Hematology News

The COVID-19 pandemic has meant delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment — and a new study shows just how deadly delaying cancer treatment can be.

The study found evidence that longer time to starting treatment after diagnosis was generally associated with higher mortality across several common cancers, most notably for colon and early-stage lung cancer.

“There is a limit to how long we can safely defer treatment for cancer therapies, pandemic or not, which may be shorter than we think,” lead author Eugene Cone, MD, Combined Harvard Program in Urologic Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

“When you consider that cancer screening may have been delayed during the pandemic, which would further increase the period between developing a disease and getting therapy, timely treatment for cancer has never been more important,” Cone added.

The study was published online December 14 in JAMA Network Open.
 

The sooner the better

Using the National Cancer Database, Cone and colleagues identified roughly 2.24 million patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast (52%), prostate (38%), colon (4%) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, 6%) between 2004 and 2015. Treatment and outcome data were analyzed from January to March 2020.

The time-to-treatment initiation (TTI) – the interval between cancer diagnosis and receipt of curative-intent therapy – was categorized as 8 to 60 days (reference), 61 to 120 days, 121 to 180 days, and 181 to 365 days. Median TTI was 32 days for breast, 79 days for prostate, 41 days for NSCLC, and 26 days for colon cancer.

All four cancers benefitted to some degree from a short interval between diagnosis and therapy, the researchers found.

Across all four cancers, increasing TTI was generally associated with higher predicted mortality at 5 and 10 years, although the degree varied by cancer type and stage. The most pronounced association between increasing TTI and mortality was observed for colon and lung cancer.

For example, for stage III colon cancer, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 38.9% and 54%, respectively, with TTI of 61 to 120 days, and increased to 47.8% and 63.8%, respectively, with TTI of 181 to 365 days.

Each additional 60-day delay was associated with a 3.2% to 6% increase in 5-year mortality for stage III colon cancer and a 0.9% to 4.6% increase for stage I colon cancer, with a longer 10-year time horizon showing larger effect sizes with increasing TTI.

For stage I NSCLC, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 47.4% and 72.6%, respectively, with TTI of 61 to 120 days compared with 47.6% and 72.8%, respectively, with TTI of 181 to 365 days.  

For stage I NSCLC, there was a 4% to 6.2% absolute increase in 5-year mortality for increased TTI groups compared with the 8- to 60-day reference group, with larger effect sizes on 10-year mortality. The data precluded conclusions about stage II NSCLC.

“For prostate cancer, deferral of treatment by even a few months was associated with a significant impact on mortality,” Cone told Medscape Medical News.

For high-risk prostate cancer, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 12.8% and 31.2%, respectively, with TTI of 61-120 days increasing to 14.1% and 33.8%, respectively with TTI at 181-365 days.

For intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 7.4% and 20.4% with TTI of 61-120 days vs 8.3% and 22.6% with TTI at 181-365 days.

The data show all-cause mortality differences of 2.2% at 5 years and 4.6% at 10 years between high-risk prostate cancer patients who were treated expeditiously vs those waiting 4 to 6 months and differences of 0.9% at 5 years and 2.4% at 10 years for similar intermediate-risk patients.
 

No surprises

Turning to breast cancer, increased TTI was associated with the most negative survival effects for stage II and III breast cancer.

For stage II breast cancer, for example, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 17.7% and 30.5%, respectively, with TTI of 61-120 days vs 21.7% and 36.5% with TTI at 181-365 days. 

Even for stage I breast cancer patients, there were significant differences in all-cause mortality with delayed definitive therapy, although the effect size is clinically small, the researchers report.

Patients with stage IA or IB breast cancer who were not treated until 61 to 120 days after diagnosis had 1.3% and 2.3% increased mortality at 5 years and 10 years, respectively, and those waiting longer suffered even greater increases in mortality. “As such, our analysis underscores the importance of timely definitive treatment, even for stage I breast cancer,” the authors write.

Charles Shapiro, MD, director of translational breast cancer research for the Mount Sinai Health System, New York City, was not surprised by the data.

The observation that delays in initiating cancer treatment are associated with worse survival is “not new, as delays in primary surgical treatments and chemotherapy for early-stage disease is an adverse prognostic factor for clinical outcomes,” Shapiro told Medscape Medical News.

“The bottom line is primary surgery and the start of chemotherapy should probably occur as soon as clinically feasible,” said Shapiro, who was not involved in the study.

The authors of an accompanying editorial agree. 

This study supports avoiding unnecessary treatment delays and prioritizing timely cancer care, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, write Laura Van Metre Baum, MD, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues.

They note, however, that primary care, “the most important conduit for cancer screening and initial evaluation of new symptoms, has been the hardest hit economically and the most subject to profound disruption and restructuring during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

“In many centers, cancer care delivery has been disrupted and nonstandard therapies offered in an effort to minimize exposure of this high-risk group to the virus. The implications in appropriately balancing the urgency of cancer care and the threat of COVID-19 exposure in the pandemic are more complex,” the editorialists conclude.

Cone, Shapiro, and Van Metre Baum have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This work won first prize in the Commission on Cancer 2020 Cancer Research Paper Competition and was virtually presented at the Commission on Cancer Plenary Session on October 30, 2020.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has meant delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment — and a new study shows just how deadly delaying cancer treatment can be.

The study found evidence that longer time to starting treatment after diagnosis was generally associated with higher mortality across several common cancers, most notably for colon and early-stage lung cancer.

“There is a limit to how long we can safely defer treatment for cancer therapies, pandemic or not, which may be shorter than we think,” lead author Eugene Cone, MD, Combined Harvard Program in Urologic Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

“When you consider that cancer screening may have been delayed during the pandemic, which would further increase the period between developing a disease and getting therapy, timely treatment for cancer has never been more important,” Cone added.

The study was published online December 14 in JAMA Network Open.
 

The sooner the better

Using the National Cancer Database, Cone and colleagues identified roughly 2.24 million patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast (52%), prostate (38%), colon (4%) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, 6%) between 2004 and 2015. Treatment and outcome data were analyzed from January to March 2020.

The time-to-treatment initiation (TTI) – the interval between cancer diagnosis and receipt of curative-intent therapy – was categorized as 8 to 60 days (reference), 61 to 120 days, 121 to 180 days, and 181 to 365 days. Median TTI was 32 days for breast, 79 days for prostate, 41 days for NSCLC, and 26 days for colon cancer.

All four cancers benefitted to some degree from a short interval between diagnosis and therapy, the researchers found.

Across all four cancers, increasing TTI was generally associated with higher predicted mortality at 5 and 10 years, although the degree varied by cancer type and stage. The most pronounced association between increasing TTI and mortality was observed for colon and lung cancer.

For example, for stage III colon cancer, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 38.9% and 54%, respectively, with TTI of 61 to 120 days, and increased to 47.8% and 63.8%, respectively, with TTI of 181 to 365 days.

Each additional 60-day delay was associated with a 3.2% to 6% increase in 5-year mortality for stage III colon cancer and a 0.9% to 4.6% increase for stage I colon cancer, with a longer 10-year time horizon showing larger effect sizes with increasing TTI.

For stage I NSCLC, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 47.4% and 72.6%, respectively, with TTI of 61 to 120 days compared with 47.6% and 72.8%, respectively, with TTI of 181 to 365 days.  

For stage I NSCLC, there was a 4% to 6.2% absolute increase in 5-year mortality for increased TTI groups compared with the 8- to 60-day reference group, with larger effect sizes on 10-year mortality. The data precluded conclusions about stage II NSCLC.

“For prostate cancer, deferral of treatment by even a few months was associated with a significant impact on mortality,” Cone told Medscape Medical News.

For high-risk prostate cancer, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 12.8% and 31.2%, respectively, with TTI of 61-120 days increasing to 14.1% and 33.8%, respectively with TTI at 181-365 days.

For intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 7.4% and 20.4% with TTI of 61-120 days vs 8.3% and 22.6% with TTI at 181-365 days.

The data show all-cause mortality differences of 2.2% at 5 years and 4.6% at 10 years between high-risk prostate cancer patients who were treated expeditiously vs those waiting 4 to 6 months and differences of 0.9% at 5 years and 2.4% at 10 years for similar intermediate-risk patients.
 

No surprises

Turning to breast cancer, increased TTI was associated with the most negative survival effects for stage II and III breast cancer.

For stage II breast cancer, for example, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 17.7% and 30.5%, respectively, with TTI of 61-120 days vs 21.7% and 36.5% with TTI at 181-365 days. 

Even for stage I breast cancer patients, there were significant differences in all-cause mortality with delayed definitive therapy, although the effect size is clinically small, the researchers report.

Patients with stage IA or IB breast cancer who were not treated until 61 to 120 days after diagnosis had 1.3% and 2.3% increased mortality at 5 years and 10 years, respectively, and those waiting longer suffered even greater increases in mortality. “As such, our analysis underscores the importance of timely definitive treatment, even for stage I breast cancer,” the authors write.

Charles Shapiro, MD, director of translational breast cancer research for the Mount Sinai Health System, New York City, was not surprised by the data.

The observation that delays in initiating cancer treatment are associated with worse survival is “not new, as delays in primary surgical treatments and chemotherapy for early-stage disease is an adverse prognostic factor for clinical outcomes,” Shapiro told Medscape Medical News.

“The bottom line is primary surgery and the start of chemotherapy should probably occur as soon as clinically feasible,” said Shapiro, who was not involved in the study.

The authors of an accompanying editorial agree. 

This study supports avoiding unnecessary treatment delays and prioritizing timely cancer care, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, write Laura Van Metre Baum, MD, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues.

They note, however, that primary care, “the most important conduit for cancer screening and initial evaluation of new symptoms, has been the hardest hit economically and the most subject to profound disruption and restructuring during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

“In many centers, cancer care delivery has been disrupted and nonstandard therapies offered in an effort to minimize exposure of this high-risk group to the virus. The implications in appropriately balancing the urgency of cancer care and the threat of COVID-19 exposure in the pandemic are more complex,” the editorialists conclude.

Cone, Shapiro, and Van Metre Baum have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This work won first prize in the Commission on Cancer 2020 Cancer Research Paper Competition and was virtually presented at the Commission on Cancer Plenary Session on October 30, 2020.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has meant delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment — and a new study shows just how deadly delaying cancer treatment can be.

The study found evidence that longer time to starting treatment after diagnosis was generally associated with higher mortality across several common cancers, most notably for colon and early-stage lung cancer.

“There is a limit to how long we can safely defer treatment for cancer therapies, pandemic or not, which may be shorter than we think,” lead author Eugene Cone, MD, Combined Harvard Program in Urologic Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

“When you consider that cancer screening may have been delayed during the pandemic, which would further increase the period between developing a disease and getting therapy, timely treatment for cancer has never been more important,” Cone added.

The study was published online December 14 in JAMA Network Open.
 

The sooner the better

Using the National Cancer Database, Cone and colleagues identified roughly 2.24 million patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast (52%), prostate (38%), colon (4%) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, 6%) between 2004 and 2015. Treatment and outcome data were analyzed from January to March 2020.

The time-to-treatment initiation (TTI) – the interval between cancer diagnosis and receipt of curative-intent therapy – was categorized as 8 to 60 days (reference), 61 to 120 days, 121 to 180 days, and 181 to 365 days. Median TTI was 32 days for breast, 79 days for prostate, 41 days for NSCLC, and 26 days for colon cancer.

All four cancers benefitted to some degree from a short interval between diagnosis and therapy, the researchers found.

Across all four cancers, increasing TTI was generally associated with higher predicted mortality at 5 and 10 years, although the degree varied by cancer type and stage. The most pronounced association between increasing TTI and mortality was observed for colon and lung cancer.

For example, for stage III colon cancer, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 38.9% and 54%, respectively, with TTI of 61 to 120 days, and increased to 47.8% and 63.8%, respectively, with TTI of 181 to 365 days.

Each additional 60-day delay was associated with a 3.2% to 6% increase in 5-year mortality for stage III colon cancer and a 0.9% to 4.6% increase for stage I colon cancer, with a longer 10-year time horizon showing larger effect sizes with increasing TTI.

For stage I NSCLC, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 47.4% and 72.6%, respectively, with TTI of 61 to 120 days compared with 47.6% and 72.8%, respectively, with TTI of 181 to 365 days.  

For stage I NSCLC, there was a 4% to 6.2% absolute increase in 5-year mortality for increased TTI groups compared with the 8- to 60-day reference group, with larger effect sizes on 10-year mortality. The data precluded conclusions about stage II NSCLC.

“For prostate cancer, deferral of treatment by even a few months was associated with a significant impact on mortality,” Cone told Medscape Medical News.

For high-risk prostate cancer, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 12.8% and 31.2%, respectively, with TTI of 61-120 days increasing to 14.1% and 33.8%, respectively with TTI at 181-365 days.

For intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 7.4% and 20.4% with TTI of 61-120 days vs 8.3% and 22.6% with TTI at 181-365 days.

The data show all-cause mortality differences of 2.2% at 5 years and 4.6% at 10 years between high-risk prostate cancer patients who were treated expeditiously vs those waiting 4 to 6 months and differences of 0.9% at 5 years and 2.4% at 10 years for similar intermediate-risk patients.
 

No surprises

Turning to breast cancer, increased TTI was associated with the most negative survival effects for stage II and III breast cancer.

For stage II breast cancer, for example, 5- and 10-year predicted mortality was 17.7% and 30.5%, respectively, with TTI of 61-120 days vs 21.7% and 36.5% with TTI at 181-365 days. 

Even for stage I breast cancer patients, there were significant differences in all-cause mortality with delayed definitive therapy, although the effect size is clinically small, the researchers report.

Patients with stage IA or IB breast cancer who were not treated until 61 to 120 days after diagnosis had 1.3% and 2.3% increased mortality at 5 years and 10 years, respectively, and those waiting longer suffered even greater increases in mortality. “As such, our analysis underscores the importance of timely definitive treatment, even for stage I breast cancer,” the authors write.

Charles Shapiro, MD, director of translational breast cancer research for the Mount Sinai Health System, New York City, was not surprised by the data.

The observation that delays in initiating cancer treatment are associated with worse survival is “not new, as delays in primary surgical treatments and chemotherapy for early-stage disease is an adverse prognostic factor for clinical outcomes,” Shapiro told Medscape Medical News.

“The bottom line is primary surgery and the start of chemotherapy should probably occur as soon as clinically feasible,” said Shapiro, who was not involved in the study.

The authors of an accompanying editorial agree. 

This study supports avoiding unnecessary treatment delays and prioritizing timely cancer care, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, write Laura Van Metre Baum, MD, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues.

They note, however, that primary care, “the most important conduit for cancer screening and initial evaluation of new symptoms, has been the hardest hit economically and the most subject to profound disruption and restructuring during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

“In many centers, cancer care delivery has been disrupted and nonstandard therapies offered in an effort to minimize exposure of this high-risk group to the virus. The implications in appropriately balancing the urgency of cancer care and the threat of COVID-19 exposure in the pandemic are more complex,” the editorialists conclude.

Cone, Shapiro, and Van Metre Baum have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This work won first prize in the Commission on Cancer 2020 Cancer Research Paper Competition and was virtually presented at the Commission on Cancer Plenary Session on October 30, 2020.

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

Everywhere they look within hospitals, researchers find RNA from SARS-CoV-2 in the air. But viable viruses typically are found only close to patients, according to a review of published studies.

The finding supports recommendations to use surgical masks in most parts of the hospital, reserving respirators (such as N95 or FFP2) for aerosol-generating procedures on patients’ respiratory tracts, said Gabriel Birgand, PhD, an infectious disease researcher at Imperial College London.

“When the virus is spreading a lot in the community, it’s probably more likely for you to be contaminated in your friends’ areas or in your building than in your work area, where you are well equipped and compliant with all the measures,” he said in an interview. “So it’s pretty good news.”

The systematic review by Dr. Birgand and colleagues was published in JAMA Network Open.

Recommended precautions to protect health care workers from SARS-CoV-2 infections remain controversial. Most authorities believe droplets are the primary route of transmission, which would mean surgical masks may be sufficient protection. But some research has suggested transmission by aerosols as well, making N95 respirators seem necessary. There is even disagreement about the definitions of the words “aerosol” and “droplet.”

To better understand where traces of the virus can be found in the air in hospitals, Dr. Birgand and colleagues analyzed all the studies they could find on the subject in English.

They identified 24 articles with original data. All of the studies used reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to identify SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In five studies, attempts were also made to culture viable viruses. Three studies assessed the particle size relative to RNA concentration or viral titer.

Of 893 air samples across the 24 studies, 52.7% were taken from areas close to patients, 26.5% were taken in clinical areas, 13.7% in staff areas, 4.7% in public areas, and 2.4% in toilets or bathrooms.

Among those studies that quantified RNA, the median interquartile range of concentrations varied from 1.0 x 103 copies/m3 in clinical areas to 9.7 x 10³ copies/m³ in toilets or bathrooms.

One study found an RNA concentration of 2.0 x 10³ copies for particle sizes >4 mcm and 1.3 x 103 copies/m³ for particle sizes ≤4 mcm, both in patients’ rooms.

Three studies included viral cultures; of those, two resulted in positive cultures, both in a non-ICU setting. In one study, 3 of 39 samples were positive, and in the other, 4 of 4 were positive. Viral cultures in toilets, clinical areas, staff areas, and public areas were negative.

One of these studies assessed viral concentration and found that the median interquartile range was 4.8 tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50)/m³ for particles <1 mcm, 4.27 TCID50/m³ for particles 1-4 mcm, and 1.82 TCID50/m³ for particles >4 mcm.

Although viable viruses weren’t found in staff areas, the presence of viral RNA in places such as dining rooms and meeting rooms raises a concern, Dr. Birgand said.

“All of these staff areas are probably playing an important role in contamination,” he said. “It’s pretty easy to see when you are dining, you are not wearing a face mask, and it’s associated with a strong risk when there is a strong dissemination of the virus in the community.”

Studies on contact tracing among health care workers have also identified meeting rooms and dining rooms as the second most common source of infection after community contact, he said.

In general, the findings of the review correspond to epidemiologic studies, said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist with the Georgetown University Center for Global Health Science and Security, Washington, who was not involved in the review. “Absent aerosol-generating procedures, health care workers are largely not getting infected when they take droplet precautions.”

One reason may be that patients shed the most infectious viruses a couple of days before and after symptoms begin. By the time they’re hospitalized, they’re less likely to be contagious but may continue to shed viral RNA.

“We don’t really know the basis for the persistence of RNA being produced long after people have been infected and have recovered from the acute infection,” she said, “but it has been observed quite frequently.”

Although the virus cannot remain viable for very long in the air, remnants may still be detected in the form of RNA, Dr. Rasmussen said. In addition, hospitals often do a good job of ventilation.

She pointed out that it can be difficult to cultivate viruses in air samples because of contaminants such as bacteria and fungi. “That’s one of the limitations of a study like this. You’re not really sure if it’s because there’s no viable virus there or because you just aren’t able to collect samples that would allow you to determine that.”

Dr. Birgand and colleagues acknowledged other limitations. The studies they reviewed used different approaches to sampling. Different procedures may have been underway in the rooms being sampled, and factors such as temperature and humidity could have affected the results. In addition, the studies used different cycle thresholds for PCR positivity.

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

Everywhere they look within hospitals, researchers find RNA from SARS-CoV-2 in the air. But viable viruses typically are found only close to patients, according to a review of published studies.

The finding supports recommendations to use surgical masks in most parts of the hospital, reserving respirators (such as N95 or FFP2) for aerosol-generating procedures on patients’ respiratory tracts, said Gabriel Birgand, PhD, an infectious disease researcher at Imperial College London.

“When the virus is spreading a lot in the community, it’s probably more likely for you to be contaminated in your friends’ areas or in your building than in your work area, where you are well equipped and compliant with all the measures,” he said in an interview. “So it’s pretty good news.”

The systematic review by Dr. Birgand and colleagues was published in JAMA Network Open.

Recommended precautions to protect health care workers from SARS-CoV-2 infections remain controversial. Most authorities believe droplets are the primary route of transmission, which would mean surgical masks may be sufficient protection. But some research has suggested transmission by aerosols as well, making N95 respirators seem necessary. There is even disagreement about the definitions of the words “aerosol” and “droplet.”

To better understand where traces of the virus can be found in the air in hospitals, Dr. Birgand and colleagues analyzed all the studies they could find on the subject in English.

They identified 24 articles with original data. All of the studies used reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to identify SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In five studies, attempts were also made to culture viable viruses. Three studies assessed the particle size relative to RNA concentration or viral titer.

Of 893 air samples across the 24 studies, 52.7% were taken from areas close to patients, 26.5% were taken in clinical areas, 13.7% in staff areas, 4.7% in public areas, and 2.4% in toilets or bathrooms.

Among those studies that quantified RNA, the median interquartile range of concentrations varied from 1.0 x 103 copies/m3 in clinical areas to 9.7 x 10³ copies/m³ in toilets or bathrooms.

One study found an RNA concentration of 2.0 x 10³ copies for particle sizes >4 mcm and 1.3 x 103 copies/m³ for particle sizes ≤4 mcm, both in patients’ rooms.

Three studies included viral cultures; of those, two resulted in positive cultures, both in a non-ICU setting. In one study, 3 of 39 samples were positive, and in the other, 4 of 4 were positive. Viral cultures in toilets, clinical areas, staff areas, and public areas were negative.

One of these studies assessed viral concentration and found that the median interquartile range was 4.8 tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50)/m³ for particles <1 mcm, 4.27 TCID50/m³ for particles 1-4 mcm, and 1.82 TCID50/m³ for particles >4 mcm.

Although viable viruses weren’t found in staff areas, the presence of viral RNA in places such as dining rooms and meeting rooms raises a concern, Dr. Birgand said.

“All of these staff areas are probably playing an important role in contamination,” he said. “It’s pretty easy to see when you are dining, you are not wearing a face mask, and it’s associated with a strong risk when there is a strong dissemination of the virus in the community.”

Studies on contact tracing among health care workers have also identified meeting rooms and dining rooms as the second most common source of infection after community contact, he said.

In general, the findings of the review correspond to epidemiologic studies, said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist with the Georgetown University Center for Global Health Science and Security, Washington, who was not involved in the review. “Absent aerosol-generating procedures, health care workers are largely not getting infected when they take droplet precautions.”

One reason may be that patients shed the most infectious viruses a couple of days before and after symptoms begin. By the time they’re hospitalized, they’re less likely to be contagious but may continue to shed viral RNA.

“We don’t really know the basis for the persistence of RNA being produced long after people have been infected and have recovered from the acute infection,” she said, “but it has been observed quite frequently.”

Although the virus cannot remain viable for very long in the air, remnants may still be detected in the form of RNA, Dr. Rasmussen said. In addition, hospitals often do a good job of ventilation.

She pointed out that it can be difficult to cultivate viruses in air samples because of contaminants such as bacteria and fungi. “That’s one of the limitations of a study like this. You’re not really sure if it’s because there’s no viable virus there or because you just aren’t able to collect samples that would allow you to determine that.”

Dr. Birgand and colleagues acknowledged other limitations. The studies they reviewed used different approaches to sampling. Different procedures may have been underway in the rooms being sampled, and factors such as temperature and humidity could have affected the results. In addition, the studies used different cycle thresholds for PCR positivity.

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

Everywhere they look within hospitals, researchers find RNA from SARS-CoV-2 in the air. But viable viruses typically are found only close to patients, according to a review of published studies.

The finding supports recommendations to use surgical masks in most parts of the hospital, reserving respirators (such as N95 or FFP2) for aerosol-generating procedures on patients’ respiratory tracts, said Gabriel Birgand, PhD, an infectious disease researcher at Imperial College London.

“When the virus is spreading a lot in the community, it’s probably more likely for you to be contaminated in your friends’ areas or in your building than in your work area, where you are well equipped and compliant with all the measures,” he said in an interview. “So it’s pretty good news.”

The systematic review by Dr. Birgand and colleagues was published in JAMA Network Open.

Recommended precautions to protect health care workers from SARS-CoV-2 infections remain controversial. Most authorities believe droplets are the primary route of transmission, which would mean surgical masks may be sufficient protection. But some research has suggested transmission by aerosols as well, making N95 respirators seem necessary. There is even disagreement about the definitions of the words “aerosol” and “droplet.”

To better understand where traces of the virus can be found in the air in hospitals, Dr. Birgand and colleagues analyzed all the studies they could find on the subject in English.

They identified 24 articles with original data. All of the studies used reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to identify SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In five studies, attempts were also made to culture viable viruses. Three studies assessed the particle size relative to RNA concentration or viral titer.

Of 893 air samples across the 24 studies, 52.7% were taken from areas close to patients, 26.5% were taken in clinical areas, 13.7% in staff areas, 4.7% in public areas, and 2.4% in toilets or bathrooms.

Among those studies that quantified RNA, the median interquartile range of concentrations varied from 1.0 x 103 copies/m3 in clinical areas to 9.7 x 10³ copies/m³ in toilets or bathrooms.

One study found an RNA concentration of 2.0 x 10³ copies for particle sizes >4 mcm and 1.3 x 103 copies/m³ for particle sizes ≤4 mcm, both in patients’ rooms.

Three studies included viral cultures; of those, two resulted in positive cultures, both in a non-ICU setting. In one study, 3 of 39 samples were positive, and in the other, 4 of 4 were positive. Viral cultures in toilets, clinical areas, staff areas, and public areas were negative.

One of these studies assessed viral concentration and found that the median interquartile range was 4.8 tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50)/m³ for particles <1 mcm, 4.27 TCID50/m³ for particles 1-4 mcm, and 1.82 TCID50/m³ for particles >4 mcm.

Although viable viruses weren’t found in staff areas, the presence of viral RNA in places such as dining rooms and meeting rooms raises a concern, Dr. Birgand said.

“All of these staff areas are probably playing an important role in contamination,” he said. “It’s pretty easy to see when you are dining, you are not wearing a face mask, and it’s associated with a strong risk when there is a strong dissemination of the virus in the community.”

Studies on contact tracing among health care workers have also identified meeting rooms and dining rooms as the second most common source of infection after community contact, he said.

In general, the findings of the review correspond to epidemiologic studies, said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist with the Georgetown University Center for Global Health Science and Security, Washington, who was not involved in the review. “Absent aerosol-generating procedures, health care workers are largely not getting infected when they take droplet precautions.”

One reason may be that patients shed the most infectious viruses a couple of days before and after symptoms begin. By the time they’re hospitalized, they’re less likely to be contagious but may continue to shed viral RNA.

“We don’t really know the basis for the persistence of RNA being produced long after people have been infected and have recovered from the acute infection,” she said, “but it has been observed quite frequently.”

Although the virus cannot remain viable for very long in the air, remnants may still be detected in the form of RNA, Dr. Rasmussen said. In addition, hospitals often do a good job of ventilation.

She pointed out that it can be difficult to cultivate viruses in air samples because of contaminants such as bacteria and fungi. “That’s one of the limitations of a study like this. You’re not really sure if it’s because there’s no viable virus there or because you just aren’t able to collect samples that would allow you to determine that.”

Dr. Birgand and colleagues acknowledged other limitations. The studies they reviewed used different approaches to sampling. Different procedures may have been underway in the rooms being sampled, and factors such as temperature and humidity could have affected the results. In addition, the studies used different cycle thresholds for PCR positivity.

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

A physician assistant participating in a virtual workshop began to cry, confessing that she felt overwhelmed with guilt because New Yorkers were hailing her as a frontline hero in the pandemic. That was when Joe Ciavarro knew he was in the right place.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

“She was saying all the things I could not verbalize because I, too, didn’t feel like I deserved all this praise and thousands of people cheering for us every evening when people were losing jobs, didn’t have money for food, and their loved ones were dying without family at their side,” says Mr. Ciavarro, a PA at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

Mr. Ciavarro, who also manages 170 other PAs on two of Mount Sinai’s campuses in Manhattan, has been on the front lines since COVID-19 first hit; he lost a colleague and friend to suicide in September.

The mental anguish from his job prompted him to sign up for the resilience workshop offered by Mount Sinai’s Center for Stress, Resilience, and Personal Growth. The center – the first of its kind in North America – was launched in June to help health care workers like him cope with the intense psychological pressures they were facing. The weekly workshops became a safe place where Mr. Ciavarro and other staff members could share their darkest fears and learn ways to help them deal with their situation.

“It’s been grueling but we learned how to take care of ourselves so we can take care of our patients,” said Mr. Ciavarro. “This has become like a guided group therapy session on ways to manage and develop resilience. And I feel like my emotions are validated, knowing that others feel the same way.”
 

Caring for their own

Medical professionals treating patients with COVID-19 are in similar predicaments, and the psychological fallout is enormous: They’re exhausted by the seemingly never-ending patient load and staffing shortages, and haunted by fears for their own safety and that of their families. Studies in China, Canada, and Italy have revealed that a significant number of doctors and nurses in the early days of the pandemic experienced high levels of distress, depression, anxiety, nightmares, and insomnia.

Trauma experts at Mount Sinai believe that, globally, up to 40% of first responders and health care workers – tens of thousands of people – will suffer from PTSD after witnessing the deaths of so many patients who were alone, without family.

How to protect in midst of trauma

In formulating the program’s platform, Mount Sinai experts drew upon their extensive experience aiding 9/11 responders at the World Trade Center (WTC), as well as their system-wide wellness program that aids demoralized and burned-out physicians. While the reach of the pandemic is much broader than 9/11, experts see some commonalities in conditions that emerge after traumatic events, and they also discovered what can help.

“We learned from our WTC experience about what are protective factors – what are the social supports that buffer against depression, anxiety, and PTSD,” said Jonathan DePierro, PhD, clinical director of CSRPG and a psychologist at the Mount Sinai WTC Mental Health Program. “We also learned that people who have more prolonged exposures are at greater risk of developing mental health difficulties.”

The program itself reflects these lessons – and that’s why it’s open to all employees, not just medical professionals. Housekeepers, security staffers, even construction workers are also dealing with their lives being in danger. “That wasn’t in their job description,” said Dr. DePierro. “These people tend to have fewer social and economic resources, make less money and have fewer structural supports, which makes them even more vulnerable.”

Dr. Charney’s strategies on building resilience became a bible of sorts for the workshops, according to Dr. Katz, who authored the training curriculum. Sessions deal with how to build up reservoirs of realistic optimism, keep gratitude journals, find spiritual meaning in their lives, maintain physical wellness and create networks of social support. The workshops are meant to help participants create action plans, to reach out for support in their social networks, and keep the focus on the positives.

The goal is to give demoralized health care workers a renewed sense of competence. “The resilience workshop is a launching point to get people to show up and talk,” said Dr. Katz. “And if we do that, we’ve accomplished a lot just getting people in the door.”

The center will also have a research component to identify what works and what doesn’t so their platform can provide a template for other institutions; Dr. Marin said they’ve gotten inquiries about the program from major hospital systems in Michigan and California. They’ll also conduct longitudinal research to determine what lingering problems persist among healthcare workers over time.

Since the center opened its virtual doors, the curriculum has also been altered in response to feedback from the support staff, many of whom live in the community that surrounds Mount Sinai in northern Manhattan, which is largely lower-income Latinx and Black individuals. Workshop materials have been translated into Spanish and now feature people who reflect a more diverse set of experiences.

“Many of our employees and the population we serve identify as non-White so we’ve been doing outreach with a lot of the local unions,” said Dr. Marin. “Our next step is to take what we’re doing and work with local community organizations.”

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

A physician assistant participating in a virtual workshop began to cry, confessing that she felt overwhelmed with guilt because New Yorkers were hailing her as a frontline hero in the pandemic. That was when Joe Ciavarro knew he was in the right place.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

“She was saying all the things I could not verbalize because I, too, didn’t feel like I deserved all this praise and thousands of people cheering for us every evening when people were losing jobs, didn’t have money for food, and their loved ones were dying without family at their side,” says Mr. Ciavarro, a PA at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

Mr. Ciavarro, who also manages 170 other PAs on two of Mount Sinai’s campuses in Manhattan, has been on the front lines since COVID-19 first hit; he lost a colleague and friend to suicide in September.

The mental anguish from his job prompted him to sign up for the resilience workshop offered by Mount Sinai’s Center for Stress, Resilience, and Personal Growth. The center – the first of its kind in North America – was launched in June to help health care workers like him cope with the intense psychological pressures they were facing. The weekly workshops became a safe place where Mr. Ciavarro and other staff members could share their darkest fears and learn ways to help them deal with their situation.

“It’s been grueling but we learned how to take care of ourselves so we can take care of our patients,” said Mr. Ciavarro. “This has become like a guided group therapy session on ways to manage and develop resilience. And I feel like my emotions are validated, knowing that others feel the same way.”
 

Caring for their own

Medical professionals treating patients with COVID-19 are in similar predicaments, and the psychological fallout is enormous: They’re exhausted by the seemingly never-ending patient load and staffing shortages, and haunted by fears for their own safety and that of their families. Studies in China, Canada, and Italy have revealed that a significant number of doctors and nurses in the early days of the pandemic experienced high levels of distress, depression, anxiety, nightmares, and insomnia.

Trauma experts at Mount Sinai believe that, globally, up to 40% of first responders and health care workers – tens of thousands of people – will suffer from PTSD after witnessing the deaths of so many patients who were alone, without family.

How to protect in midst of trauma

In formulating the program’s platform, Mount Sinai experts drew upon their extensive experience aiding 9/11 responders at the World Trade Center (WTC), as well as their system-wide wellness program that aids demoralized and burned-out physicians. While the reach of the pandemic is much broader than 9/11, experts see some commonalities in conditions that emerge after traumatic events, and they also discovered what can help.

“We learned from our WTC experience about what are protective factors – what are the social supports that buffer against depression, anxiety, and PTSD,” said Jonathan DePierro, PhD, clinical director of CSRPG and a psychologist at the Mount Sinai WTC Mental Health Program. “We also learned that people who have more prolonged exposures are at greater risk of developing mental health difficulties.”

The program itself reflects these lessons – and that’s why it’s open to all employees, not just medical professionals. Housekeepers, security staffers, even construction workers are also dealing with their lives being in danger. “That wasn’t in their job description,” said Dr. DePierro. “These people tend to have fewer social and economic resources, make less money and have fewer structural supports, which makes them even more vulnerable.”

Dr. Charney’s strategies on building resilience became a bible of sorts for the workshops, according to Dr. Katz, who authored the training curriculum. Sessions deal with how to build up reservoirs of realistic optimism, keep gratitude journals, find spiritual meaning in their lives, maintain physical wellness and create networks of social support. The workshops are meant to help participants create action plans, to reach out for support in their social networks, and keep the focus on the positives.

The goal is to give demoralized health care workers a renewed sense of competence. “The resilience workshop is a launching point to get people to show up and talk,” said Dr. Katz. “And if we do that, we’ve accomplished a lot just getting people in the door.”

The center will also have a research component to identify what works and what doesn’t so their platform can provide a template for other institutions; Dr. Marin said they’ve gotten inquiries about the program from major hospital systems in Michigan and California. They’ll also conduct longitudinal research to determine what lingering problems persist among healthcare workers over time.

Since the center opened its virtual doors, the curriculum has also been altered in response to feedback from the support staff, many of whom live in the community that surrounds Mount Sinai in northern Manhattan, which is largely lower-income Latinx and Black individuals. Workshop materials have been translated into Spanish and now feature people who reflect a more diverse set of experiences.

“Many of our employees and the population we serve identify as non-White so we’ve been doing outreach with a lot of the local unions,” said Dr. Marin. “Our next step is to take what we’re doing and work with local community organizations.”

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

A physician assistant participating in a virtual workshop began to cry, confessing that she felt overwhelmed with guilt because New Yorkers were hailing her as a frontline hero in the pandemic. That was when Joe Ciavarro knew he was in the right place.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

“She was saying all the things I could not verbalize because I, too, didn’t feel like I deserved all this praise and thousands of people cheering for us every evening when people were losing jobs, didn’t have money for food, and their loved ones were dying without family at their side,” says Mr. Ciavarro, a PA at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

Mr. Ciavarro, who also manages 170 other PAs on two of Mount Sinai’s campuses in Manhattan, has been on the front lines since COVID-19 first hit; he lost a colleague and friend to suicide in September.

The mental anguish from his job prompted him to sign up for the resilience workshop offered by Mount Sinai’s Center for Stress, Resilience, and Personal Growth. The center – the first of its kind in North America – was launched in June to help health care workers like him cope with the intense psychological pressures they were facing. The weekly workshops became a safe place where Mr. Ciavarro and other staff members could share their darkest fears and learn ways to help them deal with their situation.

“It’s been grueling but we learned how to take care of ourselves so we can take care of our patients,” said Mr. Ciavarro. “This has become like a guided group therapy session on ways to manage and develop resilience. And I feel like my emotions are validated, knowing that others feel the same way.”
 

Caring for their own

Medical professionals treating patients with COVID-19 are in similar predicaments, and the psychological fallout is enormous: They’re exhausted by the seemingly never-ending patient load and staffing shortages, and haunted by fears for their own safety and that of their families. Studies in China, Canada, and Italy have revealed that a significant number of doctors and nurses in the early days of the pandemic experienced high levels of distress, depression, anxiety, nightmares, and insomnia.

Trauma experts at Mount Sinai believe that, globally, up to 40% of first responders and health care workers – tens of thousands of people – will suffer from PTSD after witnessing the deaths of so many patients who were alone, without family.

How to protect in midst of trauma

In formulating the program’s platform, Mount Sinai experts drew upon their extensive experience aiding 9/11 responders at the World Trade Center (WTC), as well as their system-wide wellness program that aids demoralized and burned-out physicians. While the reach of the pandemic is much broader than 9/11, experts see some commonalities in conditions that emerge after traumatic events, and they also discovered what can help.

“We learned from our WTC experience about what are protective factors – what are the social supports that buffer against depression, anxiety, and PTSD,” said Jonathan DePierro, PhD, clinical director of CSRPG and a psychologist at the Mount Sinai WTC Mental Health Program. “We also learned that people who have more prolonged exposures are at greater risk of developing mental health difficulties.”

The program itself reflects these lessons – and that’s why it’s open to all employees, not just medical professionals. Housekeepers, security staffers, even construction workers are also dealing with their lives being in danger. “That wasn’t in their job description,” said Dr. DePierro. “These people tend to have fewer social and economic resources, make less money and have fewer structural supports, which makes them even more vulnerable.”

Dr. Charney’s strategies on building resilience became a bible of sorts for the workshops, according to Dr. Katz, who authored the training curriculum. Sessions deal with how to build up reservoirs of realistic optimism, keep gratitude journals, find spiritual meaning in their lives, maintain physical wellness and create networks of social support. The workshops are meant to help participants create action plans, to reach out for support in their social networks, and keep the focus on the positives.

The goal is to give demoralized health care workers a renewed sense of competence. “The resilience workshop is a launching point to get people to show up and talk,” said Dr. Katz. “And if we do that, we’ve accomplished a lot just getting people in the door.”

The center will also have a research component to identify what works and what doesn’t so their platform can provide a template for other institutions; Dr. Marin said they’ve gotten inquiries about the program from major hospital systems in Michigan and California. They’ll also conduct longitudinal research to determine what lingering problems persist among healthcare workers over time.

Since the center opened its virtual doors, the curriculum has also been altered in response to feedback from the support staff, many of whom live in the community that surrounds Mount Sinai in northern Manhattan, which is largely lower-income Latinx and Black individuals. Workshop materials have been translated into Spanish and now feature people who reflect a more diverse set of experiences.

“Many of our employees and the population we serve identify as non-White so we’ve been doing outreach with a lot of the local unions,” said Dr. Marin. “Our next step is to take what we’re doing and work with local community organizations.”

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

Mortality rates for inpatients with COVID-19 dropped significantly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, but outcomes depend on the hospital where patients receive care, new data show.

“[T]he characteristic that is most associated with poor or worsening hospital outcomes is high or increasing community case rates,” write David A. Asch, MD, MBA, executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The relationship between COVID-19 mortality rates and local disease prevalence suggests that “hospitals do worse when they are burdened with cases and is consistent with imperatives to flatten the curve,” the authors continue. “As case rates of COVID-19 increase across the nation, hospital mortality outcomes may worsen.”

The researchers published their study online December 22 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The quick and substantial improvement in survival “is a tribute in part to new science — for example, the science that revealed the benefits of dexamethasone,” Asch told Medscape Medical News. “But it’s also a tribute to the doctors and nurses in the hospitals who developed experience. It’s a cliché to refer to them as heroes, but that is what they are. The science and the heroic experience continues on, and so I’m optimistic that we’ll see even more improvement over time.”

However, the data also indicate that “with lots of disease in the community, hospitals may have a harder time keeping patients alive,” Asch said.  “And of course the reason this is bad news is that community level case rates are rising all over, and in some cases at rapid rates. With that rise, we might be giving back some of our past gains in survival — just as the vaccine is beginning to be distributed.”
 

Examining mortality trends

The researchers analyzed administrative claims data from a large national health insurer. They included data from 38,517 adults who were admitted with COVID-19 to 955 US hospitals between January 1 and June 30 of this year. The investigators estimated hospitals’ risk-standardized rate of 30-day in-hospital mortality or referral to hospice, adjusted for patient-level characteristics.

Overall, 3179 patients (8.25%) died, and 1433 patients (3.7%) were referred to hospice. Risk-standardized mortality or hospice referral rates for individual hospitals ranged from 5.7% to 24.7%. The average rate was 9.1% in the best-performing quintile, compared with 15.7% in the worst-performing quintile.

In a subset of 398 hospitals that had at least 10 patients admitted for COVID-19 during early (January 1 through April 30) and later periods (between May 1 and June 30), rates in all but one hospital improved, and 94% improved by at least 25%. The average risk-standardized event rate declined from 16.6% to 9.3%.

“That rate of relative improvement is striking and encouraging, but perhaps not surprising,” Asch and coauthors write. “Early efforts at treating patients with COVID-19 were based on experience with previously known causes of severe respiratory illness. Later efforts could draw on experiences specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

For instance, doctors tried different inpatient management approaches, such as early vs late assisted ventilation, differences in oxygen flow, prone or supine positioning, and anticoagulation. “Those efforts varied in how systematically they were evaluated, but our results suggest that valuable experience was gained,” the authors note.

In addition, variation between hospitals could reflect differences in quality or different admission thresholds, they continue.

The study provides “a reason for optimism that our healthcare system has improved in our ability to care for persons with COVID-19,” write Leon Boudourakis, MD, MHS, and Amit Uppal, MD, in a related commentary. Boudourakis and Uppal are both affiliated with NYC Health + Hospitals in New York City and with SUNY Downstate and New York University School of Medicine, respectively.

Similar improvements in mortality rates have been reported in the United Kingdom and in a New York City hospital system, the editorialists note. The lower mortality rates may represent clinical, healthcare system, and epidemiologic trends.

“Since the first wave of serious COVID-19 cases, physicians have learned a great deal about the best ways to treat this serious infection,” they say. “Steroids may decrease mortality in patients with respiratory failure. Remdesivir may shorten hospitalizations of patients with serious illness. Anticoagulation and prone positioning may help certain patients. Using noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy may spare subsets of patients from the harms of intubation, such as ventilator-induced lung injury.»
 

Overwhelmed hospitals

“Hospitals do not perform as well when they are overwhelmed,” which may be a reason for the correlation between community prevalence and mortality rates, Boudourakis and Uppal suggested. “In particular, patients with a precarious respiratory status require expert, meticulous therapy to avoid intubation; those who undergo intubation or have kidney failure require nuanced and timely expert care with ventilatory adjustments and kidney replacement therapy, which are difficult to perform optimally when hospital capacity is strained.”

Although the death rate has fallen to about 9% for hospitalized patients, “9% is still high,” Asch said.

“Our results show that hospitals can’t do it on their own,” Asch said. “They need all of us to keep the community spread of the disease down. The right answer now is the right answer since the beginning of the pandemic: Keep your distance, wash your hands, and wear a mask.”

Asch, Boudourakis, and Uppal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A study coauthor reported personal fees and grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

Mortality rates for inpatients with COVID-19 dropped significantly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, but outcomes depend on the hospital where patients receive care, new data show.

“[T]he characteristic that is most associated with poor or worsening hospital outcomes is high or increasing community case rates,” write David A. Asch, MD, MBA, executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The relationship between COVID-19 mortality rates and local disease prevalence suggests that “hospitals do worse when they are burdened with cases and is consistent with imperatives to flatten the curve,” the authors continue. “As case rates of COVID-19 increase across the nation, hospital mortality outcomes may worsen.”

The researchers published their study online December 22 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The quick and substantial improvement in survival “is a tribute in part to new science — for example, the science that revealed the benefits of dexamethasone,” Asch told Medscape Medical News. “But it’s also a tribute to the doctors and nurses in the hospitals who developed experience. It’s a cliché to refer to them as heroes, but that is what they are. The science and the heroic experience continues on, and so I’m optimistic that we’ll see even more improvement over time.”

However, the data also indicate that “with lots of disease in the community, hospitals may have a harder time keeping patients alive,” Asch said.  “And of course the reason this is bad news is that community level case rates are rising all over, and in some cases at rapid rates. With that rise, we might be giving back some of our past gains in survival — just as the vaccine is beginning to be distributed.”
 

Examining mortality trends

The researchers analyzed administrative claims data from a large national health insurer. They included data from 38,517 adults who were admitted with COVID-19 to 955 US hospitals between January 1 and June 30 of this year. The investigators estimated hospitals’ risk-standardized rate of 30-day in-hospital mortality or referral to hospice, adjusted for patient-level characteristics.

Overall, 3179 patients (8.25%) died, and 1433 patients (3.7%) were referred to hospice. Risk-standardized mortality or hospice referral rates for individual hospitals ranged from 5.7% to 24.7%. The average rate was 9.1% in the best-performing quintile, compared with 15.7% in the worst-performing quintile.

In a subset of 398 hospitals that had at least 10 patients admitted for COVID-19 during early (January 1 through April 30) and later periods (between May 1 and June 30), rates in all but one hospital improved, and 94% improved by at least 25%. The average risk-standardized event rate declined from 16.6% to 9.3%.

“That rate of relative improvement is striking and encouraging, but perhaps not surprising,” Asch and coauthors write. “Early efforts at treating patients with COVID-19 were based on experience with previously known causes of severe respiratory illness. Later efforts could draw on experiences specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

For instance, doctors tried different inpatient management approaches, such as early vs late assisted ventilation, differences in oxygen flow, prone or supine positioning, and anticoagulation. “Those efforts varied in how systematically they were evaluated, but our results suggest that valuable experience was gained,” the authors note.

In addition, variation between hospitals could reflect differences in quality or different admission thresholds, they continue.

The study provides “a reason for optimism that our healthcare system has improved in our ability to care for persons with COVID-19,” write Leon Boudourakis, MD, MHS, and Amit Uppal, MD, in a related commentary. Boudourakis and Uppal are both affiliated with NYC Health + Hospitals in New York City and with SUNY Downstate and New York University School of Medicine, respectively.

Similar improvements in mortality rates have been reported in the United Kingdom and in a New York City hospital system, the editorialists note. The lower mortality rates may represent clinical, healthcare system, and epidemiologic trends.

“Since the first wave of serious COVID-19 cases, physicians have learned a great deal about the best ways to treat this serious infection,” they say. “Steroids may decrease mortality in patients with respiratory failure. Remdesivir may shorten hospitalizations of patients with serious illness. Anticoagulation and prone positioning may help certain patients. Using noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy may spare subsets of patients from the harms of intubation, such as ventilator-induced lung injury.»
 

Overwhelmed hospitals

“Hospitals do not perform as well when they are overwhelmed,” which may be a reason for the correlation between community prevalence and mortality rates, Boudourakis and Uppal suggested. “In particular, patients with a precarious respiratory status require expert, meticulous therapy to avoid intubation; those who undergo intubation or have kidney failure require nuanced and timely expert care with ventilatory adjustments and kidney replacement therapy, which are difficult to perform optimally when hospital capacity is strained.”

Although the death rate has fallen to about 9% for hospitalized patients, “9% is still high,” Asch said.

“Our results show that hospitals can’t do it on their own,” Asch said. “They need all of us to keep the community spread of the disease down. The right answer now is the right answer since the beginning of the pandemic: Keep your distance, wash your hands, and wear a mask.”

Asch, Boudourakis, and Uppal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A study coauthor reported personal fees and grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

Mortality rates for inpatients with COVID-19 dropped significantly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, but outcomes depend on the hospital where patients receive care, new data show.

“[T]he characteristic that is most associated with poor or worsening hospital outcomes is high or increasing community case rates,” write David A. Asch, MD, MBA, executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The relationship between COVID-19 mortality rates and local disease prevalence suggests that “hospitals do worse when they are burdened with cases and is consistent with imperatives to flatten the curve,” the authors continue. “As case rates of COVID-19 increase across the nation, hospital mortality outcomes may worsen.”

The researchers published their study online December 22 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The quick and substantial improvement in survival “is a tribute in part to new science — for example, the science that revealed the benefits of dexamethasone,” Asch told Medscape Medical News. “But it’s also a tribute to the doctors and nurses in the hospitals who developed experience. It’s a cliché to refer to them as heroes, but that is what they are. The science and the heroic experience continues on, and so I’m optimistic that we’ll see even more improvement over time.”

However, the data also indicate that “with lots of disease in the community, hospitals may have a harder time keeping patients alive,” Asch said.  “And of course the reason this is bad news is that community level case rates are rising all over, and in some cases at rapid rates. With that rise, we might be giving back some of our past gains in survival — just as the vaccine is beginning to be distributed.”
 

Examining mortality trends

The researchers analyzed administrative claims data from a large national health insurer. They included data from 38,517 adults who were admitted with COVID-19 to 955 US hospitals between January 1 and June 30 of this year. The investigators estimated hospitals’ risk-standardized rate of 30-day in-hospital mortality or referral to hospice, adjusted for patient-level characteristics.

Overall, 3179 patients (8.25%) died, and 1433 patients (3.7%) were referred to hospice. Risk-standardized mortality or hospice referral rates for individual hospitals ranged from 5.7% to 24.7%. The average rate was 9.1% in the best-performing quintile, compared with 15.7% in the worst-performing quintile.

In a subset of 398 hospitals that had at least 10 patients admitted for COVID-19 during early (January 1 through April 30) and later periods (between May 1 and June 30), rates in all but one hospital improved, and 94% improved by at least 25%. The average risk-standardized event rate declined from 16.6% to 9.3%.

“That rate of relative improvement is striking and encouraging, but perhaps not surprising,” Asch and coauthors write. “Early efforts at treating patients with COVID-19 were based on experience with previously known causes of severe respiratory illness. Later efforts could draw on experiences specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

For instance, doctors tried different inpatient management approaches, such as early vs late assisted ventilation, differences in oxygen flow, prone or supine positioning, and anticoagulation. “Those efforts varied in how systematically they were evaluated, but our results suggest that valuable experience was gained,” the authors note.

In addition, variation between hospitals could reflect differences in quality or different admission thresholds, they continue.

The study provides “a reason for optimism that our healthcare system has improved in our ability to care for persons with COVID-19,” write Leon Boudourakis, MD, MHS, and Amit Uppal, MD, in a related commentary. Boudourakis and Uppal are both affiliated with NYC Health + Hospitals in New York City and with SUNY Downstate and New York University School of Medicine, respectively.

Similar improvements in mortality rates have been reported in the United Kingdom and in a New York City hospital system, the editorialists note. The lower mortality rates may represent clinical, healthcare system, and epidemiologic trends.

“Since the first wave of serious COVID-19 cases, physicians have learned a great deal about the best ways to treat this serious infection,” they say. “Steroids may decrease mortality in patients with respiratory failure. Remdesivir may shorten hospitalizations of patients with serious illness. Anticoagulation and prone positioning may help certain patients. Using noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy may spare subsets of patients from the harms of intubation, such as ventilator-induced lung injury.»
 

Overwhelmed hospitals

“Hospitals do not perform as well when they are overwhelmed,” which may be a reason for the correlation between community prevalence and mortality rates, Boudourakis and Uppal suggested. “In particular, patients with a precarious respiratory status require expert, meticulous therapy to avoid intubation; those who undergo intubation or have kidney failure require nuanced and timely expert care with ventilatory adjustments and kidney replacement therapy, which are difficult to perform optimally when hospital capacity is strained.”

Although the death rate has fallen to about 9% for hospitalized patients, “9% is still high,” Asch said.

“Our results show that hospitals can’t do it on their own,” Asch said. “They need all of us to keep the community spread of the disease down. The right answer now is the right answer since the beginning of the pandemic: Keep your distance, wash your hands, and wear a mask.”

Asch, Boudourakis, and Uppal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A study coauthor reported personal fees and grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) evaluated Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine as highly effective with a favorable safety profile, based on interim data from an ongoing phase 3 trial.

The panel acknowledged that further studies will be required post issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to collect additional data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. A briefing document released by the FDA on Dec. 17, 2020, summarized interim results and included recommendations from VRBPAC on use of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine.

“On November 30, 2020, ModernaTX (the Sponsor) submitted an EUA request to FDA for an investigational COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273) intended to prevent COVID-19,” the committee wrote.
 

The mRNA-1273 vaccine trial

Among 30,351 individuals aged 18 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a randomized, stratified, observer-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 100 mcg of mRNA-1273 (n = 15,181) or saline placebo (n = 15,170) administered intramuscularly on day 1 and day 29.

The primary efficacy endpoint was efficacy of mRNA-1273 against PCR-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was to characterize the safety of the vaccine following one or two doses.
 

Efficacy

Among 27,817 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 7, 2020), 5 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after the second dose occurred among vaccine recipients and 90 case occurred among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.5% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 86.5%-97.8%).

“Subgroup analyses of the primary efficacy endpoint showed similar efficacy point estimates across age groups, genders, racial and ethnic groups, and participants with medical comorbidities associated with high risk of severe COVID-19,” they reported.

Data from the final scheduled analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint (data cutoff: Nov. 21, 2020; median follow-up of >2 months after dose 2), demonstrated 94.1% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 89.3%-96.8%), corresponding to 11 cases of COVID-19 in the vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group.

When stratified by age, the vaccine efficacy was 95.6% (95% CI, 90.6%-97.9%) for individuals 18-64 years of age and 86.4% (95% CI, 61.4%-95.5%) for those 65 years of age or older.

In addition, results from secondary analyses indicated benefit for mRNA-1273 in preventing severe COVID-19 cases, COVID-19 in those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and infection after the first dose, but these data were not conclusive.
 

Safety

Among 30,350 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 11, 2020; median follow-up of 7 weeks post second dose), no specific safety concerns were observed that would prevent issuance of an EUA.

Additional safety data (data cutoff: Nov. 25, 2020; median follow-up of 9 weeks post second dose) were provided on Dec. 7, 2020, but did not change the conclusions from the first interim analysis.

The most common vaccine-related adverse reactions were injection site pain (91.6%), fatigue (68.5%), headache (63.0%), muscle pain (59.6%), joint pain (44.8%), and chills (43.4%).

“The frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) was low (1.0% in the mRNA-1273 arm and 1.0% in the placebo arm), without meaningful imbalances between study arms,” they reported.

Myocardial infarction (0.03%), nephrolithiasis (0.02%), and cholecystitis (0.02%) were the most common SAEs that were numerically greater in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm; however, the small number of cases does not infer a casual relationship.

“The 2-dose vaccination regimen was highly effective in preventing PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days after receipt of the second dose,” the committee wrote. “[However], it is critical to continue to gather data about the vaccine even after it is made available under EUA.”

The associated phase 3 study was sponsored by ModernaTX.

SOURCE: FDA Briefing Document: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Published Dec. 17, 2020.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) evaluated Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine as highly effective with a favorable safety profile, based on interim data from an ongoing phase 3 trial.

The panel acknowledged that further studies will be required post issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to collect additional data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. A briefing document released by the FDA on Dec. 17, 2020, summarized interim results and included recommendations from VRBPAC on use of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine.

“On November 30, 2020, ModernaTX (the Sponsor) submitted an EUA request to FDA for an investigational COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273) intended to prevent COVID-19,” the committee wrote.
 

The mRNA-1273 vaccine trial

Among 30,351 individuals aged 18 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a randomized, stratified, observer-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 100 mcg of mRNA-1273 (n = 15,181) or saline placebo (n = 15,170) administered intramuscularly on day 1 and day 29.

The primary efficacy endpoint was efficacy of mRNA-1273 against PCR-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was to characterize the safety of the vaccine following one or two doses.
 

Efficacy

Among 27,817 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 7, 2020), 5 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after the second dose occurred among vaccine recipients and 90 case occurred among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.5% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 86.5%-97.8%).

“Subgroup analyses of the primary efficacy endpoint showed similar efficacy point estimates across age groups, genders, racial and ethnic groups, and participants with medical comorbidities associated with high risk of severe COVID-19,” they reported.

Data from the final scheduled analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint (data cutoff: Nov. 21, 2020; median follow-up of >2 months after dose 2), demonstrated 94.1% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 89.3%-96.8%), corresponding to 11 cases of COVID-19 in the vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group.

When stratified by age, the vaccine efficacy was 95.6% (95% CI, 90.6%-97.9%) for individuals 18-64 years of age and 86.4% (95% CI, 61.4%-95.5%) for those 65 years of age or older.

In addition, results from secondary analyses indicated benefit for mRNA-1273 in preventing severe COVID-19 cases, COVID-19 in those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and infection after the first dose, but these data were not conclusive.
 

Safety

Among 30,350 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 11, 2020; median follow-up of 7 weeks post second dose), no specific safety concerns were observed that would prevent issuance of an EUA.

Additional safety data (data cutoff: Nov. 25, 2020; median follow-up of 9 weeks post second dose) were provided on Dec. 7, 2020, but did not change the conclusions from the first interim analysis.

The most common vaccine-related adverse reactions were injection site pain (91.6%), fatigue (68.5%), headache (63.0%), muscle pain (59.6%), joint pain (44.8%), and chills (43.4%).

“The frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) was low (1.0% in the mRNA-1273 arm and 1.0% in the placebo arm), without meaningful imbalances between study arms,” they reported.

Myocardial infarction (0.03%), nephrolithiasis (0.02%), and cholecystitis (0.02%) were the most common SAEs that were numerically greater in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm; however, the small number of cases does not infer a casual relationship.

“The 2-dose vaccination regimen was highly effective in preventing PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days after receipt of the second dose,” the committee wrote. “[However], it is critical to continue to gather data about the vaccine even after it is made available under EUA.”

The associated phase 3 study was sponsored by ModernaTX.

SOURCE: FDA Briefing Document: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Published Dec. 17, 2020.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) evaluated Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine as highly effective with a favorable safety profile, based on interim data from an ongoing phase 3 trial.

The panel acknowledged that further studies will be required post issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to collect additional data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. A briefing document released by the FDA on Dec. 17, 2020, summarized interim results and included recommendations from VRBPAC on use of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine.

“On November 30, 2020, ModernaTX (the Sponsor) submitted an EUA request to FDA for an investigational COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273) intended to prevent COVID-19,” the committee wrote.
 

The mRNA-1273 vaccine trial

Among 30,351 individuals aged 18 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a randomized, stratified, observer-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 100 mcg of mRNA-1273 (n = 15,181) or saline placebo (n = 15,170) administered intramuscularly on day 1 and day 29.

The primary efficacy endpoint was efficacy of mRNA-1273 against PCR-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was to characterize the safety of the vaccine following one or two doses.
 

Efficacy

Among 27,817 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 7, 2020), 5 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after the second dose occurred among vaccine recipients and 90 case occurred among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.5% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 86.5%-97.8%).

“Subgroup analyses of the primary efficacy endpoint showed similar efficacy point estimates across age groups, genders, racial and ethnic groups, and participants with medical comorbidities associated with high risk of severe COVID-19,” they reported.

Data from the final scheduled analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint (data cutoff: Nov. 21, 2020; median follow-up of >2 months after dose 2), demonstrated 94.1% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 89.3%-96.8%), corresponding to 11 cases of COVID-19 in the vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group.

When stratified by age, the vaccine efficacy was 95.6% (95% CI, 90.6%-97.9%) for individuals 18-64 years of age and 86.4% (95% CI, 61.4%-95.5%) for those 65 years of age or older.

In addition, results from secondary analyses indicated benefit for mRNA-1273 in preventing severe COVID-19 cases, COVID-19 in those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and infection after the first dose, but these data were not conclusive.
 

Safety

Among 30,350 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 11, 2020; median follow-up of 7 weeks post second dose), no specific safety concerns were observed that would prevent issuance of an EUA.

Additional safety data (data cutoff: Nov. 25, 2020; median follow-up of 9 weeks post second dose) were provided on Dec. 7, 2020, but did not change the conclusions from the first interim analysis.

The most common vaccine-related adverse reactions were injection site pain (91.6%), fatigue (68.5%), headache (63.0%), muscle pain (59.6%), joint pain (44.8%), and chills (43.4%).

“The frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) was low (1.0% in the mRNA-1273 arm and 1.0% in the placebo arm), without meaningful imbalances between study arms,” they reported.

Myocardial infarction (0.03%), nephrolithiasis (0.02%), and cholecystitis (0.02%) were the most common SAEs that were numerically greater in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm; however, the small number of cases does not infer a casual relationship.

“The 2-dose vaccination regimen was highly effective in preventing PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days after receipt of the second dose,” the committee wrote. “[However], it is critical to continue to gather data about the vaccine even after it is made available under EUA.”

The associated phase 3 study was sponsored by ModernaTX.

SOURCE: FDA Briefing Document: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Published Dec. 17, 2020.

As the first American health care workers rolled up their sleeves for a COVID-19 vaccine, the images were instantly frozen in history, marking the triumph of scientific know-how and ingenuity. Cameras captured the first trucks pulling out of a warehouse in Portage, Mich., to the applause of workers and area residents. A day later, Boston Medical Center employees – some dressed in scrubs and wearing masks, face shields, and protective gowns – literally danced on the sidewalk when doses arrived. Some have photographed themselves getting the vaccine and posted it on social media, tagging it #MyCOVIDVax.

But the real story of the debut of COVID-19 vaccination is more methodical than monumental, a celebration of teamwork rather than of conquest. As hospitals waited for their first allotment, they reviewed their carefully drafted plans. They relied on each other, reaching across the usual divisions of competition and working collaboratively to share the limited supply. Their priority lists for the first vaccinations included environmental services workers who clean patient rooms and the critical care physicians who work to save lives.

“Health care workers have pulled together throughout this pandemic,” said Melanie Swift, MD, cochair of the COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation and Distribution Work Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’ve gone through the darkest of years relying so heavily on each other,” she said. “Now we’re pulling together to get out of it.”

Still, a rollout of this magnitude has hitches. Stanford issued an apology Dec. 18 after its medical residents protested a vaccine distribution plan that left out nearly all of its residents and fellows, many of whom regularly treat patients with COVID-19.

There have already been more than 287,000 COVID-19 cases and 953 deaths among health care workers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In its guidance, the agency pointed out that the “continued protection of them at work, at home, and in the community remains a national priority.” That means vaccinating a workforce of about 21 million people, often the largest group of employees in a community.

“It collectively takes all of us to vaccinate our teams to maintain that stability in our health care infrastructure across the metro Atlanta area,” Christy Norman, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services at Emory Healthcare, told reporters in a briefing as the health system awaited its first delivery.
 

Don’t waste a dose

One overriding imperative prevails: Hospitals don’t want to waste any doses. The storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine make that tricky.

Once vials are removed from the pizza-box-shaped containers in ultracold storage and placed in a refrigerator, they must be used within 5 days. Thawed five-dose vials must be brought to room temperature before they are diluted, and they can remain at room temperature for no more than 2 hours. Once they are diluted with 1.8 mL of a 0.9% sodium chloride injection, the vials must be used within 6 hours.

COVID-19 precautions require employees to stay physically distant while they wait their turn for vaccination, which means the process can’t mirror typical large-scale flu immunization programs.

To prioritize groups, the vaccination planners at Mayo conducted a thorough risk stratification, considering each employee’s duties. Do they work in a dedicated COVID-19 unit? Do they handle lab tests or collect swabs? Do they work in the ICU or emergency department?

“We have applied some principles to make sure that as we roll it out, we prioritize people who are at greatest risk of ongoing exposure and who are really critical to maintaining the COVID response and other essential health services,” said Dr. Swift, associate medical director of Mayo’s occupational health service.

Mayo employees who are eligible for the first doses can sign up for appointments through the medical record system. If it seems likely that some doses will be left over at the end of the vaccination period – perhaps because of missed appointments – supervisors in high-risk areas can refer other health care workers. Mayo gave its first vaccines on Dec. 18, but the vaccination program began in earnest the following week. With the pleasant surprise that each five-dose vial actually provides six doses, 474 vials will allow for the vaccination of 2,844 employees in the top-priority group. “It’s going to expand each week or few days as we get more and more vaccine,” Dr. Swift said.
 

Sharing vials with small rural hospitals

Minnesota is using a hub-and-spoke system to give small rural hospitals access to the Pfizer vaccine, even though they lack ultracold storage and can’t use a minimum order of 975 doses. Large hospitals, acting as hubs, are sharing their orders. (The minimum order for Moderna is 100 doses.)

In south-central Minnesota, for example, two hub hospitals each have six spoke hospitals. Five of the 14 hospitals are independent, and the rest are part of large hospital systems, but affiliation doesn’t matter, said Eric Weller, regional health care preparedness coordinator for the South Central Healthcare Coalition. “We are all working together. It doesn’t matter what system you’re from,” he said. “We’re working for the good of the community.”

Each hospital designed a process to provide vaccine education, prioritize groups, allocate appointments, register people for vaccination, obtain signed consent forms, administer vaccines in a COVID-safe way, and provide follow-up appointments for the second dose. “We’re using some of the lessons we learned during H1N1,” said Mr. Weller, referring to immunization during the 2009 influenza pandemic. “The difference is that during H1N1, you could have lines of people.”

Coordinating the appointments will be more important than ever. “One of the vaccination strategies is to get people in groups of five, so you use one vial on those five people and don’t waste it,” he said.

Logistics are somewhat different for the Moderna vaccine, which will come in 10-dose vials that can be refrigerated for up to 30 days.

Both vaccines may produce mild flulike symptoms, such as fatigue, headache, or muscle pain, particularly after the second dose. That’s a sign that the immune system is reacting to the vaccine, but it’s also another consideration in the vaccination plans, because health care workers might take a day or two off work. “We’re not going to vaccinate a whole department at one time. It will be staggered,” said Kevin Smith, MD, medical director of the occupational medicine program at ProMedica, a health care system based in Toledo, Ohio.

Dr. Smith said he plans to encourage employees to use V-Safe, an app created by the CDC to track adverse effects in people who receive the vaccine. He pointed out that a day or two of achiness will be better than coping with the symptoms of COVID-19. Some employees who recovered from the infection still feel fatigued or haven’t regained their sense of taste and smell. “We are still monitoring quite a few employees to make sure they get back to 100%,” he said.
 

Hope for ending the pandemic

Public health officials have worried about vaccine hesitancy, even among health care workers, but so far, that concern seems overshadowed by enthusiasm. Dr. Smith said his department has been fielding calls from employees who want to know when they will be able to get the vaccine. “I think everyone feels relief,” he said. “We’re at the beginning of the end.”

At Mayo, Dr. Swift is surveying staff to gauge the willingness to get the vaccine, but she already senses excitement among employees. “No doubt there are still people who are hesitant, but I’m feeling a shift,” she said. “I’m feeling this momentum building of health care workers coming on board and wanting to take this vaccine, which is good, because they will set an example for their patients.”

For Colleen Kelley, MD, an infectious disease physician at Emory University in Atlanta who was principal investigator for an Emory-affiliated Moderna clinical trial site, it has been an emotional time. “Things were looking very bleak and dark for a time, and then we started to get these efficacy results that were greater than anyone imagined,” she said.

Dr. Kelley spends time talking to journalists and educating physician colleagues and hospital employees about how the vaccine was developed so quickly and how it works. “Everyone asks me, ‘Should I get it? Are you going to get it?’ My answer is ‘yes’ and ‘yes,’ “ she said. “I am 1,000% confident that the benefits of widespread vaccination outweigh the risks of continued COVID and a continued pandemic.”

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

As the first American health care workers rolled up their sleeves for a COVID-19 vaccine, the images were instantly frozen in history, marking the triumph of scientific know-how and ingenuity. Cameras captured the first trucks pulling out of a warehouse in Portage, Mich., to the applause of workers and area residents. A day later, Boston Medical Center employees – some dressed in scrubs and wearing masks, face shields, and protective gowns – literally danced on the sidewalk when doses arrived. Some have photographed themselves getting the vaccine and posted it on social media, tagging it #MyCOVIDVax.

But the real story of the debut of COVID-19 vaccination is more methodical than monumental, a celebration of teamwork rather than of conquest. As hospitals waited for their first allotment, they reviewed their carefully drafted plans. They relied on each other, reaching across the usual divisions of competition and working collaboratively to share the limited supply. Their priority lists for the first vaccinations included environmental services workers who clean patient rooms and the critical care physicians who work to save lives.

“Health care workers have pulled together throughout this pandemic,” said Melanie Swift, MD, cochair of the COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation and Distribution Work Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’ve gone through the darkest of years relying so heavily on each other,” she said. “Now we’re pulling together to get out of it.”

Still, a rollout of this magnitude has hitches. Stanford issued an apology Dec. 18 after its medical residents protested a vaccine distribution plan that left out nearly all of its residents and fellows, many of whom regularly treat patients with COVID-19.

There have already been more than 287,000 COVID-19 cases and 953 deaths among health care workers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In its guidance, the agency pointed out that the “continued protection of them at work, at home, and in the community remains a national priority.” That means vaccinating a workforce of about 21 million people, often the largest group of employees in a community.

“It collectively takes all of us to vaccinate our teams to maintain that stability in our health care infrastructure across the metro Atlanta area,” Christy Norman, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services at Emory Healthcare, told reporters in a briefing as the health system awaited its first delivery.
 

Don’t waste a dose

One overriding imperative prevails: Hospitals don’t want to waste any doses. The storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine make that tricky.

Once vials are removed from the pizza-box-shaped containers in ultracold storage and placed in a refrigerator, they must be used within 5 days. Thawed five-dose vials must be brought to room temperature before they are diluted, and they can remain at room temperature for no more than 2 hours. Once they are diluted with 1.8 mL of a 0.9% sodium chloride injection, the vials must be used within 6 hours.

COVID-19 precautions require employees to stay physically distant while they wait their turn for vaccination, which means the process can’t mirror typical large-scale flu immunization programs.

To prioritize groups, the vaccination planners at Mayo conducted a thorough risk stratification, considering each employee’s duties. Do they work in a dedicated COVID-19 unit? Do they handle lab tests or collect swabs? Do they work in the ICU or emergency department?

“We have applied some principles to make sure that as we roll it out, we prioritize people who are at greatest risk of ongoing exposure and who are really critical to maintaining the COVID response and other essential health services,” said Dr. Swift, associate medical director of Mayo’s occupational health service.

Mayo employees who are eligible for the first doses can sign up for appointments through the medical record system. If it seems likely that some doses will be left over at the end of the vaccination period – perhaps because of missed appointments – supervisors in high-risk areas can refer other health care workers. Mayo gave its first vaccines on Dec. 18, but the vaccination program began in earnest the following week. With the pleasant surprise that each five-dose vial actually provides six doses, 474 vials will allow for the vaccination of 2,844 employees in the top-priority group. “It’s going to expand each week or few days as we get more and more vaccine,” Dr. Swift said.
 

Sharing vials with small rural hospitals

Minnesota is using a hub-and-spoke system to give small rural hospitals access to the Pfizer vaccine, even though they lack ultracold storage and can’t use a minimum order of 975 doses. Large hospitals, acting as hubs, are sharing their orders. (The minimum order for Moderna is 100 doses.)

In south-central Minnesota, for example, two hub hospitals each have six spoke hospitals. Five of the 14 hospitals are independent, and the rest are part of large hospital systems, but affiliation doesn’t matter, said Eric Weller, regional health care preparedness coordinator for the South Central Healthcare Coalition. “We are all working together. It doesn’t matter what system you’re from,” he said. “We’re working for the good of the community.”

Each hospital designed a process to provide vaccine education, prioritize groups, allocate appointments, register people for vaccination, obtain signed consent forms, administer vaccines in a COVID-safe way, and provide follow-up appointments for the second dose. “We’re using some of the lessons we learned during H1N1,” said Mr. Weller, referring to immunization during the 2009 influenza pandemic. “The difference is that during H1N1, you could have lines of people.”

Coordinating the appointments will be more important than ever. “One of the vaccination strategies is to get people in groups of five, so you use one vial on those five people and don’t waste it,” he said.

Logistics are somewhat different for the Moderna vaccine, which will come in 10-dose vials that can be refrigerated for up to 30 days.

Both vaccines may produce mild flulike symptoms, such as fatigue, headache, or muscle pain, particularly after the second dose. That’s a sign that the immune system is reacting to the vaccine, but it’s also another consideration in the vaccination plans, because health care workers might take a day or two off work. “We’re not going to vaccinate a whole department at one time. It will be staggered,” said Kevin Smith, MD, medical director of the occupational medicine program at ProMedica, a health care system based in Toledo, Ohio.

Dr. Smith said he plans to encourage employees to use V-Safe, an app created by the CDC to track adverse effects in people who receive the vaccine. He pointed out that a day or two of achiness will be better than coping with the symptoms of COVID-19. Some employees who recovered from the infection still feel fatigued or haven’t regained their sense of taste and smell. “We are still monitoring quite a few employees to make sure they get back to 100%,” he said.
 

Hope for ending the pandemic

Public health officials have worried about vaccine hesitancy, even among health care workers, but so far, that concern seems overshadowed by enthusiasm. Dr. Smith said his department has been fielding calls from employees who want to know when they will be able to get the vaccine. “I think everyone feels relief,” he said. “We’re at the beginning of the end.”

At Mayo, Dr. Swift is surveying staff to gauge the willingness to get the vaccine, but she already senses excitement among employees. “No doubt there are still people who are hesitant, but I’m feeling a shift,” she said. “I’m feeling this momentum building of health care workers coming on board and wanting to take this vaccine, which is good, because they will set an example for their patients.”

For Colleen Kelley, MD, an infectious disease physician at Emory University in Atlanta who was principal investigator for an Emory-affiliated Moderna clinical trial site, it has been an emotional time. “Things were looking very bleak and dark for a time, and then we started to get these efficacy results that were greater than anyone imagined,” she said.

Dr. Kelley spends time talking to journalists and educating physician colleagues and hospital employees about how the vaccine was developed so quickly and how it works. “Everyone asks me, ‘Should I get it? Are you going to get it?’ My answer is ‘yes’ and ‘yes,’ “ she said. “I am 1,000% confident that the benefits of widespread vaccination outweigh the risks of continued COVID and a continued pandemic.”

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

As the first American health care workers rolled up their sleeves for a COVID-19 vaccine, the images were instantly frozen in history, marking the triumph of scientific know-how and ingenuity. Cameras captured the first trucks pulling out of a warehouse in Portage, Mich., to the applause of workers and area residents. A day later, Boston Medical Center employees – some dressed in scrubs and wearing masks, face shields, and protective gowns – literally danced on the sidewalk when doses arrived. Some have photographed themselves getting the vaccine and posted it on social media, tagging it #MyCOVIDVax.

But the real story of the debut of COVID-19 vaccination is more methodical than monumental, a celebration of teamwork rather than of conquest. As hospitals waited for their first allotment, they reviewed their carefully drafted plans. They relied on each other, reaching across the usual divisions of competition and working collaboratively to share the limited supply. Their priority lists for the first vaccinations included environmental services workers who clean patient rooms and the critical care physicians who work to save lives.

“Health care workers have pulled together throughout this pandemic,” said Melanie Swift, MD, cochair of the COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation and Distribution Work Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’ve gone through the darkest of years relying so heavily on each other,” she said. “Now we’re pulling together to get out of it.”

Still, a rollout of this magnitude has hitches. Stanford issued an apology Dec. 18 after its medical residents protested a vaccine distribution plan that left out nearly all of its residents and fellows, many of whom regularly treat patients with COVID-19.

There have already been more than 287,000 COVID-19 cases and 953 deaths among health care workers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In its guidance, the agency pointed out that the “continued protection of them at work, at home, and in the community remains a national priority.” That means vaccinating a workforce of about 21 million people, often the largest group of employees in a community.

“It collectively takes all of us to vaccinate our teams to maintain that stability in our health care infrastructure across the metro Atlanta area,” Christy Norman, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services at Emory Healthcare, told reporters in a briefing as the health system awaited its first delivery.
 

Don’t waste a dose

One overriding imperative prevails: Hospitals don’t want to waste any doses. The storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine make that tricky.

Once vials are removed from the pizza-box-shaped containers in ultracold storage and placed in a refrigerator, they must be used within 5 days. Thawed five-dose vials must be brought to room temperature before they are diluted, and they can remain at room temperature for no more than 2 hours. Once they are diluted with 1.8 mL of a 0.9% sodium chloride injection, the vials must be used within 6 hours.

COVID-19 precautions require employees to stay physically distant while they wait their turn for vaccination, which means the process can’t mirror typical large-scale flu immunization programs.

To prioritize groups, the vaccination planners at Mayo conducted a thorough risk stratification, considering each employee’s duties. Do they work in a dedicated COVID-19 unit? Do they handle lab tests or collect swabs? Do they work in the ICU or emergency department?

“We have applied some principles to make sure that as we roll it out, we prioritize people who are at greatest risk of ongoing exposure and who are really critical to maintaining the COVID response and other essential health services,” said Dr. Swift, associate medical director of Mayo’s occupational health service.

Mayo employees who are eligible for the first doses can sign up for appointments through the medical record system. If it seems likely that some doses will be left over at the end of the vaccination period – perhaps because of missed appointments – supervisors in high-risk areas can refer other health care workers. Mayo gave its first vaccines on Dec. 18, but the vaccination program began in earnest the following week. With the pleasant surprise that each five-dose vial actually provides six doses, 474 vials will allow for the vaccination of 2,844 employees in the top-priority group. “It’s going to expand each week or few days as we get more and more vaccine,” Dr. Swift said.
 

Sharing vials with small rural hospitals

Minnesota is using a hub-and-spoke system to give small rural hospitals access to the Pfizer vaccine, even though they lack ultracold storage and can’t use a minimum order of 975 doses. Large hospitals, acting as hubs, are sharing their orders. (The minimum order for Moderna is 100 doses.)

In south-central Minnesota, for example, two hub hospitals each have six spoke hospitals. Five of the 14 hospitals are independent, and the rest are part of large hospital systems, but affiliation doesn’t matter, said Eric Weller, regional health care preparedness coordinator for the South Central Healthcare Coalition. “We are all working together. It doesn’t matter what system you’re from,” he said. “We’re working for the good of the community.”

Each hospital designed a process to provide vaccine education, prioritize groups, allocate appointments, register people for vaccination, obtain signed consent forms, administer vaccines in a COVID-safe way, and provide follow-up appointments for the second dose. “We’re using some of the lessons we learned during H1N1,” said Mr. Weller, referring to immunization during the 2009 influenza pandemic. “The difference is that during H1N1, you could have lines of people.”

Coordinating the appointments will be more important than ever. “One of the vaccination strategies is to get people in groups of five, so you use one vial on those five people and don’t waste it,” he said.

Logistics are somewhat different for the Moderna vaccine, which will come in 10-dose vials that can be refrigerated for up to 30 days.

Both vaccines may produce mild flulike symptoms, such as fatigue, headache, or muscle pain, particularly after the second dose. That’s a sign that the immune system is reacting to the vaccine, but it’s also another consideration in the vaccination plans, because health care workers might take a day or two off work. “We’re not going to vaccinate a whole department at one time. It will be staggered,” said Kevin Smith, MD, medical director of the occupational medicine program at ProMedica, a health care system based in Toledo, Ohio.

Dr. Smith said he plans to encourage employees to use V-Safe, an app created by the CDC to track adverse effects in people who receive the vaccine. He pointed out that a day or two of achiness will be better than coping with the symptoms of COVID-19. Some employees who recovered from the infection still feel fatigued or haven’t regained their sense of taste and smell. “We are still monitoring quite a few employees to make sure they get back to 100%,” he said.
 

Hope for ending the pandemic

Public health officials have worried about vaccine hesitancy, even among health care workers, but so far, that concern seems overshadowed by enthusiasm. Dr. Smith said his department has been fielding calls from employees who want to know when they will be able to get the vaccine. “I think everyone feels relief,” he said. “We’re at the beginning of the end.”

At Mayo, Dr. Swift is surveying staff to gauge the willingness to get the vaccine, but she already senses excitement among employees. “No doubt there are still people who are hesitant, but I’m feeling a shift,” she said. “I’m feeling this momentum building of health care workers coming on board and wanting to take this vaccine, which is good, because they will set an example for their patients.”

For Colleen Kelley, MD, an infectious disease physician at Emory University in Atlanta who was principal investigator for an Emory-affiliated Moderna clinical trial site, it has been an emotional time. “Things were looking very bleak and dark for a time, and then we started to get these efficacy results that were greater than anyone imagined,” she said.

Dr. Kelley spends time talking to journalists and educating physician colleagues and hospital employees about how the vaccine was developed so quickly and how it works. “Everyone asks me, ‘Should I get it? Are you going to get it?’ My answer is ‘yes’ and ‘yes,’ “ she said. “I am 1,000% confident that the benefits of widespread vaccination outweigh the risks of continued COVID and a continued pandemic.”

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

Parts of three linked studies investigating increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been “paused” because of futility and safety concerns, a statement from the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) confirms.

The trials involved are the REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC studies.

All three trials have paused enrollment of critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care unit support for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs did not reduce the need for organ support, the NHLBI statement notes.

The statement also says that a potential for harm in this subgroup could not be excluded, noting that increased bleeding is a known complication of full-dose anticoagulation. The trials are working urgently to undertake additional analyses, which will be made available as soon as possible.   

The three clinical trial platforms are working together to test the effects of full therapeutic doses of anticoagulants vs. lower prophylactic doses in COVID-19 patients.

Informed by the deliberations of the data safety monitoring boards of these trials, all of the trial sites have paused enrollment of the most critically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19. 

Enrollment continues in the trials for moderately ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the statement notes.  

“Whether the use of full-dose compared to low-dose anticoagulants leads to better outcomes in hospitalized patients with less COVID-19 severe disease remains a very important question,” the NHLBI statement says.

Patients who require full dose anticoagulants for another medical indication are not included in these trials.

The statement explains that COVID-19 is associated with significant inflammation and clinical and pathologic evidence of widespread blood clots. These trials were launched because clinicians have observed that many patients ill with COVID-19, including those who have died from the disease, formed blood clots throughout their bodies, even in their smallest blood vessels. This unusual clotting can cause multiple health complications, including lung failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. 

The three trials are the result of a collaboration between major international partners. The trials include: the Randomized, Embedded, Multi-factorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) Therapeutic Anticoagulation; Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-4 (ACTIV-4) Antithrombotics Inpatient; and Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC).

The trials, which span four continents, have the common goal of assessing the benefit of full doses of anticoagulants to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with a lower dose often used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.  

The trials are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (UK), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

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

Parts of three linked studies investigating increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been “paused” because of futility and safety concerns, a statement from the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) confirms.

The trials involved are the REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC studies.

All three trials have paused enrollment of critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care unit support for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs did not reduce the need for organ support, the NHLBI statement notes.

The statement also says that a potential for harm in this subgroup could not be excluded, noting that increased bleeding is a known complication of full-dose anticoagulation. The trials are working urgently to undertake additional analyses, which will be made available as soon as possible.   

The three clinical trial platforms are working together to test the effects of full therapeutic doses of anticoagulants vs. lower prophylactic doses in COVID-19 patients.

Informed by the deliberations of the data safety monitoring boards of these trials, all of the trial sites have paused enrollment of the most critically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19. 

Enrollment continues in the trials for moderately ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the statement notes.  

“Whether the use of full-dose compared to low-dose anticoagulants leads to better outcomes in hospitalized patients with less COVID-19 severe disease remains a very important question,” the NHLBI statement says.

Patients who require full dose anticoagulants for another medical indication are not included in these trials.

The statement explains that COVID-19 is associated with significant inflammation and clinical and pathologic evidence of widespread blood clots. These trials were launched because clinicians have observed that many patients ill with COVID-19, including those who have died from the disease, formed blood clots throughout their bodies, even in their smallest blood vessels. This unusual clotting can cause multiple health complications, including lung failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. 

The three trials are the result of a collaboration between major international partners. The trials include: the Randomized, Embedded, Multi-factorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) Therapeutic Anticoagulation; Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-4 (ACTIV-4) Antithrombotics Inpatient; and Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC).

The trials, which span four continents, have the common goal of assessing the benefit of full doses of anticoagulants to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with a lower dose often used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.  

The trials are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (UK), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

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

Parts of three linked studies investigating increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been “paused” because of futility and safety concerns, a statement from the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) confirms.

The trials involved are the REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC studies.

All three trials have paused enrollment of critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care unit support for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs did not reduce the need for organ support, the NHLBI statement notes.

The statement also says that a potential for harm in this subgroup could not be excluded, noting that increased bleeding is a known complication of full-dose anticoagulation. The trials are working urgently to undertake additional analyses, which will be made available as soon as possible.   

The three clinical trial platforms are working together to test the effects of full therapeutic doses of anticoagulants vs. lower prophylactic doses in COVID-19 patients.

Informed by the deliberations of the data safety monitoring boards of these trials, all of the trial sites have paused enrollment of the most critically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19. 

Enrollment continues in the trials for moderately ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the statement notes.  

“Whether the use of full-dose compared to low-dose anticoagulants leads to better outcomes in hospitalized patients with less COVID-19 severe disease remains a very important question,” the NHLBI statement says.

Patients who require full dose anticoagulants for another medical indication are not included in these trials.

The statement explains that COVID-19 is associated with significant inflammation and clinical and pathologic evidence of widespread blood clots. These trials were launched because clinicians have observed that many patients ill with COVID-19, including those who have died from the disease, formed blood clots throughout their bodies, even in their smallest blood vessels. This unusual clotting can cause multiple health complications, including lung failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. 

The three trials are the result of a collaboration between major international partners. The trials include: the Randomized, Embedded, Multi-factorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) Therapeutic Anticoagulation; Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-4 (ACTIV-4) Antithrombotics Inpatient; and Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC).

The trials, which span four continents, have the common goal of assessing the benefit of full doses of anticoagulants to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with a lower dose often used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.  

The trials are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (UK), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

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

Blinatumomab was superior to high-risk consolidation (HC) 3 chemotherapy in a phase 3 clinical trial among children with high-risk first-relapse acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to Franco Locatelli, MD, PhD, Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesú and Sapienza, Rome.

Blinatumomab constitutes a new standard of care because of superior event-free survival (EFS) and other comparative benefits, including fewer and less severe toxicities, he said in a presentation at theannual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held virtually.

About 15% of children with B-cell precursor (BCP) ALL relapse after standard treatment. Prognosis depends largely on time from diagnosis to relapse and the site of relapse. After relapse, when a second morphological complete remission (M1 marrow) is achieved, most are candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT), Dr. Locatelli noted. Immuno-oncotherapy with blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell–engager molecule, has been shown to be efficacious in children with relapsed/refractory BCP-ALL.

In the open-label, controlled trial, investigators randomized children with M1 (<5% blasts) or M2 (<25% and 5% or greater blasts) marrow 1:1 after induction therapy and cycles of HC1 and HC2 chemotherapy to a third consolidation course with blinatumomab (15 µg/m²/day for 4 weeks) or HC3 (dexamethasone, vincristine, daunorubicin, methotrexate, ifosfamide, PEG-asparaginase); intrathecal chemotherapy (methotrexate/cytarabine/prednisolone) was administered before treatment. Patients achieving a second complete morphological remission (M1 marrow) after blinatumomab or HC3 proceeded to alloHSCT. EFS was the primary endpoint (from randomization until relapse date or M2 marrow after a complete response [CR], failure to achieve CR at end of treatment, second malignancy, or death from any cause).

Investigators had enrolled 108 (54 received HC3; 54 received blinatumomab) out of a target of about 202 patients when the data-monitoring committee recommended termination because of blinatumomab benefit observed at the first interim analysis. Median age was around 5.5 years (1-17), with the mean time from first diagnosis to relapse at approximately 22 months.

Dr. Locatelli reported events for 18/54 (33.3%) in the blinatumomab arm and 31/54 (57.4%) in the HC3 arm, with a median EFS of “not reached” and 7.4 months, respectively. The risk of relapse with blinatumomab was reduced by 64% versus HC3 (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.66, P < .001). Overall survival (OS) favored blinatumomab over HC3, as well, with a hazard ratio of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.18-1.01). Minimal residual disease (MRD) remission (MRD < 10-4) was seen in 43/46 (93.5%) blinatumomab-randomized and 25/46 (54.3%) HC3-randomized patients.

Relapses occurred more often in the HC3 group (blinatumomab 13, 24%; HC3 29, 54%) overall, and at each of the assessments at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. Also, MRD remissions by PCR (polymerase chain reaction) were superior in the blinatumomab arm overall (90% versus 54%) and according to baseline MRD status with strikingly divergent rates in those with MRD greater than or equal to 104 at baseline (93% blinatumomab/24% HC3). Rates were relatively similar in patients with MRD less than 104 at baseline (85% blinatumomab/87% HC3).

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 30/53 (57%) and 41/51 (80%) patients in the blinatumomab and HC3 groups, respectively, with several markedly lower in the blinatumomab group (neutropenia/neutrophil count decrease 17 versus 31; anemia 15 versus 41; febrile neutropenia 4 versus 26). As expected, grade 3 or greater neurologic events occurred more frequently with blinatumomab than with HC3 (48% versus 29%); no grade 3 or greater cytokine release syndrome events were reported.

Tallying the blinatumomab benefits (superior EFS and MRD negativity prior to alloHSCT, improved OS, fewer relapses, fewer and less severe toxicities), Dr. Locatelli concluded, “Blinatumomab constitutes a new standard of care in children with high-risk first-relapse ALL.”

In the postpresentation discussion, Dr. Locatelli underscored the blinatumomab benefit versus a third course of chemotherapy: “Monotherapy with blinatumomab was able to present a higher proportion of patients in CR2 who could proceed to transplant.”

Dr. Locatelli disclosed relationships with multiple companies.

SOURCE: Locatelli F et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 268.

Blinatumomab was superior to high-risk consolidation (HC) 3 chemotherapy in a phase 3 clinical trial among children with high-risk first-relapse acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to Franco Locatelli, MD, PhD, Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesú and Sapienza, Rome.

Blinatumomab constitutes a new standard of care because of superior event-free survival (EFS) and other comparative benefits, including fewer and less severe toxicities, he said in a presentation at theannual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held virtually.

About 15% of children with B-cell precursor (BCP) ALL relapse after standard treatment. Prognosis depends largely on time from diagnosis to relapse and the site of relapse. After relapse, when a second morphological complete remission (M1 marrow) is achieved, most are candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT), Dr. Locatelli noted. Immuno-oncotherapy with blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell–engager molecule, has been shown to be efficacious in children with relapsed/refractory BCP-ALL.

In the open-label, controlled trial, investigators randomized children with M1 (<5% blasts) or M2 (<25% and 5% or greater blasts) marrow 1:1 after induction therapy and cycles of HC1 and HC2 chemotherapy to a third consolidation course with blinatumomab (15 µg/m²/day for 4 weeks) or HC3 (dexamethasone, vincristine, daunorubicin, methotrexate, ifosfamide, PEG-asparaginase); intrathecal chemotherapy (methotrexate/cytarabine/prednisolone) was administered before treatment. Patients achieving a second complete morphological remission (M1 marrow) after blinatumomab or HC3 proceeded to alloHSCT. EFS was the primary endpoint (from randomization until relapse date or M2 marrow after a complete response [CR], failure to achieve CR at end of treatment, second malignancy, or death from any cause).

Investigators had enrolled 108 (54 received HC3; 54 received blinatumomab) out of a target of about 202 patients when the data-monitoring committee recommended termination because of blinatumomab benefit observed at the first interim analysis. Median age was around 5.5 years (1-17), with the mean time from first diagnosis to relapse at approximately 22 months.

Dr. Locatelli reported events for 18/54 (33.3%) in the blinatumomab arm and 31/54 (57.4%) in the HC3 arm, with a median EFS of “not reached” and 7.4 months, respectively. The risk of relapse with blinatumomab was reduced by 64% versus HC3 (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.66, P < .001). Overall survival (OS) favored blinatumomab over HC3, as well, with a hazard ratio of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.18-1.01). Minimal residual disease (MRD) remission (MRD < 10-4) was seen in 43/46 (93.5%) blinatumomab-randomized and 25/46 (54.3%) HC3-randomized patients.

Relapses occurred more often in the HC3 group (blinatumomab 13, 24%; HC3 29, 54%) overall, and at each of the assessments at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. Also, MRD remissions by PCR (polymerase chain reaction) were superior in the blinatumomab arm overall (90% versus 54%) and according to baseline MRD status with strikingly divergent rates in those with MRD greater than or equal to 104 at baseline (93% blinatumomab/24% HC3). Rates were relatively similar in patients with MRD less than 104 at baseline (85% blinatumomab/87% HC3).

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 30/53 (57%) and 41/51 (80%) patients in the blinatumomab and HC3 groups, respectively, with several markedly lower in the blinatumomab group (neutropenia/neutrophil count decrease 17 versus 31; anemia 15 versus 41; febrile neutropenia 4 versus 26). As expected, grade 3 or greater neurologic events occurred more frequently with blinatumomab than with HC3 (48% versus 29%); no grade 3 or greater cytokine release syndrome events were reported.

Tallying the blinatumomab benefits (superior EFS and MRD negativity prior to alloHSCT, improved OS, fewer relapses, fewer and less severe toxicities), Dr. Locatelli concluded, “Blinatumomab constitutes a new standard of care in children with high-risk first-relapse ALL.”

In the postpresentation discussion, Dr. Locatelli underscored the blinatumomab benefit versus a third course of chemotherapy: “Monotherapy with blinatumomab was able to present a higher proportion of patients in CR2 who could proceed to transplant.”

Dr. Locatelli disclosed relationships with multiple companies.

SOURCE: Locatelli F et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 268.

Blinatumomab was superior to high-risk consolidation (HC) 3 chemotherapy in a phase 3 clinical trial among children with high-risk first-relapse acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to Franco Locatelli, MD, PhD, Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesú and Sapienza, Rome.

Blinatumomab constitutes a new standard of care because of superior event-free survival (EFS) and other comparative benefits, including fewer and less severe toxicities, he said in a presentation at theannual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held virtually.

About 15% of children with B-cell precursor (BCP) ALL relapse after standard treatment. Prognosis depends largely on time from diagnosis to relapse and the site of relapse. After relapse, when a second morphological complete remission (M1 marrow) is achieved, most are candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT), Dr. Locatelli noted. Immuno-oncotherapy with blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell–engager molecule, has been shown to be efficacious in children with relapsed/refractory BCP-ALL.

In the open-label, controlled trial, investigators randomized children with M1 (<5% blasts) or M2 (<25% and 5% or greater blasts) marrow 1:1 after induction therapy and cycles of HC1 and HC2 chemotherapy to a third consolidation course with blinatumomab (15 µg/m²/day for 4 weeks) or HC3 (dexamethasone, vincristine, daunorubicin, methotrexate, ifosfamide, PEG-asparaginase); intrathecal chemotherapy (methotrexate/cytarabine/prednisolone) was administered before treatment. Patients achieving a second complete morphological remission (M1 marrow) after blinatumomab or HC3 proceeded to alloHSCT. EFS was the primary endpoint (from randomization until relapse date or M2 marrow after a complete response [CR], failure to achieve CR at end of treatment, second malignancy, or death from any cause).

Investigators had enrolled 108 (54 received HC3; 54 received blinatumomab) out of a target of about 202 patients when the data-monitoring committee recommended termination because of blinatumomab benefit observed at the first interim analysis. Median age was around 5.5 years (1-17), with the mean time from first diagnosis to relapse at approximately 22 months.

Dr. Locatelli reported events for 18/54 (33.3%) in the blinatumomab arm and 31/54 (57.4%) in the HC3 arm, with a median EFS of “not reached” and 7.4 months, respectively. The risk of relapse with blinatumomab was reduced by 64% versus HC3 (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.66, P < .001). Overall survival (OS) favored blinatumomab over HC3, as well, with a hazard ratio of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.18-1.01). Minimal residual disease (MRD) remission (MRD < 10-4) was seen in 43/46 (93.5%) blinatumomab-randomized and 25/46 (54.3%) HC3-randomized patients.

Relapses occurred more often in the HC3 group (blinatumomab 13, 24%; HC3 29, 54%) overall, and at each of the assessments at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. Also, MRD remissions by PCR (polymerase chain reaction) were superior in the blinatumomab arm overall (90% versus 54%) and according to baseline MRD status with strikingly divergent rates in those with MRD greater than or equal to 104 at baseline (93% blinatumomab/24% HC3). Rates were relatively similar in patients with MRD less than 104 at baseline (85% blinatumomab/87% HC3).

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 30/53 (57%) and 41/51 (80%) patients in the blinatumomab and HC3 groups, respectively, with several markedly lower in the blinatumomab group (neutropenia/neutrophil count decrease 17 versus 31; anemia 15 versus 41; febrile neutropenia 4 versus 26). As expected, grade 3 or greater neurologic events occurred more frequently with blinatumomab than with HC3 (48% versus 29%); no grade 3 or greater cytokine release syndrome events were reported.

Tallying the blinatumomab benefits (superior EFS and MRD negativity prior to alloHSCT, improved OS, fewer relapses, fewer and less severe toxicities), Dr. Locatelli concluded, “Blinatumomab constitutes a new standard of care in children with high-risk first-relapse ALL.”

In the postpresentation discussion, Dr. Locatelli underscored the blinatumomab benefit versus a third course of chemotherapy: “Monotherapy with blinatumomab was able to present a higher proportion of patients in CR2 who could proceed to transplant.”

Dr. Locatelli disclosed relationships with multiple companies.

SOURCE: Locatelli F et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 268.

Each year in the United States, approximately one to two out of every thousand people suffer from venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) issued new guidelines for the management of VTE, including primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent events, earlier this year.

These guidelines, which were recently published in Blood Advances (Ortel T L et al. Blood Adv 2020 doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001830), include 28 recommendations.

How to treat uncomplicated patients

For uncomplicated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE), the guidelines suggest treating patients at home rather than in the hospital. This is especially important for family physicians to note as many of these patients will now be the responsibility of the primary care doctor to treat and follow. Patients treated at home can avoid the risk of nosocomial infections, especially in the days of COVID-19. Evidence also suggests that being treated at home was shown to reduce the risk of PE versus being treated in the hospital. It is, therefore, crucial that family physicians know which patients are low versus high risk.

Further, the guidelines suggest that these patients with low risk of complications are better treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists, such as Coumadin.

Medication-related suggestions

The guidelines also suggest that no DOAC is preferred over another. Since DOACs are relatively newer agents, family doctors need to become comfortable with their use. For proximal DVTs, anticoagulation alone can be used without thrombolytics.

Family physicians are often tasked with the decision on when to stop anticoagulation. The authors recommend against using diagnostic tests such as D-Dimer or ultrasound to decide when to stop these medications in low-risk patients. In patients at risk of recurrent VTE due to chronic medical conditions, it is suggested to continue anti-coagulants indefinitely. While anticoagulant therapy effectively reduces risk of VTE, it does increase the risk of bleeding events.

The guidelines are quite extensive and specific in their recommendations and family physicians need to understand them. We are often the first ones in the medical system to diagnose VTE, and it is quite possible to keep these patients home, thereby eliminating risks they may encounter by being hospitalized. In addition, the recommendation regarding the use of DOACs may ease some of the burden of monitoring patients on long-term Coumadin. These medications do not come without risks, and we must be comfortable evaluating for any complications. In our current health care system, different insurance companies have different formularies making it necessary for us to know all these medications.

In the past, the diagnosis of PE and even a DVT would mean a hospital stay. We now know, and these guidelines reaffirm, that this is not necessary in uncomplicated cases.

In addition to diagnosing VTE, family physicians are also tasked with following up with patients who were hospitalized or started on treatment by other physicians. We need to know the plan on when to stop the medication or when to reevaluate its use. Patients often bring this question to us, and these guidelines will help us answer that question.

Many patients who have more complicated medical conditions often see multiple specialists. The ASH recommendations help standardize the care of these patients across specialties.

What the recommendations are missing

As family doctors, we often treat patients with multiple comorbidities. These guidelines do not make recommendations for patients with cancer, who are at high risk of VTE events. Some patients also have conditions that increase their risk of bleeding or have contraindications to the use of anticoagulants. It would be helpful to have more recommendations for both of these types of patients in addition to the use of inferior vena cava filter in patients with proximal DVT. The document is also missing recommendations for pregnant patients, which would be useful.

Overall, these guidelines include much of what we already do in our practices while doing a great job of incorporating the newer DOACs. These guidelines are easy for family physicians to put into practice.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Each year in the United States, approximately one to two out of every thousand people suffer from venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) issued new guidelines for the management of VTE, including primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent events, earlier this year.

These guidelines, which were recently published in Blood Advances (Ortel T L et al. Blood Adv 2020 doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001830), include 28 recommendations.

How to treat uncomplicated patients

For uncomplicated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE), the guidelines suggest treating patients at home rather than in the hospital. This is especially important for family physicians to note as many of these patients will now be the responsibility of the primary care doctor to treat and follow. Patients treated at home can avoid the risk of nosocomial infections, especially in the days of COVID-19. Evidence also suggests that being treated at home was shown to reduce the risk of PE versus being treated in the hospital. It is, therefore, crucial that family physicians know which patients are low versus high risk.

Further, the guidelines suggest that these patients with low risk of complications are better treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists, such as Coumadin.

Medication-related suggestions

The guidelines also suggest that no DOAC is preferred over another. Since DOACs are relatively newer agents, family doctors need to become comfortable with their use. For proximal DVTs, anticoagulation alone can be used without thrombolytics.

Family physicians are often tasked with the decision on when to stop anticoagulation. The authors recommend against using diagnostic tests such as D-Dimer or ultrasound to decide when to stop these medications in low-risk patients. In patients at risk of recurrent VTE due to chronic medical conditions, it is suggested to continue anti-coagulants indefinitely. While anticoagulant therapy effectively reduces risk of VTE, it does increase the risk of bleeding events.

The guidelines are quite extensive and specific in their recommendations and family physicians need to understand them. We are often the first ones in the medical system to diagnose VTE, and it is quite possible to keep these patients home, thereby eliminating risks they may encounter by being hospitalized. In addition, the recommendation regarding the use of DOACs may ease some of the burden of monitoring patients on long-term Coumadin. These medications do not come without risks, and we must be comfortable evaluating for any complications. In our current health care system, different insurance companies have different formularies making it necessary for us to know all these medications.

In the past, the diagnosis of PE and even a DVT would mean a hospital stay. We now know, and these guidelines reaffirm, that this is not necessary in uncomplicated cases.

In addition to diagnosing VTE, family physicians are also tasked with following up with patients who were hospitalized or started on treatment by other physicians. We need to know the plan on when to stop the medication or when to reevaluate its use. Patients often bring this question to us, and these guidelines will help us answer that question.

Many patients who have more complicated medical conditions often see multiple specialists. The ASH recommendations help standardize the care of these patients across specialties.

What the recommendations are missing

As family doctors, we often treat patients with multiple comorbidities. These guidelines do not make recommendations for patients with cancer, who are at high risk of VTE events. Some patients also have conditions that increase their risk of bleeding or have contraindications to the use of anticoagulants. It would be helpful to have more recommendations for both of these types of patients in addition to the use of inferior vena cava filter in patients with proximal DVT. The document is also missing recommendations for pregnant patients, which would be useful.

Overall, these guidelines include much of what we already do in our practices while doing a great job of incorporating the newer DOACs. These guidelines are easy for family physicians to put into practice.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Each year in the United States, approximately one to two out of every thousand people suffer from venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) issued new guidelines for the management of VTE, including primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent events, earlier this year.

These guidelines, which were recently published in Blood Advances (Ortel T L et al. Blood Adv 2020 doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001830), include 28 recommendations.

How to treat uncomplicated patients

For uncomplicated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE), the guidelines suggest treating patients at home rather than in the hospital. This is especially important for family physicians to note as many of these patients will now be the responsibility of the primary care doctor to treat and follow. Patients treated at home can avoid the risk of nosocomial infections, especially in the days of COVID-19. Evidence also suggests that being treated at home was shown to reduce the risk of PE versus being treated in the hospital. It is, therefore, crucial that family physicians know which patients are low versus high risk.

Further, the guidelines suggest that these patients with low risk of complications are better treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists, such as Coumadin.

Medication-related suggestions

The guidelines also suggest that no DOAC is preferred over another. Since DOACs are relatively newer agents, family doctors need to become comfortable with their use. For proximal DVTs, anticoagulation alone can be used without thrombolytics.

Family physicians are often tasked with the decision on when to stop anticoagulation. The authors recommend against using diagnostic tests such as D-Dimer or ultrasound to decide when to stop these medications in low-risk patients. In patients at risk of recurrent VTE due to chronic medical conditions, it is suggested to continue anti-coagulants indefinitely. While anticoagulant therapy effectively reduces risk of VTE, it does increase the risk of bleeding events.

The guidelines are quite extensive and specific in their recommendations and family physicians need to understand them. We are often the first ones in the medical system to diagnose VTE, and it is quite possible to keep these patients home, thereby eliminating risks they may encounter by being hospitalized. In addition, the recommendation regarding the use of DOACs may ease some of the burden of monitoring patients on long-term Coumadin. These medications do not come without risks, and we must be comfortable evaluating for any complications. In our current health care system, different insurance companies have different formularies making it necessary for us to know all these medications.

In the past, the diagnosis of PE and even a DVT would mean a hospital stay. We now know, and these guidelines reaffirm, that this is not necessary in uncomplicated cases.

In addition to diagnosing VTE, family physicians are also tasked with following up with patients who were hospitalized or started on treatment by other physicians. We need to know the plan on when to stop the medication or when to reevaluate its use. Patients often bring this question to us, and these guidelines will help us answer that question.

Many patients who have more complicated medical conditions often see multiple specialists. The ASH recommendations help standardize the care of these patients across specialties.

What the recommendations are missing

As family doctors, we often treat patients with multiple comorbidities. These guidelines do not make recommendations for patients with cancer, who are at high risk of VTE events. Some patients also have conditions that increase their risk of bleeding or have contraindications to the use of anticoagulants. It would be helpful to have more recommendations for both of these types of patients in addition to the use of inferior vena cava filter in patients with proximal DVT. The document is also missing recommendations for pregnant patients, which would be useful.

Overall, these guidelines include much of what we already do in our practices while doing a great job of incorporating the newer DOACs. These guidelines are easy for family physicians to put into practice.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].