling, monocytes/macrophages, costimulatory blockage, a proteasome inhibition, Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitors, ROCK2 inhibitors, hedgehog pathway inhibition, cellular therapy, and organ-targeted therapy.
Most of the trials have overall response rate as the primary endpoint, and all but five are currently in phase 1 or 2. The currently active phase 3 trials include two with ibrutinib, one with the investigational agent itacitinib, one with ruxolitinib, and one with mesenchymal stem cells.
“I’ll note that, when results are reported, the denominator really matters for the overall response rate, especially if you’re talking about small trials, because if you require the patient to be treated with an agent for a certain period of time, and you take out all the people who didn’t make it to that time point, then your overall response rate looks better,” she said.
BTK inhibitors
The first-in-class Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib was the first and thus far only agent approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chronic GVHD. The approval was based on a single-arm, multicenter trial with 42 patients.
The ORR in this trial was 69%, consisting of 31% complete responses and 38% partial responses, with a duration of response longer than 10 months in slightly more than half of all patients. In all, 24% of patients had improvement of symptoms in two consecutive visits, and 29% continued on ibrutinib at the time of the primary analysis in 2017.
Based on these promising results, acalabrutinib, which is more potent and selective for BTK than ibrutinib, with no effect on either platelets or natural killer cells, is currently under investigation in a phase 2 trial in 50 patients at a dose of 100 mg orally twice daily.
JAK1/2 inhibition
The JAK1 inhibitor itacitinib failed to meet its primary ORR endpoint in the phase 3 GRAVITAS-301 study, according to a press release, but the manufacturer (Incyte) said that it is continuing its commitment to JAK inhibitors with ruxolitinib, which has shown activity against acute, steroid-refractory GVHD, and is being explored for prevention of chronic GVHD in the randomized, phase 3 REACH3 study.
The trial met its primary endpoint for a higher ORR at week 24 with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy, at 49.7% versus 25.6%, respectively, which translated into an odds ratio for response with the JAK inhibitor of 2.99 (P < .0001).
Selective T-cell expansion
Efavaleukin alfa is an IL-2-mutated protein (mutein), with a mutation in the IL-2RB-binding portion of IL-2 causing increased selectivity for regulatory T-cell expansion. It is bound to an IgG-Fc domain that is itself mutated, with reduced Fc receptor binding and IgG effector function to give it a longer half life. This agent is being studied in a phase 1/2 trial in a subcutaneous formulation delivered every 1 or 2 weeks to 68 patients.
Monocyte/macrophage depletion
Axatilimab is a high-affinity antibody targeting colony stimulating factor–1 receptor (CSF-1R) expressed on monocytes and macrophages. By blocking CSF-1R, it depletes circulation of nonclassical monocytes and prevents the differentiation and survival of M2 macrophages in tissue.
It is currently being investigated 30 patients in a phase 1/2 study in an intravenous formulation delivered over 30 minutes every 2-4 weeks.
Hedgehog pathway inhibition
There is evidence suggesting that hedgehog pathway inhibition can lessen fibrosis. Glasdegib (Daurismo) a potent selective oral inhibitor of the hedgehog signaling pathway, is approved for use with low-dose cytarabine for patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia aged older than 75 years or have comorbidities precluding intensive chemotherapy.
This agent is associated with drug intolerance because of muscle spasms, dysgeusia, and alopecia, however.
The drug is currently in phase 1/2 at a dose of 50 mg orally per day in 20 patients.
ROCK2 inhibition
Belumosudil (formerly KD025) “appears to rebalance the immune system,” Dr. Lee said. Investigators think that the drug dampens an autoaggressive inflammatory response by selective inhibition of ROCK2.
This drug has been studied in a dose-escalation study and a phase 2 trial, in which 132 participants were randomized to receive belumosudil 200 mg either once or twice daily.
At a median follow-up of 8 months, the ORR with belumosudil 200 mg once and twice daily was 73% and 74%, respectively. Similar results were seen in patients who had previously received either ruxolitinib or ibrutinib. High response rates were seen in patients with severe chronic GVHD, involvement of four or more organs and a refractory response to their last line of therapy.
Hard-to-manage patients
“We’re very hopeful for many of these agents, but we have to acknowledge that there are still many management dilemmas, patients that we just don’t really know what to do with,” Dr. Lee said. “These include patients who have bad sclerosis and fasciitis, nonhealing skin ulcers, bronchiolitis obliterans, serositis that can be very difficult to manage, severe keratoconjunctivitis that can be eyesight threatening, nonhealing mouth ulcers, esophageal structures, and always patients who have frequent infections.
“We are hopeful that some these agents will be useful for our patients who have severe manifestations, but often the number of patients with these manifestations in the trials is too low to say something specific about them,” she added.
‘Exciting time’
“It’s an exciting time because there are a lot of different drugs that are being studied for chronic GVHD,” commented Betty Hamilton, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic.
“I think that where the field is going in terms of treatment is recognizing that chronic GVHD is a pretty heterogeneous disease, and we have to learn even more about the underlying biologic pathways to be able to determine which class of drugs to use and when,” she said in an interview.
She agreed with Dr. Lee that the goals of treating patients with chronic GVHD include improving symptoms and quality, preventing progression, ideally tapering patients off immunosuppression, and achieving a balance between preventing negative consequences of GVHD while maintain the benefits of a graft-versus-leukemia effect.
“In our center, drug choice is based on physician preference and comfort with how often they’ve used the drug, patients’ comorbidities, toxicities of the drug, and logistical considerations,” Dr. Hamilton said.
Dr. Lee disclosed consulting activities for Pfizer and Kadmon, travel and lodging from Amgen, and research funding from those companies and others. Dr. Hamilton disclosed consulting for Syndax and Incyte.
FROM TCT 2021
Prognostic gene signature identifies high- vs. low-risk DLBCL patients
according to the results of a database analysis.
A total of 33 genes formed the signature that could be transformed into a risk score, according to a study by Santosh Khanal, a senior bioinformatics scientist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), and colleagues published in Cancer Genetics.
Their study used gene expression and clinical parameters from the Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project from 233 patients who received R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) therapy to identify genes whose expression was associated with overall survival (OS). They refined the information to develop prognostic gene signature that could be used to calculate risk scores for each individual and predict OS.
Significant separation
The researchers initially found 61 genes individually associated with OS that had a nonadjusted P ≤ .001 using the univariate Cox regression model. The 61 genes were then assessed using multivariate Cox analysis to identify a minimal set of genes that could predict OS, resulting in a minimal set of 33 genes that were used to develop a survival risk score for each individual.
The OS of the high-risk group was significantly reduced, compared with the low-risk group (hazard ratio, 0.046; P < .0001). Upon stratification of individuals by risk score into quartiles, patients in the lowest quartile risk score had a 100% probability of survival, while individuals in the highest quartile had a 9.2% OS by year 5.
In order to validate their results, the researchers calculated risk scores using their prognostic gene set in three additional published DLBCL studies. For all three studies, individuals with low risk score had significantly better OS, “indicating the robustness of the gene signature for multiple external datasets,” according to the researchers.
The top biological pathways and processes that were significantly overrepresented in the 33-gene set were the thioester biosynthetic process (P = .00005), cellular response to hormone stimulus (P = .002), G protein–coupled receptor ligand binding (P = .003), and myeloid cell activation involved in immune responses (P = 0.006).
“As new therapies for lymphoma become available, including new immunotherapies and personalized medicine approaches such as [chimeric antigen receptor] T cells, it will be important to identify candidate individuals that are at high risk and may benefit from experimental therapeutic approaches compared with individuals who will have lower risk of death with current therapies,” the researchers concluded.
The authors reported that they had no competing interests.
according to the results of a database analysis.
A total of 33 genes formed the signature that could be transformed into a risk score, according to a study by Santosh Khanal, a senior bioinformatics scientist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), and colleagues published in Cancer Genetics.
Their study used gene expression and clinical parameters from the Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project from 233 patients who received R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) therapy to identify genes whose expression was associated with overall survival (OS). They refined the information to develop prognostic gene signature that could be used to calculate risk scores for each individual and predict OS.
Significant separation
The researchers initially found 61 genes individually associated with OS that had a nonadjusted P ≤ .001 using the univariate Cox regression model. The 61 genes were then assessed using multivariate Cox analysis to identify a minimal set of genes that could predict OS, resulting in a minimal set of 33 genes that were used to develop a survival risk score for each individual.
The OS of the high-risk group was significantly reduced, compared with the low-risk group (hazard ratio, 0.046; P < .0001). Upon stratification of individuals by risk score into quartiles, patients in the lowest quartile risk score had a 100% probability of survival, while individuals in the highest quartile had a 9.2% OS by year 5.
In order to validate their results, the researchers calculated risk scores using their prognostic gene set in three additional published DLBCL studies. For all three studies, individuals with low risk score had significantly better OS, “indicating the robustness of the gene signature for multiple external datasets,” according to the researchers.
The top biological pathways and processes that were significantly overrepresented in the 33-gene set were the thioester biosynthetic process (P = .00005), cellular response to hormone stimulus (P = .002), G protein–coupled receptor ligand binding (P = .003), and myeloid cell activation involved in immune responses (P = 0.006).
“As new therapies for lymphoma become available, including new immunotherapies and personalized medicine approaches such as [chimeric antigen receptor] T cells, it will be important to identify candidate individuals that are at high risk and may benefit from experimental therapeutic approaches compared with individuals who will have lower risk of death with current therapies,” the researchers concluded.
The authors reported that they had no competing interests.
according to the results of a database analysis.
A total of 33 genes formed the signature that could be transformed into a risk score, according to a study by Santosh Khanal, a senior bioinformatics scientist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), and colleagues published in Cancer Genetics.
Their study used gene expression and clinical parameters from the Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project from 233 patients who received R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) therapy to identify genes whose expression was associated with overall survival (OS). They refined the information to develop prognostic gene signature that could be used to calculate risk scores for each individual and predict OS.
Significant separation
The researchers initially found 61 genes individually associated with OS that had a nonadjusted P ≤ .001 using the univariate Cox regression model. The 61 genes were then assessed using multivariate Cox analysis to identify a minimal set of genes that could predict OS, resulting in a minimal set of 33 genes that were used to develop a survival risk score for each individual.
The OS of the high-risk group was significantly reduced, compared with the low-risk group (hazard ratio, 0.046; P < .0001). Upon stratification of individuals by risk score into quartiles, patients in the lowest quartile risk score had a 100% probability of survival, while individuals in the highest quartile had a 9.2% OS by year 5.
In order to validate their results, the researchers calculated risk scores using their prognostic gene set in three additional published DLBCL studies. For all three studies, individuals with low risk score had significantly better OS, “indicating the robustness of the gene signature for multiple external datasets,” according to the researchers.
The top biological pathways and processes that were significantly overrepresented in the 33-gene set were the thioester biosynthetic process (P = .00005), cellular response to hormone stimulus (P = .002), G protein–coupled receptor ligand binding (P = .003), and myeloid cell activation involved in immune responses (P = 0.006).
“As new therapies for lymphoma become available, including new immunotherapies and personalized medicine approaches such as [chimeric antigen receptor] T cells, it will be important to identify candidate individuals that are at high risk and may benefit from experimental therapeutic approaches compared with individuals who will have lower risk of death with current therapies,” the researchers concluded.
The authors reported that they had no competing interests.
FROM CANCER GENETICS
Don’t fear patients reading their clinical notes: Opinion
Doctors are learning about new rules coming this April that encourage open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians. The rules, putting into effect the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, mandate offering patients access to notes (“open notes”) written by clinicians in electronic medical records.
A recent article from this news organization noted that for many doctors this represents both a sudden and troubling change in practice. For others, the rules codify what they have been doing as a matter of routine for a decade. Spurred by the OpenNotes movement, at least 55 million Americans are already offered access to their clinical notes, including, since 2013, more than 9 million veterans with access to the Blue Button function in Veterans Affairs practices and hospitals.
The practice is spreading beyond the United States to other countries, including Canada, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, and the United Kingdom.
In this commentary, we review what patients, clinicians, and policymakers have been learning about open notes.
The patient experience
What do patients experience? In a survey of more than 22,000 patients who read notes in three diverse health systems, more than 90% reported having a good grasp of what their doctors and other clinicians had written, and very few (3%) reported being very confused by what they read. About two-thirds described reading their notes as very important for taking care of their health, remembering details of their visits and their care plans, and understanding why a medication was prescribed.
Indeed, in a clinically exciting finding, 14% of survey respondents reported that reading their notes made them more likely to take their medications as their doctors wished. With about half of Americans with chronic illness failing to take their medicines as prescribed, which sometimes leads to compromised outcomes and associated unnecessary costs (estimated at $300 billion annually), these reports of increased adherence should be taken very seriously.
Some doctors anticipate that open notes will erode patient communication. A growing body of research reveals just the opposite. In multiple surveys, patients describe open notes as “extending the visit,” strengthening collaboration and teamwork with their doctor. Quite possibly, the invitation to read notes may in itself increase trust. Such benefits appear especially pronounced among patients who are older, less educated, are persons of color or Hispanic, or who do not speak English at home.
And in several studies, more than a third of patients also report sharing their notes with others, with older and chronically ill patients in particular sharing access with family and friends who are their care partners.
On the other hand, a small minority of patients (5%) do report being more worried by what they read. It’s unknown whether this is because they are better informed about their care or because baseline anxiety levels increase. Doctors expect also that some patients, particularly those with cancer or serious mental illness, will be upset by their notes. So far, evidence does not support that specific concern.
Conversely, withholding, delaying, or blocking notes may be a source of anxiety or even stigmatization. When clinicians find themselves worried about sharing notes, we suggest that they discuss with their patients the benefits and risks. Recall also that transparency facilitates freedom of choice; patients make their own decision, and quite a few choose to leave notes unread.
Finding mistakes early and preventing harm are important goals for health care, and open notes can make care safer. Inevitably, medical records contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. In a large patient survey, 21% reported finding an error in their notes, and 42% perceived the error to be serious.
Moreover, 25% of doctors with more than a year’s experience with open notes reported patients finding errors that they (the doctors) considered “serious.” In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine cited open notes as a mechanism for improving diagnostic accuracy. In regard to possible legal action from patients, most attorneys, patients, and doctors agree that more transparent communication will build trust overall and, if anything, diminish litigation. We know of no instances so far of lawsuits deriving from open notes.
The physician experience
Doctors may worry that open notes will impede workflow, that they will be compelled to “dumb down” their documentation to avoid causing offense or anxiety, and that patients will demand changes to what is written. Here, extensive survey research should allay such fears and expectations. In a survey of more than 1,600 clinicians with at least 1 year of experience with open notes, reports of disruption to workflow were uncommon.
Most doctors (84%) reported that patients contacted them with questions about their notes “less than monthly or never.” Approximately two-thirds (62%) reported spending the same amount of time writing visit notes.
After implementing open notes, many doctors do report being more mindful about their documentation. For example, 41% reported changing how they used language such as “patient denies” or “noncompliant,” and 18% reported changing their use of medical jargon or abbreviations. Might these changes undermine the utility of medical notes? A majority of doctors surveyed (78%) said no, reporting that, after implementing open notes, the value of their documentation was the same or better.
Innovations spotlight difficult and often longstanding challenges. Open notes highlight the complex role of medical records in preserving privacy, especially in the spectrum of abuse, whether domestic or involving elders, children or sexual transgressions. For families with adolescents, issues concerning confidentiality can become a two-way street, and federal and state rules at times provide conflicting and idiosyncratic guidance. It is important to emphasize that the new rules permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties.
Perhaps think of open notes as a new medicine designed to help the vast majority of those who use it but with side effects and even contraindications for a few. Doctors can step in to minimize risks to vulnerable individuals, and imaginative and creative solutions to complex issues may emerge. In a growing number of practices serving adolescents, clinicians can now create two notes, with some elements of care visible on a patient portal and others held privately or visible only to the adolescent.
The shared experience
Overall, when it comes to documenting sensitive social information, open notes may act as a useful catalyst prompting deeper discussion about personal details clinically important to record, as opposed to those perhaps best left unwritten.
The implementation of open notes nationwide calls for exciting explorations. How can transparent systems maximize benefits for targeted populations in diverse settings? For patients with mental illness, can notes become part of the therapy? Given that care partners often report more benefit from reading notes than do patients themselves, how can they be mobilized to maximize their contributions to those acutely ill on hospital floors, or to family members with Alzheimer’s or in long-term care facilities?
How can we harness emerging technologies to translate notes and medical records into other languages or support lower literacy levels, while preserving the clinical detail in the notes? Should patients contribute to their own notes, cogenerating them with their clinicians? Experiments for “OurNotes” interventions are underway, and early reports from both patients and doctors hold considerable promise.
Ownership of medical records is evolving. Once firmly held by clinicians, electronic technologies have rapidly led to what may best be viewed currently as joint ownership by clinicians and patients. As apps evolve further and issues with interoperability of records diminish, it is likely that patients will eventually take control. Then it will be up to patients what to carry in their records. Clinicians will advise, but patients will decide.
The new rules herald clear changes in the fabric of care, and after a decade of study we anticipate that the benefits well outweigh the harms. But in the short run, it’s wrong to predict an avalanche. Two decades ago, when patient portals first revealed laboratory test findings to patients, doctors expected cataclysmic change in their practices. It did not occur. The vast majority of patients who registered on portals benefited and few disturbed their doctors.
Similarly, after notes were first unblinded by the OpenNotes research teams, the question we were asked most commonly by the primary care doctors who volunteered was whether the computers were actually displaying their notes. Even though many patients read them carefully, the doctors heard little from them. Clinicians have now reported the same experience in several subsequent studies.
Patients are resourceful, turning quickly to friends or the Internet for answers to their questions. They know how busy doctors are and don’t want to bother them if at all possible. When notes do trigger questions, the time taken to respond is probably offset by silence from other patients finding answers to their own questions in notes they read.
We believe that clinicians should embrace the spirit of the rules and also view them as HIPAA catching up with a computerized universe. As the new practice takes hold, ambiguities will diminish as further experience and research evolve. Warner V. Slack, MD, the first doctor to ask patients to talk to computers, opined that patients are the “largest and least utilized resource in health care.” Open and transparent communication through electronic medical records may mobilize patients (and their families) far more effectively. Patients will almost certainly benefit. Remembering Dr. Slack’s prophecy, we believe that clinicians will too.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors are learning about new rules coming this April that encourage open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians. The rules, putting into effect the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, mandate offering patients access to notes (“open notes”) written by clinicians in electronic medical records.
A recent article from this news organization noted that for many doctors this represents both a sudden and troubling change in practice. For others, the rules codify what they have been doing as a matter of routine for a decade. Spurred by the OpenNotes movement, at least 55 million Americans are already offered access to their clinical notes, including, since 2013, more than 9 million veterans with access to the Blue Button function in Veterans Affairs practices and hospitals.
The practice is spreading beyond the United States to other countries, including Canada, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, and the United Kingdom.
In this commentary, we review what patients, clinicians, and policymakers have been learning about open notes.
The patient experience
What do patients experience? In a survey of more than 22,000 patients who read notes in three diverse health systems, more than 90% reported having a good grasp of what their doctors and other clinicians had written, and very few (3%) reported being very confused by what they read. About two-thirds described reading their notes as very important for taking care of their health, remembering details of their visits and their care plans, and understanding why a medication was prescribed.
Indeed, in a clinically exciting finding, 14% of survey respondents reported that reading their notes made them more likely to take their medications as their doctors wished. With about half of Americans with chronic illness failing to take their medicines as prescribed, which sometimes leads to compromised outcomes and associated unnecessary costs (estimated at $300 billion annually), these reports of increased adherence should be taken very seriously.
Some doctors anticipate that open notes will erode patient communication. A growing body of research reveals just the opposite. In multiple surveys, patients describe open notes as “extending the visit,” strengthening collaboration and teamwork with their doctor. Quite possibly, the invitation to read notes may in itself increase trust. Such benefits appear especially pronounced among patients who are older, less educated, are persons of color or Hispanic, or who do not speak English at home.
And in several studies, more than a third of patients also report sharing their notes with others, with older and chronically ill patients in particular sharing access with family and friends who are their care partners.
On the other hand, a small minority of patients (5%) do report being more worried by what they read. It’s unknown whether this is because they are better informed about their care or because baseline anxiety levels increase. Doctors expect also that some patients, particularly those with cancer or serious mental illness, will be upset by their notes. So far, evidence does not support that specific concern.
Conversely, withholding, delaying, or blocking notes may be a source of anxiety or even stigmatization. When clinicians find themselves worried about sharing notes, we suggest that they discuss with their patients the benefits and risks. Recall also that transparency facilitates freedom of choice; patients make their own decision, and quite a few choose to leave notes unread.
Finding mistakes early and preventing harm are important goals for health care, and open notes can make care safer. Inevitably, medical records contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. In a large patient survey, 21% reported finding an error in their notes, and 42% perceived the error to be serious.
Moreover, 25% of doctors with more than a year’s experience with open notes reported patients finding errors that they (the doctors) considered “serious.” In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine cited open notes as a mechanism for improving diagnostic accuracy. In regard to possible legal action from patients, most attorneys, patients, and doctors agree that more transparent communication will build trust overall and, if anything, diminish litigation. We know of no instances so far of lawsuits deriving from open notes.
The physician experience
Doctors may worry that open notes will impede workflow, that they will be compelled to “dumb down” their documentation to avoid causing offense or anxiety, and that patients will demand changes to what is written. Here, extensive survey research should allay such fears and expectations. In a survey of more than 1,600 clinicians with at least 1 year of experience with open notes, reports of disruption to workflow were uncommon.
Most doctors (84%) reported that patients contacted them with questions about their notes “less than monthly or never.” Approximately two-thirds (62%) reported spending the same amount of time writing visit notes.
After implementing open notes, many doctors do report being more mindful about their documentation. For example, 41% reported changing how they used language such as “patient denies” or “noncompliant,” and 18% reported changing their use of medical jargon or abbreviations. Might these changes undermine the utility of medical notes? A majority of doctors surveyed (78%) said no, reporting that, after implementing open notes, the value of their documentation was the same or better.
Innovations spotlight difficult and often longstanding challenges. Open notes highlight the complex role of medical records in preserving privacy, especially in the spectrum of abuse, whether domestic or involving elders, children or sexual transgressions. For families with adolescents, issues concerning confidentiality can become a two-way street, and federal and state rules at times provide conflicting and idiosyncratic guidance. It is important to emphasize that the new rules permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties.
Perhaps think of open notes as a new medicine designed to help the vast majority of those who use it but with side effects and even contraindications for a few. Doctors can step in to minimize risks to vulnerable individuals, and imaginative and creative solutions to complex issues may emerge. In a growing number of practices serving adolescents, clinicians can now create two notes, with some elements of care visible on a patient portal and others held privately or visible only to the adolescent.
The shared experience
Overall, when it comes to documenting sensitive social information, open notes may act as a useful catalyst prompting deeper discussion about personal details clinically important to record, as opposed to those perhaps best left unwritten.
The implementation of open notes nationwide calls for exciting explorations. How can transparent systems maximize benefits for targeted populations in diverse settings? For patients with mental illness, can notes become part of the therapy? Given that care partners often report more benefit from reading notes than do patients themselves, how can they be mobilized to maximize their contributions to those acutely ill on hospital floors, or to family members with Alzheimer’s or in long-term care facilities?
How can we harness emerging technologies to translate notes and medical records into other languages or support lower literacy levels, while preserving the clinical detail in the notes? Should patients contribute to their own notes, cogenerating them with their clinicians? Experiments for “OurNotes” interventions are underway, and early reports from both patients and doctors hold considerable promise.
Ownership of medical records is evolving. Once firmly held by clinicians, electronic technologies have rapidly led to what may best be viewed currently as joint ownership by clinicians and patients. As apps evolve further and issues with interoperability of records diminish, it is likely that patients will eventually take control. Then it will be up to patients what to carry in their records. Clinicians will advise, but patients will decide.
The new rules herald clear changes in the fabric of care, and after a decade of study we anticipate that the benefits well outweigh the harms. But in the short run, it’s wrong to predict an avalanche. Two decades ago, when patient portals first revealed laboratory test findings to patients, doctors expected cataclysmic change in their practices. It did not occur. The vast majority of patients who registered on portals benefited and few disturbed their doctors.
Similarly, after notes were first unblinded by the OpenNotes research teams, the question we were asked most commonly by the primary care doctors who volunteered was whether the computers were actually displaying their notes. Even though many patients read them carefully, the doctors heard little from them. Clinicians have now reported the same experience in several subsequent studies.
Patients are resourceful, turning quickly to friends or the Internet for answers to their questions. They know how busy doctors are and don’t want to bother them if at all possible. When notes do trigger questions, the time taken to respond is probably offset by silence from other patients finding answers to their own questions in notes they read.
We believe that clinicians should embrace the spirit of the rules and also view them as HIPAA catching up with a computerized universe. As the new practice takes hold, ambiguities will diminish as further experience and research evolve. Warner V. Slack, MD, the first doctor to ask patients to talk to computers, opined that patients are the “largest and least utilized resource in health care.” Open and transparent communication through electronic medical records may mobilize patients (and their families) far more effectively. Patients will almost certainly benefit. Remembering Dr. Slack’s prophecy, we believe that clinicians will too.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors are learning about new rules coming this April that encourage open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians. The rules, putting into effect the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, mandate offering patients access to notes (“open notes”) written by clinicians in electronic medical records.
A recent article from this news organization noted that for many doctors this represents both a sudden and troubling change in practice. For others, the rules codify what they have been doing as a matter of routine for a decade. Spurred by the OpenNotes movement, at least 55 million Americans are already offered access to their clinical notes, including, since 2013, more than 9 million veterans with access to the Blue Button function in Veterans Affairs practices and hospitals.
The practice is spreading beyond the United States to other countries, including Canada, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, and the United Kingdom.
In this commentary, we review what patients, clinicians, and policymakers have been learning about open notes.
The patient experience
What do patients experience? In a survey of more than 22,000 patients who read notes in three diverse health systems, more than 90% reported having a good grasp of what their doctors and other clinicians had written, and very few (3%) reported being very confused by what they read. About two-thirds described reading their notes as very important for taking care of their health, remembering details of their visits and their care plans, and understanding why a medication was prescribed.
Indeed, in a clinically exciting finding, 14% of survey respondents reported that reading their notes made them more likely to take their medications as their doctors wished. With about half of Americans with chronic illness failing to take their medicines as prescribed, which sometimes leads to compromised outcomes and associated unnecessary costs (estimated at $300 billion annually), these reports of increased adherence should be taken very seriously.
Some doctors anticipate that open notes will erode patient communication. A growing body of research reveals just the opposite. In multiple surveys, patients describe open notes as “extending the visit,” strengthening collaboration and teamwork with their doctor. Quite possibly, the invitation to read notes may in itself increase trust. Such benefits appear especially pronounced among patients who are older, less educated, are persons of color or Hispanic, or who do not speak English at home.
And in several studies, more than a third of patients also report sharing their notes with others, with older and chronically ill patients in particular sharing access with family and friends who are their care partners.
On the other hand, a small minority of patients (5%) do report being more worried by what they read. It’s unknown whether this is because they are better informed about their care or because baseline anxiety levels increase. Doctors expect also that some patients, particularly those with cancer or serious mental illness, will be upset by their notes. So far, evidence does not support that specific concern.
Conversely, withholding, delaying, or blocking notes may be a source of anxiety or even stigmatization. When clinicians find themselves worried about sharing notes, we suggest that they discuss with their patients the benefits and risks. Recall also that transparency facilitates freedom of choice; patients make their own decision, and quite a few choose to leave notes unread.
Finding mistakes early and preventing harm are important goals for health care, and open notes can make care safer. Inevitably, medical records contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. In a large patient survey, 21% reported finding an error in their notes, and 42% perceived the error to be serious.
Moreover, 25% of doctors with more than a year’s experience with open notes reported patients finding errors that they (the doctors) considered “serious.” In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine cited open notes as a mechanism for improving diagnostic accuracy. In regard to possible legal action from patients, most attorneys, patients, and doctors agree that more transparent communication will build trust overall and, if anything, diminish litigation. We know of no instances so far of lawsuits deriving from open notes.
The physician experience
Doctors may worry that open notes will impede workflow, that they will be compelled to “dumb down” their documentation to avoid causing offense or anxiety, and that patients will demand changes to what is written. Here, extensive survey research should allay such fears and expectations. In a survey of more than 1,600 clinicians with at least 1 year of experience with open notes, reports of disruption to workflow were uncommon.
Most doctors (84%) reported that patients contacted them with questions about their notes “less than monthly or never.” Approximately two-thirds (62%) reported spending the same amount of time writing visit notes.
After implementing open notes, many doctors do report being more mindful about their documentation. For example, 41% reported changing how they used language such as “patient denies” or “noncompliant,” and 18% reported changing their use of medical jargon or abbreviations. Might these changes undermine the utility of medical notes? A majority of doctors surveyed (78%) said no, reporting that, after implementing open notes, the value of their documentation was the same or better.
Innovations spotlight difficult and often longstanding challenges. Open notes highlight the complex role of medical records in preserving privacy, especially in the spectrum of abuse, whether domestic or involving elders, children or sexual transgressions. For families with adolescents, issues concerning confidentiality can become a two-way street, and federal and state rules at times provide conflicting and idiosyncratic guidance. It is important to emphasize that the new rules permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties.
Perhaps think of open notes as a new medicine designed to help the vast majority of those who use it but with side effects and even contraindications for a few. Doctors can step in to minimize risks to vulnerable individuals, and imaginative and creative solutions to complex issues may emerge. In a growing number of practices serving adolescents, clinicians can now create two notes, with some elements of care visible on a patient portal and others held privately or visible only to the adolescent.
The shared experience
Overall, when it comes to documenting sensitive social information, open notes may act as a useful catalyst prompting deeper discussion about personal details clinically important to record, as opposed to those perhaps best left unwritten.
The implementation of open notes nationwide calls for exciting explorations. How can transparent systems maximize benefits for targeted populations in diverse settings? For patients with mental illness, can notes become part of the therapy? Given that care partners often report more benefit from reading notes than do patients themselves, how can they be mobilized to maximize their contributions to those acutely ill on hospital floors, or to family members with Alzheimer’s or in long-term care facilities?
How can we harness emerging technologies to translate notes and medical records into other languages or support lower literacy levels, while preserving the clinical detail in the notes? Should patients contribute to their own notes, cogenerating them with their clinicians? Experiments for “OurNotes” interventions are underway, and early reports from both patients and doctors hold considerable promise.
Ownership of medical records is evolving. Once firmly held by clinicians, electronic technologies have rapidly led to what may best be viewed currently as joint ownership by clinicians and patients. As apps evolve further and issues with interoperability of records diminish, it is likely that patients will eventually take control. Then it will be up to patients what to carry in their records. Clinicians will advise, but patients will decide.
The new rules herald clear changes in the fabric of care, and after a decade of study we anticipate that the benefits well outweigh the harms. But in the short run, it’s wrong to predict an avalanche. Two decades ago, when patient portals first revealed laboratory test findings to patients, doctors expected cataclysmic change in their practices. It did not occur. The vast majority of patients who registered on portals benefited and few disturbed their doctors.
Similarly, after notes were first unblinded by the OpenNotes research teams, the question we were asked most commonly by the primary care doctors who volunteered was whether the computers were actually displaying their notes. Even though many patients read them carefully, the doctors heard little from them. Clinicians have now reported the same experience in several subsequent studies.
Patients are resourceful, turning quickly to friends or the Internet for answers to their questions. They know how busy doctors are and don’t want to bother them if at all possible. When notes do trigger questions, the time taken to respond is probably offset by silence from other patients finding answers to their own questions in notes they read.
We believe that clinicians should embrace the spirit of the rules and also view them as HIPAA catching up with a computerized universe. As the new practice takes hold, ambiguities will diminish as further experience and research evolve. Warner V. Slack, MD, the first doctor to ask patients to talk to computers, opined that patients are the “largest and least utilized resource in health care.” Open and transparent communication through electronic medical records may mobilize patients (and their families) far more effectively. Patients will almost certainly benefit. Remembering Dr. Slack’s prophecy, we believe that clinicians will too.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.