User login
-
Cutaneous clues linked to COVID-19 coagulation risk
, new evidence suggests.
Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.
These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.
“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”
The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.
The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.
“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.
D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.
“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
Skin biopsy results
Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.
Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.
An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.
“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”
Observations during an outbreak
The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.
“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.
Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.
The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.
“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
Consider a dermatology consult
“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”
As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.
“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”
Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, new evidence suggests.
Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.
These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.
“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”
The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.
The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.
“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.
D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.
“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
Skin biopsy results
Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.
Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.
An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.
“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”
Observations during an outbreak
The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.
“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.
Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.
The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.
“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
Consider a dermatology consult
“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”
As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.
“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”
Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, new evidence suggests.
Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.
These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.
“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”
The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.
The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.
“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.
D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.
“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
Skin biopsy results
Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.
Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.
An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.
“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”
Observations during an outbreak
The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.
“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.
Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.
The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.
“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
Consider a dermatology consult
“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”
As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.
“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”
Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
When you see something ...
Over the last several decades science has fallen off this country’s radar screen. Yes, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has recently had a brief moment in the spotlight as a buzzword de jour. But the critical importance of careful and systematic investigation into the world around us using observation and trial and error is a tough sell to a large segment of our population.
The COVID-19 pandemic is providing an excellent opportunity for science and medicine to showcase their star qualities. Of course some people in leadership positions persist in disregarding the value of scientific investigation. But I get the feeling that the fear generated by the pandemic is creating some converts among many previous science skeptics. This gathering enthusiasm among the general population is a predictably slow process because that’s the way science works. It often doesn’t provide quick answers. And it is difficult for the nonscientist to see the beauty in the reality that the things we thought were true 2 months ago are likely to be proven wrong today as more observations accumulate.
A recent New York Times article examines the career of one such unscrupulous physician/scientist whose recent exploits threaten to undo much of the positive image the pandemic has cast on science (“The Doctor Behind the Disputed Covid Data,” by Ellen Gabler and Roni Caryn Rabin, The New York Times, July 27, 2020). The subject of the article is the physician who was responsible for providing some of the large data sets on which several papers were published about the apparent ineffectiveness and danger of using hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The authenticity of the data sets recently has been seriously questioned, and the articles have been retracted by the journals in which they had appeared.
Based on numerous interviews with coworkers, the Times reporters present a strong case that this individual’s long history of unreliability make his association with allegedly fraudulent data set not surprising but maybe even predictable. At one point in his training, there appears to have been serious questions about advancing the physician to the next level. Despite these concerns, he was allowed to continue and complete his specialty training. It is of note that in his last year of clinical practice, the physician became the subject of three serious malpractice claims that question his competence.
I suspect that some of you have crossed paths with physicians whose competence and/or moral character you found concerning. Were they peers? Were you the individual’s supervisor or was he or she your mentor? How did you respond? Did anyone respond at all?
There has been a lot written and said in recent months about how and when to respond to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. But I don’t recall reading any articles that discuss how one should respond to incompetence. Of course competency can be a relative term, but in most cases significant incompetence is hard to miss because it tends to be repeated.
It is easy for the airports and subway systems to post signs that say “If you see something say something.” It’s a different story for hospitals and medical schools that may have systems in place for reporting and following up on poor practice. But my sense is that there are too many cases that slip through the cracks.
This is another example of a problem for which I don’t have a solution. However, if this column prompts just one of you who sees something to say something then I have had a good day.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Over the last several decades science has fallen off this country’s radar screen. Yes, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has recently had a brief moment in the spotlight as a buzzword de jour. But the critical importance of careful and systematic investigation into the world around us using observation and trial and error is a tough sell to a large segment of our population.
The COVID-19 pandemic is providing an excellent opportunity for science and medicine to showcase their star qualities. Of course some people in leadership positions persist in disregarding the value of scientific investigation. But I get the feeling that the fear generated by the pandemic is creating some converts among many previous science skeptics. This gathering enthusiasm among the general population is a predictably slow process because that’s the way science works. It often doesn’t provide quick answers. And it is difficult for the nonscientist to see the beauty in the reality that the things we thought were true 2 months ago are likely to be proven wrong today as more observations accumulate.
A recent New York Times article examines the career of one such unscrupulous physician/scientist whose recent exploits threaten to undo much of the positive image the pandemic has cast on science (“The Doctor Behind the Disputed Covid Data,” by Ellen Gabler and Roni Caryn Rabin, The New York Times, July 27, 2020). The subject of the article is the physician who was responsible for providing some of the large data sets on which several papers were published about the apparent ineffectiveness and danger of using hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The authenticity of the data sets recently has been seriously questioned, and the articles have been retracted by the journals in which they had appeared.
Based on numerous interviews with coworkers, the Times reporters present a strong case that this individual’s long history of unreliability make his association with allegedly fraudulent data set not surprising but maybe even predictable. At one point in his training, there appears to have been serious questions about advancing the physician to the next level. Despite these concerns, he was allowed to continue and complete his specialty training. It is of note that in his last year of clinical practice, the physician became the subject of three serious malpractice claims that question his competence.
I suspect that some of you have crossed paths with physicians whose competence and/or moral character you found concerning. Were they peers? Were you the individual’s supervisor or was he or she your mentor? How did you respond? Did anyone respond at all?
There has been a lot written and said in recent months about how and when to respond to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. But I don’t recall reading any articles that discuss how one should respond to incompetence. Of course competency can be a relative term, but in most cases significant incompetence is hard to miss because it tends to be repeated.
It is easy for the airports and subway systems to post signs that say “If you see something say something.” It’s a different story for hospitals and medical schools that may have systems in place for reporting and following up on poor practice. But my sense is that there are too many cases that slip through the cracks.
This is another example of a problem for which I don’t have a solution. However, if this column prompts just one of you who sees something to say something then I have had a good day.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Over the last several decades science has fallen off this country’s radar screen. Yes, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has recently had a brief moment in the spotlight as a buzzword de jour. But the critical importance of careful and systematic investigation into the world around us using observation and trial and error is a tough sell to a large segment of our population.
The COVID-19 pandemic is providing an excellent opportunity for science and medicine to showcase their star qualities. Of course some people in leadership positions persist in disregarding the value of scientific investigation. But I get the feeling that the fear generated by the pandemic is creating some converts among many previous science skeptics. This gathering enthusiasm among the general population is a predictably slow process because that’s the way science works. It often doesn’t provide quick answers. And it is difficult for the nonscientist to see the beauty in the reality that the things we thought were true 2 months ago are likely to be proven wrong today as more observations accumulate.
A recent New York Times article examines the career of one such unscrupulous physician/scientist whose recent exploits threaten to undo much of the positive image the pandemic has cast on science (“The Doctor Behind the Disputed Covid Data,” by Ellen Gabler and Roni Caryn Rabin, The New York Times, July 27, 2020). The subject of the article is the physician who was responsible for providing some of the large data sets on which several papers were published about the apparent ineffectiveness and danger of using hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The authenticity of the data sets recently has been seriously questioned, and the articles have been retracted by the journals in which they had appeared.
Based on numerous interviews with coworkers, the Times reporters present a strong case that this individual’s long history of unreliability make his association with allegedly fraudulent data set not surprising but maybe even predictable. At one point in his training, there appears to have been serious questions about advancing the physician to the next level. Despite these concerns, he was allowed to continue and complete his specialty training. It is of note that in his last year of clinical practice, the physician became the subject of three serious malpractice claims that question his competence.
I suspect that some of you have crossed paths with physicians whose competence and/or moral character you found concerning. Were they peers? Were you the individual’s supervisor or was he or she your mentor? How did you respond? Did anyone respond at all?
There has been a lot written and said in recent months about how and when to respond to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. But I don’t recall reading any articles that discuss how one should respond to incompetence. Of course competency can be a relative term, but in most cases significant incompetence is hard to miss because it tends to be repeated.
It is easy for the airports and subway systems to post signs that say “If you see something say something.” It’s a different story for hospitals and medical schools that may have systems in place for reporting and following up on poor practice. But my sense is that there are too many cases that slip through the cracks.
This is another example of a problem for which I don’t have a solution. However, if this column prompts just one of you who sees something to say something then I have had a good day.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
FDA approves belantamab in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma
The first-in-class drug belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) has been granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in patients who have already tried other therapies.
This follows a recommendation for approval on July 15 by an FDA advisory committee, which voted 12-0 in favor of the drug’s benefits outweighing risks in this patient population.
The product has a novel mechanism of action: it targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), a protein that is present on the surface of virtually all multiple myeloma cells but is absent from normal B cells.
The drug had already received an FDA breakthrough therapy designation, which facilitates the development of drugs that have shown clinical promise for conditions in which there is significant unmet need.
Belantamab mafodotin was recommended for conditional marketing approval in the European Union on July 24 and was accepted into the European Medicines Agency PRIME scheme for medicines that have potential to address unmet medical needs.
The new drug is indicated for patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomolatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD38 monoclonal antibody.
For patients who no longer respond to these drugs, the outlook is bleak, the EMA comments. There is an unmet medical need for new treatments that improve survival of these patients beyond the currently observed 3 months or less.
“While treatable, refractory multiple myeloma is a significant clinical challenge with poor outcomes for patients whose disease has become resistant to the current standard of care,” commented Sagar Lonial, MD, chief medical officer of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, chair of the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory, and a principal investigator for the clinical trial that led to the approval.
“Due to the limited options currently available, these patients are often retreated with drugs from the same classes after they relapse, which is why the approval of belantamab mafodotin, the first anti-BCMA therapy, is significant for both patients and physicians alike,” he said.
The product is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a monoclonal antibody that targets BCMA with the cytotoxic agent maleimidocaproyl monomethyl auristatin F. It homes in on BCMA on myeloma cell surfaces. Once inside the myeloma cell, the cytotoxic agent is released, leading to apoptosis, the programmed death of the cancerous plasma cells.
Approval based on response rates
The accelerated approval from the FDA and the recommendation for conditional approval from the EMA are based on results for overall response rate and duration of response from a phase 2, open-label, randomized, two-arm study known as DREAMM-2. Both agencies said that they are waiting for further data on clinical benefit from ongoing trials.
The DREAMM-2 study investigated the efficacy and safety of two doses of belantamab mafodotin in multiple myeloma patients whose disease was still active after three or more lines of therapy and who no longer responded to treatment with immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
Six-month results from this study were published in The Lancet Oncology in December. The overall response rate was 31% in the cohort given a 2.5-mg/kg dose of the drug; 30 of 97 patients had outcomes that met the study’s positive threshold.
Another 99 patients in DREAMM-2 received a dose of 3.4 mg/kg, which was judged to have a less favorable safety profile.
The median duration of response had not been reached at the 6-month analysis, but for 73% of responders, DoR was ≥6 months.
The most commonly reported adverse events (≥20%) were keratopathy (changes in the cornea), decreased visual acuity, nausea, blurred vision, pyrexia, infusion-related reactions, and fatigue, the manufacturer notes.
Ocular toxicity
One of the most common adverse events with this product affects the eyes.
Ocular adverse reactions occurred in 77% of the 218 patients in the pooled safety population and included keratopathy (76%), changes in visual acuity (55%), blurred vision (27%), and dry eye (19%).
Corneal adverse events were monitored with eye exams prior to each dose, allowing dose reductions or interruptions as appropriate, the manufacturer noted. Patients also used preservative-free eyedrops. Keratopathy leading to treatment discontinuation affected 2.1% of patients in the 2.5-mg/kg cohort.
Because of this ocular toxicity, the company has set up a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for the product. This requires education for all physicians who prescribe the product as well as their patients regarding the ocular risks associated with treatment. It also requires monitoring that includes regular ophthalmic examinations. Information about the scheme can be found at www.blenreprems.com.
At the FDA advisory committee meeting last month, one of the panelists, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn., said belantamab appeared to be well tolerated but for ocular toxicity. Physicians need to acknowledge how severe this risk may be for patients while keeping in mind that belantamab still may be more tolerable for some people than current treatments.
“It’s reasonable to leave open the option for decision making. Patients can express their values and preferences,” Dr. Thanarajasingam said. “There’s adequate, albeit not complete, information to guide this risk-benefit discussion in a REMS program.”
Another panelist, Heidi D. Klepin, MD, a professor at Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston Salem, N.C., agreed that the informed consent process should allow patients “to choose whether the trade-off is worth it to them” with belantamab.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first-in-class drug belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) has been granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in patients who have already tried other therapies.
This follows a recommendation for approval on July 15 by an FDA advisory committee, which voted 12-0 in favor of the drug’s benefits outweighing risks in this patient population.
The product has a novel mechanism of action: it targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), a protein that is present on the surface of virtually all multiple myeloma cells but is absent from normal B cells.
The drug had already received an FDA breakthrough therapy designation, which facilitates the development of drugs that have shown clinical promise for conditions in which there is significant unmet need.
Belantamab mafodotin was recommended for conditional marketing approval in the European Union on July 24 and was accepted into the European Medicines Agency PRIME scheme for medicines that have potential to address unmet medical needs.
The new drug is indicated for patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomolatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD38 monoclonal antibody.
For patients who no longer respond to these drugs, the outlook is bleak, the EMA comments. There is an unmet medical need for new treatments that improve survival of these patients beyond the currently observed 3 months or less.
“While treatable, refractory multiple myeloma is a significant clinical challenge with poor outcomes for patients whose disease has become resistant to the current standard of care,” commented Sagar Lonial, MD, chief medical officer of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, chair of the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory, and a principal investigator for the clinical trial that led to the approval.
“Due to the limited options currently available, these patients are often retreated with drugs from the same classes after they relapse, which is why the approval of belantamab mafodotin, the first anti-BCMA therapy, is significant for both patients and physicians alike,” he said.
The product is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a monoclonal antibody that targets BCMA with the cytotoxic agent maleimidocaproyl monomethyl auristatin F. It homes in on BCMA on myeloma cell surfaces. Once inside the myeloma cell, the cytotoxic agent is released, leading to apoptosis, the programmed death of the cancerous plasma cells.
Approval based on response rates
The accelerated approval from the FDA and the recommendation for conditional approval from the EMA are based on results for overall response rate and duration of response from a phase 2, open-label, randomized, two-arm study known as DREAMM-2. Both agencies said that they are waiting for further data on clinical benefit from ongoing trials.
The DREAMM-2 study investigated the efficacy and safety of two doses of belantamab mafodotin in multiple myeloma patients whose disease was still active after three or more lines of therapy and who no longer responded to treatment with immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
Six-month results from this study were published in The Lancet Oncology in December. The overall response rate was 31% in the cohort given a 2.5-mg/kg dose of the drug; 30 of 97 patients had outcomes that met the study’s positive threshold.
Another 99 patients in DREAMM-2 received a dose of 3.4 mg/kg, which was judged to have a less favorable safety profile.
The median duration of response had not been reached at the 6-month analysis, but for 73% of responders, DoR was ≥6 months.
The most commonly reported adverse events (≥20%) were keratopathy (changes in the cornea), decreased visual acuity, nausea, blurred vision, pyrexia, infusion-related reactions, and fatigue, the manufacturer notes.
Ocular toxicity
One of the most common adverse events with this product affects the eyes.
Ocular adverse reactions occurred in 77% of the 218 patients in the pooled safety population and included keratopathy (76%), changes in visual acuity (55%), blurred vision (27%), and dry eye (19%).
Corneal adverse events were monitored with eye exams prior to each dose, allowing dose reductions or interruptions as appropriate, the manufacturer noted. Patients also used preservative-free eyedrops. Keratopathy leading to treatment discontinuation affected 2.1% of patients in the 2.5-mg/kg cohort.
Because of this ocular toxicity, the company has set up a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for the product. This requires education for all physicians who prescribe the product as well as their patients regarding the ocular risks associated with treatment. It also requires monitoring that includes regular ophthalmic examinations. Information about the scheme can be found at www.blenreprems.com.
At the FDA advisory committee meeting last month, one of the panelists, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn., said belantamab appeared to be well tolerated but for ocular toxicity. Physicians need to acknowledge how severe this risk may be for patients while keeping in mind that belantamab still may be more tolerable for some people than current treatments.
“It’s reasonable to leave open the option for decision making. Patients can express their values and preferences,” Dr. Thanarajasingam said. “There’s adequate, albeit not complete, information to guide this risk-benefit discussion in a REMS program.”
Another panelist, Heidi D. Klepin, MD, a professor at Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston Salem, N.C., agreed that the informed consent process should allow patients “to choose whether the trade-off is worth it to them” with belantamab.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first-in-class drug belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) has been granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in patients who have already tried other therapies.
This follows a recommendation for approval on July 15 by an FDA advisory committee, which voted 12-0 in favor of the drug’s benefits outweighing risks in this patient population.
The product has a novel mechanism of action: it targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), a protein that is present on the surface of virtually all multiple myeloma cells but is absent from normal B cells.
The drug had already received an FDA breakthrough therapy designation, which facilitates the development of drugs that have shown clinical promise for conditions in which there is significant unmet need.
Belantamab mafodotin was recommended for conditional marketing approval in the European Union on July 24 and was accepted into the European Medicines Agency PRIME scheme for medicines that have potential to address unmet medical needs.
The new drug is indicated for patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomolatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD38 monoclonal antibody.
For patients who no longer respond to these drugs, the outlook is bleak, the EMA comments. There is an unmet medical need for new treatments that improve survival of these patients beyond the currently observed 3 months or less.
“While treatable, refractory multiple myeloma is a significant clinical challenge with poor outcomes for patients whose disease has become resistant to the current standard of care,” commented Sagar Lonial, MD, chief medical officer of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, chair of the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory, and a principal investigator for the clinical trial that led to the approval.
“Due to the limited options currently available, these patients are often retreated with drugs from the same classes after they relapse, which is why the approval of belantamab mafodotin, the first anti-BCMA therapy, is significant for both patients and physicians alike,” he said.
The product is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a monoclonal antibody that targets BCMA with the cytotoxic agent maleimidocaproyl monomethyl auristatin F. It homes in on BCMA on myeloma cell surfaces. Once inside the myeloma cell, the cytotoxic agent is released, leading to apoptosis, the programmed death of the cancerous plasma cells.
Approval based on response rates
The accelerated approval from the FDA and the recommendation for conditional approval from the EMA are based on results for overall response rate and duration of response from a phase 2, open-label, randomized, two-arm study known as DREAMM-2. Both agencies said that they are waiting for further data on clinical benefit from ongoing trials.
The DREAMM-2 study investigated the efficacy and safety of two doses of belantamab mafodotin in multiple myeloma patients whose disease was still active after three or more lines of therapy and who no longer responded to treatment with immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
Six-month results from this study were published in The Lancet Oncology in December. The overall response rate was 31% in the cohort given a 2.5-mg/kg dose of the drug; 30 of 97 patients had outcomes that met the study’s positive threshold.
Another 99 patients in DREAMM-2 received a dose of 3.4 mg/kg, which was judged to have a less favorable safety profile.
The median duration of response had not been reached at the 6-month analysis, but for 73% of responders, DoR was ≥6 months.
The most commonly reported adverse events (≥20%) were keratopathy (changes in the cornea), decreased visual acuity, nausea, blurred vision, pyrexia, infusion-related reactions, and fatigue, the manufacturer notes.
Ocular toxicity
One of the most common adverse events with this product affects the eyes.
Ocular adverse reactions occurred in 77% of the 218 patients in the pooled safety population and included keratopathy (76%), changes in visual acuity (55%), blurred vision (27%), and dry eye (19%).
Corneal adverse events were monitored with eye exams prior to each dose, allowing dose reductions or interruptions as appropriate, the manufacturer noted. Patients also used preservative-free eyedrops. Keratopathy leading to treatment discontinuation affected 2.1% of patients in the 2.5-mg/kg cohort.
Because of this ocular toxicity, the company has set up a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for the product. This requires education for all physicians who prescribe the product as well as their patients regarding the ocular risks associated with treatment. It also requires monitoring that includes regular ophthalmic examinations. Information about the scheme can be found at www.blenreprems.com.
At the FDA advisory committee meeting last month, one of the panelists, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn., said belantamab appeared to be well tolerated but for ocular toxicity. Physicians need to acknowledge how severe this risk may be for patients while keeping in mind that belantamab still may be more tolerable for some people than current treatments.
“It’s reasonable to leave open the option for decision making. Patients can express their values and preferences,” Dr. Thanarajasingam said. “There’s adequate, albeit not complete, information to guide this risk-benefit discussion in a REMS program.”
Another panelist, Heidi D. Klepin, MD, a professor at Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston Salem, N.C., agreed that the informed consent process should allow patients “to choose whether the trade-off is worth it to them” with belantamab.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hepatitis screening now for all patients with cancer on therapy
All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.
Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.
The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.
“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.
“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.
The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.
ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.
The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.
“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.
The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.
Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.
Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.
Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.
Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening
The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.
In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.
A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.
“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”
The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.
Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.
“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.
Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.
“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.
Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.
He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.
More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”
Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.
If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.
However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.
The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”
The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.
Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.
Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.
The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.
“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.
“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.
The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.
ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.
The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.
“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.
The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.
Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.
Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.
Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.
Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening
The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.
In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.
A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.
“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”
The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.
Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.
“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.
Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.
“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.
Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.
He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.
More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”
Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.
If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.
However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.
The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”
The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.
Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.
Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.
The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.
“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.
“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.
The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.
ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.
The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.
“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.
The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.
Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.
Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.
Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.
Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening
The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.
In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.
A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.
“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”
The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.
Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.
“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.
Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.
“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.
Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.
He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.
More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”
Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.
If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.
However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.
The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”
The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.
Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study finds no link between platelet count, surgery bleed risk in cirrhosis
The findings raise questions about current recommendations that call for transfusing platelet concentrates to reduce bleeding risk during surgery in cirrhosis patients with extremely low platelet counts, Gian Marco Podda, MD, PhD, said at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis virtual congress.
The overall rate of perioperative bleeding was 8.9% in 996 patients who underwent excision of hepatocellular carcinoma by resection (42%) or radiofrequency ablation (58%) without platelet transfusion between 1998 and 2018. The rates were slightly higher among 65 patients with platelet count of fewer than 50 × 109/L indicating severe thrombocytopenia, and in 292 patients with counts of 50-100 × 109/L, indicating moderate thrombocytopenia (10.8% and 10.2%, respectively), compared with those with a platelet count of higher than 100 × 109/L (8.1%), but the differences were not statistically significant, said Dr. Podda of the University of Milan (Italy).
The corresponding rates among those who underwent radiofrequency ablation were 8.6%, 5.9%, and 5%, and among those who underwent resection, they were 18.8%, 17.7%, and 15.9%.
On multivariate analysis, factors associated with an increased incidence of major bleeding were low hemoglobin level (odds ratio, 0.57), age over 65 years (OR, 1.19), aspartate aminotransferase level greater than twice the upper limit of normal (OR, 2.12), hepatitis B or C cirrhosis versus cryptogenic cirrhosis (OR, 0.08), and resection versus radiofrequency ablation (OR, 3.74), he noted. Logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between platelet count and major bleeding events.
Mortality, a secondary outcome measure, was significantly higher among those with moderate or severe thrombocytopenia (rate of 5.5% for each), compared with those with mild or no thrombocytopenia (2.4%), Dr. Podda said.
Factors associated with mortality on multivariate analysis were severe liver dysfunction as demonstrated by Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 10 or greater versus less than 10 (OR, 3.13) and Child-Pugh B and C score versus Child-Pugh A score (OR, 16.72), advanced tumor status as measured by Barcelona-Clínic Liver Cancer staging greater than A4 versus A1 (OR, 5.78), major bleeding (OR, 4.59), and resection versus radiofrequency ablation (OR, 3.31).
“Low platelet count was associated with an increased risk of mortality at 3 months. However, this association disappeared at the multivariate analysis, which took into account markers of severity of liver cirrhosis,” he said.
Dr. Podda and his colleagues conducted the study in light of a recommendation from a consensus conference of the Italian Association for the Study of Liver Disease and the Italian Society of Internal Medicine that called for increasing platelet count by platelet transfusions in patients with cirrhosis who undergo an invasive procedure and who have a platelet count lower than 50 × 109/L.
“This recommendation mostly stemmed from consideration of biological plausibility prospects rather than being based on hard experimental evidence,” he explained, noting that such severe thrombocytopenia affects about 10% of patients with liver cirrhosis.
Based on the findings of this study, the practice is not supported, he concluded.
Dr. Podda reported honoraria from Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Ronca V et al. ISTH 2020, Abstract OC 13.4.
The findings raise questions about current recommendations that call for transfusing platelet concentrates to reduce bleeding risk during surgery in cirrhosis patients with extremely low platelet counts, Gian Marco Podda, MD, PhD, said at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis virtual congress.
The overall rate of perioperative bleeding was 8.9% in 996 patients who underwent excision of hepatocellular carcinoma by resection (42%) or radiofrequency ablation (58%) without platelet transfusion between 1998 and 2018. The rates were slightly higher among 65 patients with platelet count of fewer than 50 × 109/L indicating severe thrombocytopenia, and in 292 patients with counts of 50-100 × 109/L, indicating moderate thrombocytopenia (10.8% and 10.2%, respectively), compared with those with a platelet count of higher than 100 × 109/L (8.1%), but the differences were not statistically significant, said Dr. Podda of the University of Milan (Italy).
The corresponding rates among those who underwent radiofrequency ablation were 8.6%, 5.9%, and 5%, and among those who underwent resection, they were 18.8%, 17.7%, and 15.9%.
On multivariate analysis, factors associated with an increased incidence of major bleeding were low hemoglobin level (odds ratio, 0.57), age over 65 years (OR, 1.19), aspartate aminotransferase level greater than twice the upper limit of normal (OR, 2.12), hepatitis B or C cirrhosis versus cryptogenic cirrhosis (OR, 0.08), and resection versus radiofrequency ablation (OR, 3.74), he noted. Logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between platelet count and major bleeding events.
Mortality, a secondary outcome measure, was significantly higher among those with moderate or severe thrombocytopenia (rate of 5.5% for each), compared with those with mild or no thrombocytopenia (2.4%), Dr. Podda said.
Factors associated with mortality on multivariate analysis were severe liver dysfunction as demonstrated by Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 10 or greater versus less than 10 (OR, 3.13) and Child-Pugh B and C score versus Child-Pugh A score (OR, 16.72), advanced tumor status as measured by Barcelona-Clínic Liver Cancer staging greater than A4 versus A1 (OR, 5.78), major bleeding (OR, 4.59), and resection versus radiofrequency ablation (OR, 3.31).
“Low platelet count was associated with an increased risk of mortality at 3 months. However, this association disappeared at the multivariate analysis, which took into account markers of severity of liver cirrhosis,” he said.
Dr. Podda and his colleagues conducted the study in light of a recommendation from a consensus conference of the Italian Association for the Study of Liver Disease and the Italian Society of Internal Medicine that called for increasing platelet count by platelet transfusions in patients with cirrhosis who undergo an invasive procedure and who have a platelet count lower than 50 × 109/L.
“This recommendation mostly stemmed from consideration of biological plausibility prospects rather than being based on hard experimental evidence,” he explained, noting that such severe thrombocytopenia affects about 10% of patients with liver cirrhosis.
Based on the findings of this study, the practice is not supported, he concluded.
Dr. Podda reported honoraria from Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Ronca V et al. ISTH 2020, Abstract OC 13.4.
The findings raise questions about current recommendations that call for transfusing platelet concentrates to reduce bleeding risk during surgery in cirrhosis patients with extremely low platelet counts, Gian Marco Podda, MD, PhD, said at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis virtual congress.
The overall rate of perioperative bleeding was 8.9% in 996 patients who underwent excision of hepatocellular carcinoma by resection (42%) or radiofrequency ablation (58%) without platelet transfusion between 1998 and 2018. The rates were slightly higher among 65 patients with platelet count of fewer than 50 × 109/L indicating severe thrombocytopenia, and in 292 patients with counts of 50-100 × 109/L, indicating moderate thrombocytopenia (10.8% and 10.2%, respectively), compared with those with a platelet count of higher than 100 × 109/L (8.1%), but the differences were not statistically significant, said Dr. Podda of the University of Milan (Italy).
The corresponding rates among those who underwent radiofrequency ablation were 8.6%, 5.9%, and 5%, and among those who underwent resection, they were 18.8%, 17.7%, and 15.9%.
On multivariate analysis, factors associated with an increased incidence of major bleeding were low hemoglobin level (odds ratio, 0.57), age over 65 years (OR, 1.19), aspartate aminotransferase level greater than twice the upper limit of normal (OR, 2.12), hepatitis B or C cirrhosis versus cryptogenic cirrhosis (OR, 0.08), and resection versus radiofrequency ablation (OR, 3.74), he noted. Logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between platelet count and major bleeding events.
Mortality, a secondary outcome measure, was significantly higher among those with moderate or severe thrombocytopenia (rate of 5.5% for each), compared with those with mild or no thrombocytopenia (2.4%), Dr. Podda said.
Factors associated with mortality on multivariate analysis were severe liver dysfunction as demonstrated by Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 10 or greater versus less than 10 (OR, 3.13) and Child-Pugh B and C score versus Child-Pugh A score (OR, 16.72), advanced tumor status as measured by Barcelona-Clínic Liver Cancer staging greater than A4 versus A1 (OR, 5.78), major bleeding (OR, 4.59), and resection versus radiofrequency ablation (OR, 3.31).
“Low platelet count was associated with an increased risk of mortality at 3 months. However, this association disappeared at the multivariate analysis, which took into account markers of severity of liver cirrhosis,” he said.
Dr. Podda and his colleagues conducted the study in light of a recommendation from a consensus conference of the Italian Association for the Study of Liver Disease and the Italian Society of Internal Medicine that called for increasing platelet count by platelet transfusions in patients with cirrhosis who undergo an invasive procedure and who have a platelet count lower than 50 × 109/L.
“This recommendation mostly stemmed from consideration of biological plausibility prospects rather than being based on hard experimental evidence,” he explained, noting that such severe thrombocytopenia affects about 10% of patients with liver cirrhosis.
Based on the findings of this study, the practice is not supported, he concluded.
Dr. Podda reported honoraria from Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Ronca V et al. ISTH 2020, Abstract OC 13.4.
REPORTING FROM THE 2020 ISTH CONGRESS
Value of palliative care shines clearly in a crisis
Hospitalists have played a key role
For some palliative care professionals, the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in viral hot spots like New York City, represents a “moment” that could lead to greater awareness of what this service offers to seriously ill patients in a crisis.
They say it has provided an opportunity to show what palliative care teams can contribute to the difficult circumstances of patients with severe symptoms, isolated and alone in quarantined hospitals, with poor survival rates, perhaps sedated for extended stays on scarce ventilators – and for their family members, who are able to visit them only virtually via telephone or tablet.
But it has also highlighted gaps – including insufficient staffing for some palliative care teams. Hospitalists and other clinicians in the hospital need to learn the basics of primary palliative care, such as how to communicate bad news, initiate goals of care conversations, and address common symptoms of serious illness, such as pain. That way, they could shoulder more of the demand for this kind of care when palliative care specialists are in short supply.
Hospitalists, some of whom also have pursued a specialization in palliative care, have played key roles in clarifying and redefining the new role for palliative care, whom it is meant for, and who should provide it. Central to this new role is the greater use of telemedicine – for talking to hospitalized patients without increasing viral exposure, for linking up with family members who can’t visit their loved ones in the hospital, and for helping frontline hospital staff who need a palliative care consultation – or just a chance to debrief on what they are seeing.
A pandemic wake-up call
Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, FHM, FAAHPM, director of the hospice and palliative medicine fellowship program at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, practiced hospital medicine for 10 years before pursuing a fellowship in hospice and palliative medicine and working as an academic palliative medicine physician. She calls the pandemic a wake-up call for gaps in care and all the things that weren’t working well in the health care system.
“Now we are seeing more clearly what’s lacking – or broken – and what we will carry forward from this experience into the post-COVID world,” she said. Some hospitalists do palliative care very well, and others don’t feel as comfortable in having these difficult conversations with patients. But in the uncertain course of the virus they get thrust into it.
Although FAU’s associated hospitals were not as inundated with COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic as were other regions, the volume of other patients plummeted, Dr. Gundersen said, adding that “there’s still been incredible intensity and worry about the virus. For me, the basic role of palliative care hasn’t changed, and the phrase I have always used when introducing myself – ‘we’re an extra layer of support for the patient and family’ – still holds true,” she said.
“I try to make it clear to people that palliative care is not synonymous with end-of-life care. We don’t want people to think that a palliative care referral implies imminent death. The goal is not to get more people to have a do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) order, but to determine the patient and family’s treatment goals and whether a DNAR order fits those goals.”
The tough conversations
Dr. Gundersen is cochair of SHM’s Palliative Care Special Interest Group, along with Rab Razzak, MD, clinical director of palliative medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, one of the hospitals affiliated with Case Western University in Cleveland. (Connect with them on Twitter: @Top_Gundersen and @rabrazzak.)
Dr. Razzak also transitioned from hospital medicine to palliative medicine 10 years ago. “As a hospitalist, I enjoyed the tough conversations and bringing the human element into my health care interactions,” he explained. “To me, palliative care is a philosophy of care that puts the person we call the patient at the center of the interaction, while we try to figure out how to best care for them as a person.”
When the pandemic hit, University Hospitals made 20 ICU beds available for COVID-19 patients, Dr. Razzak said. This unit has since been full but not overflowing, while overall hospital census went down. The palliative care team at the hospital includes four inpatient doctors, nurse practitioners, and a chaplain, as well as an outpatient team primarily focused on oncology.
“In some settings, palliative care has been at the forefront of difficult conversations, when things aren’t going well for the patient and there’s much uncertainty,” Dr. Razzak said. The interface between hospital medicine and palliative care can be complementary, he added. “We talk about primary palliative care, which we want every discipline to be able to do – lead meaningful conversations, help manage symptoms.”
The take-home message for hospitalists, he said, is to get training in how to have these discussions, using such resources as VitalTalk (https://www.vitaltalk.org/), a nonprofit organization that disseminates education in communication skills for difficult conversations, and the Center to Advance Palliative Care (www.capc.org) at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “Once you’ve mastered the conversation, it will get easier. But ask for help when you need it, and learn how to know when you need it.”
Dr. Gundersen added that hospital medicine groups and palliative care teams could reach out to each other and talk about what they did in the crisis and how they can work together in the future. She recommends frequent ongoing support and collaboration that could range from formal conferences or training sessions to informal team interactions, perhaps with sandwiches in the doctor’s lounge – provided that there’s room for social distancing. She has recently started giving talks in the community and grand rounds presentations in hospitals about palliative care.
Other approaches and applications
In New York City, the initial epicenter for the pandemic in the United States, the adult palliative care service of Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) experienced a sevenfold increase in consultation requests at the apex of the crisis, said its director, Craig Blinderman, MD. That demand was impossible to meet with existing staff. So Dr. Blinderman and colleagues established a virtual consultation model, recruiting and deploying volunteer out-of-state palliative care specialists to staff it.
An eight-bed palliative care unit was opened at CUMC for COVID-19 patients whose surrogates had opted not to initiate or continue intubation or life-sustaining treatments. This helped to relieve some of the pressures on the ICUs while making it possible for in-person visits to the hospice unit by families – in full PPE. Palliative care staff were embedded in various units in the hospital.
A palliative care response team composed of a hospice and palliative medicine fellow and four psychiatry residents or fellows, based in the emergency department and with supervision from the palliative care team, provided time-critical goals of care conversations with families using telemedicine – and a forum for listening to their suffering. Dr. Blinderman and colleagues also have found time to write up their experience for medical journals.1,2
There’s no reason to think that hospitalists, with a little basic training, couldn’t be having these same goals of care conversations, Dr. Blinderman said. “But the fact that hospitalists, at the pandemic’s peak, along with ICU doctors, were seeing an unprecedented magnitude of dying on a daily basis generated a lot of moral distress for them.”
Palliative care professionals, because they engage with these issues in a different way, may be somewhat better equipped to deal with the sheer emotional demands when so many are dying, as at the peak of the surge in New York. “We don’t see dying as a failure on our part but an opportunity to relieve suffering,” Dr. Blinderman said. And the palliative care field also emphasizes the importance of self-care for its practitioners.
“How do we meet the incredible palliative care needs in the epicenter of a pandemic? That question also applies to other kinds of crises we could imagine, for example, climate-related disasters,” Dr. Blinderman said. “What lessons have we learned about the value of palliative care and how to start incorporating it more integrally into the delivery of hospital care? Here we showed that we could work collaboratively with our colleagues at other major medical centers, bringing together their expertise to help us when we didn’t have the bandwidth to meet the demand,” he said.
Scripts can help
“Also, it won’t make sense to just go back to normal (after the crisis fades),” Dr. Blinderman said. “We need to take a close look at how our society is functioning in the wake of the pandemic and the ways the health care system has failed us. We have learned that we’re all interconnected and we need to work together to serve our communities – locally and nationally – applying basic distributive justice.”
Could there be, for example, a national infrastructure for mobilizing and deploying palliative care resources to areas of greatest need, similar to what was done in New York?
At Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, a number of palliative care clinicians at the system’s hospitals worked together to develop scripts designed to help other clinicians start goals of care conversations with patients and families, for use in the hospital as well as in outpatient primary care and other settings, with results integrated into the system’s electronic health record.
Front-line clinicians may not have the time to ask for formal consults from palliative care because of high volume and rapidly changing patient status, explained Eytan Szmuilowicz, MD, director of the section of palliative medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Or they may not have access to specialty-level palliative care in their settings.
The scripts are aimed at primary care, emergency physicians, and hospitalists needing to consider critical care placement or attempted resuscitation and to ICU clinicians helping families make decisions about life-sustaining treatments. They also can help facilitate advance care planning discussions. An example is “CALMER,” a six-step mnemonic guide to promote goals of care discussions with hospitalized patients. For more information on these scripts, contact Dr. Szmuilowicz: [email protected].
Eerily quiet
The COVID-19 crisis has been quite a whirlwind for hospital medicine, said Jeanie Youngwerth, MD, a hospitalist and program director of the palliative care service at the University of Colorado in Denver, which was a significant viral hotspot early on.
“When it first started, things seemed to change almost overnight – starting on Friday, March 13. People had to take action right away to develop work flows and the technology to allow us to see as many patients as possible,” she said. By the time Monday came, it was a whole new ballgame.
Dr. Youngwerth and two colleagues worked quickly to develop inpatient telemedicine capacity where none existed. “We knew we would not be going into patients’ rooms, but most of our team showed up in the hospital to work with the primary care teams. Our job was to see what we could do that actually made a difference,” she said.
“The hospital became a very strange place. You’d walk down the hallway and it was eerily quiet. Everybody you came across was being so nice to each other.” Televisits became a powerful way to bring the human connection back to medical care.
“What we learned from families was that they were thirsting to have some kind of connection with their loved one, and to be able to talk about their loved one and who they were as a person,” she said. “We’d contact the family through video visits and then, when the family meeting ended, the nurse would bring an iPad into the patient’s room so the family could see their loved one on a ventilator. They would immediately start communicating with their loved one, praying aloud, singing, playing music. It would make a huge difference for the family – and for the staff.”
References
1. Nakagawa S et al. Pandemic palliative care consultations spanning state and institutional borders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16643.
2. Lee J Abrukin L, Flores S. Early intervention of palliative care in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2713.
Hospitalists have played a key role
Hospitalists have played a key role
For some palliative care professionals, the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in viral hot spots like New York City, represents a “moment” that could lead to greater awareness of what this service offers to seriously ill patients in a crisis.
They say it has provided an opportunity to show what palliative care teams can contribute to the difficult circumstances of patients with severe symptoms, isolated and alone in quarantined hospitals, with poor survival rates, perhaps sedated for extended stays on scarce ventilators – and for their family members, who are able to visit them only virtually via telephone or tablet.
But it has also highlighted gaps – including insufficient staffing for some palliative care teams. Hospitalists and other clinicians in the hospital need to learn the basics of primary palliative care, such as how to communicate bad news, initiate goals of care conversations, and address common symptoms of serious illness, such as pain. That way, they could shoulder more of the demand for this kind of care when palliative care specialists are in short supply.
Hospitalists, some of whom also have pursued a specialization in palliative care, have played key roles in clarifying and redefining the new role for palliative care, whom it is meant for, and who should provide it. Central to this new role is the greater use of telemedicine – for talking to hospitalized patients without increasing viral exposure, for linking up with family members who can’t visit their loved ones in the hospital, and for helping frontline hospital staff who need a palliative care consultation – or just a chance to debrief on what they are seeing.
A pandemic wake-up call
Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, FHM, FAAHPM, director of the hospice and palliative medicine fellowship program at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, practiced hospital medicine for 10 years before pursuing a fellowship in hospice and palliative medicine and working as an academic palliative medicine physician. She calls the pandemic a wake-up call for gaps in care and all the things that weren’t working well in the health care system.
“Now we are seeing more clearly what’s lacking – or broken – and what we will carry forward from this experience into the post-COVID world,” she said. Some hospitalists do palliative care very well, and others don’t feel as comfortable in having these difficult conversations with patients. But in the uncertain course of the virus they get thrust into it.
Although FAU’s associated hospitals were not as inundated with COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic as were other regions, the volume of other patients plummeted, Dr. Gundersen said, adding that “there’s still been incredible intensity and worry about the virus. For me, the basic role of palliative care hasn’t changed, and the phrase I have always used when introducing myself – ‘we’re an extra layer of support for the patient and family’ – still holds true,” she said.
“I try to make it clear to people that palliative care is not synonymous with end-of-life care. We don’t want people to think that a palliative care referral implies imminent death. The goal is not to get more people to have a do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) order, but to determine the patient and family’s treatment goals and whether a DNAR order fits those goals.”
The tough conversations
Dr. Gundersen is cochair of SHM’s Palliative Care Special Interest Group, along with Rab Razzak, MD, clinical director of palliative medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, one of the hospitals affiliated with Case Western University in Cleveland. (Connect with them on Twitter: @Top_Gundersen and @rabrazzak.)
Dr. Razzak also transitioned from hospital medicine to palliative medicine 10 years ago. “As a hospitalist, I enjoyed the tough conversations and bringing the human element into my health care interactions,” he explained. “To me, palliative care is a philosophy of care that puts the person we call the patient at the center of the interaction, while we try to figure out how to best care for them as a person.”
When the pandemic hit, University Hospitals made 20 ICU beds available for COVID-19 patients, Dr. Razzak said. This unit has since been full but not overflowing, while overall hospital census went down. The palliative care team at the hospital includes four inpatient doctors, nurse practitioners, and a chaplain, as well as an outpatient team primarily focused on oncology.
“In some settings, palliative care has been at the forefront of difficult conversations, when things aren’t going well for the patient and there’s much uncertainty,” Dr. Razzak said. The interface between hospital medicine and palliative care can be complementary, he added. “We talk about primary palliative care, which we want every discipline to be able to do – lead meaningful conversations, help manage symptoms.”
The take-home message for hospitalists, he said, is to get training in how to have these discussions, using such resources as VitalTalk (https://www.vitaltalk.org/), a nonprofit organization that disseminates education in communication skills for difficult conversations, and the Center to Advance Palliative Care (www.capc.org) at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “Once you’ve mastered the conversation, it will get easier. But ask for help when you need it, and learn how to know when you need it.”
Dr. Gundersen added that hospital medicine groups and palliative care teams could reach out to each other and talk about what they did in the crisis and how they can work together in the future. She recommends frequent ongoing support and collaboration that could range from formal conferences or training sessions to informal team interactions, perhaps with sandwiches in the doctor’s lounge – provided that there’s room for social distancing. She has recently started giving talks in the community and grand rounds presentations in hospitals about palliative care.
Other approaches and applications
In New York City, the initial epicenter for the pandemic in the United States, the adult palliative care service of Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) experienced a sevenfold increase in consultation requests at the apex of the crisis, said its director, Craig Blinderman, MD. That demand was impossible to meet with existing staff. So Dr. Blinderman and colleagues established a virtual consultation model, recruiting and deploying volunteer out-of-state palliative care specialists to staff it.
An eight-bed palliative care unit was opened at CUMC for COVID-19 patients whose surrogates had opted not to initiate or continue intubation or life-sustaining treatments. This helped to relieve some of the pressures on the ICUs while making it possible for in-person visits to the hospice unit by families – in full PPE. Palliative care staff were embedded in various units in the hospital.
A palliative care response team composed of a hospice and palliative medicine fellow and four psychiatry residents or fellows, based in the emergency department and with supervision from the palliative care team, provided time-critical goals of care conversations with families using telemedicine – and a forum for listening to their suffering. Dr. Blinderman and colleagues also have found time to write up their experience for medical journals.1,2
There’s no reason to think that hospitalists, with a little basic training, couldn’t be having these same goals of care conversations, Dr. Blinderman said. “But the fact that hospitalists, at the pandemic’s peak, along with ICU doctors, were seeing an unprecedented magnitude of dying on a daily basis generated a lot of moral distress for them.”
Palliative care professionals, because they engage with these issues in a different way, may be somewhat better equipped to deal with the sheer emotional demands when so many are dying, as at the peak of the surge in New York. “We don’t see dying as a failure on our part but an opportunity to relieve suffering,” Dr. Blinderman said. And the palliative care field also emphasizes the importance of self-care for its practitioners.
“How do we meet the incredible palliative care needs in the epicenter of a pandemic? That question also applies to other kinds of crises we could imagine, for example, climate-related disasters,” Dr. Blinderman said. “What lessons have we learned about the value of palliative care and how to start incorporating it more integrally into the delivery of hospital care? Here we showed that we could work collaboratively with our colleagues at other major medical centers, bringing together their expertise to help us when we didn’t have the bandwidth to meet the demand,” he said.
Scripts can help
“Also, it won’t make sense to just go back to normal (after the crisis fades),” Dr. Blinderman said. “We need to take a close look at how our society is functioning in the wake of the pandemic and the ways the health care system has failed us. We have learned that we’re all interconnected and we need to work together to serve our communities – locally and nationally – applying basic distributive justice.”
Could there be, for example, a national infrastructure for mobilizing and deploying palliative care resources to areas of greatest need, similar to what was done in New York?
At Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, a number of palliative care clinicians at the system’s hospitals worked together to develop scripts designed to help other clinicians start goals of care conversations with patients and families, for use in the hospital as well as in outpatient primary care and other settings, with results integrated into the system’s electronic health record.
Front-line clinicians may not have the time to ask for formal consults from palliative care because of high volume and rapidly changing patient status, explained Eytan Szmuilowicz, MD, director of the section of palliative medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Or they may not have access to specialty-level palliative care in their settings.
The scripts are aimed at primary care, emergency physicians, and hospitalists needing to consider critical care placement or attempted resuscitation and to ICU clinicians helping families make decisions about life-sustaining treatments. They also can help facilitate advance care planning discussions. An example is “CALMER,” a six-step mnemonic guide to promote goals of care discussions with hospitalized patients. For more information on these scripts, contact Dr. Szmuilowicz: [email protected].
Eerily quiet
The COVID-19 crisis has been quite a whirlwind for hospital medicine, said Jeanie Youngwerth, MD, a hospitalist and program director of the palliative care service at the University of Colorado in Denver, which was a significant viral hotspot early on.
“When it first started, things seemed to change almost overnight – starting on Friday, March 13. People had to take action right away to develop work flows and the technology to allow us to see as many patients as possible,” she said. By the time Monday came, it was a whole new ballgame.
Dr. Youngwerth and two colleagues worked quickly to develop inpatient telemedicine capacity where none existed. “We knew we would not be going into patients’ rooms, but most of our team showed up in the hospital to work with the primary care teams. Our job was to see what we could do that actually made a difference,” she said.
“The hospital became a very strange place. You’d walk down the hallway and it was eerily quiet. Everybody you came across was being so nice to each other.” Televisits became a powerful way to bring the human connection back to medical care.
“What we learned from families was that they were thirsting to have some kind of connection with their loved one, and to be able to talk about their loved one and who they were as a person,” she said. “We’d contact the family through video visits and then, when the family meeting ended, the nurse would bring an iPad into the patient’s room so the family could see their loved one on a ventilator. They would immediately start communicating with their loved one, praying aloud, singing, playing music. It would make a huge difference for the family – and for the staff.”
References
1. Nakagawa S et al. Pandemic palliative care consultations spanning state and institutional borders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16643.
2. Lee J Abrukin L, Flores S. Early intervention of palliative care in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2713.
For some palliative care professionals, the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in viral hot spots like New York City, represents a “moment” that could lead to greater awareness of what this service offers to seriously ill patients in a crisis.
They say it has provided an opportunity to show what palliative care teams can contribute to the difficult circumstances of patients with severe symptoms, isolated and alone in quarantined hospitals, with poor survival rates, perhaps sedated for extended stays on scarce ventilators – and for their family members, who are able to visit them only virtually via telephone or tablet.
But it has also highlighted gaps – including insufficient staffing for some palliative care teams. Hospitalists and other clinicians in the hospital need to learn the basics of primary palliative care, such as how to communicate bad news, initiate goals of care conversations, and address common symptoms of serious illness, such as pain. That way, they could shoulder more of the demand for this kind of care when palliative care specialists are in short supply.
Hospitalists, some of whom also have pursued a specialization in palliative care, have played key roles in clarifying and redefining the new role for palliative care, whom it is meant for, and who should provide it. Central to this new role is the greater use of telemedicine – for talking to hospitalized patients without increasing viral exposure, for linking up with family members who can’t visit their loved ones in the hospital, and for helping frontline hospital staff who need a palliative care consultation – or just a chance to debrief on what they are seeing.
A pandemic wake-up call
Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, FHM, FAAHPM, director of the hospice and palliative medicine fellowship program at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, practiced hospital medicine for 10 years before pursuing a fellowship in hospice and palliative medicine and working as an academic palliative medicine physician. She calls the pandemic a wake-up call for gaps in care and all the things that weren’t working well in the health care system.
“Now we are seeing more clearly what’s lacking – or broken – and what we will carry forward from this experience into the post-COVID world,” she said. Some hospitalists do palliative care very well, and others don’t feel as comfortable in having these difficult conversations with patients. But in the uncertain course of the virus they get thrust into it.
Although FAU’s associated hospitals were not as inundated with COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic as were other regions, the volume of other patients plummeted, Dr. Gundersen said, adding that “there’s still been incredible intensity and worry about the virus. For me, the basic role of palliative care hasn’t changed, and the phrase I have always used when introducing myself – ‘we’re an extra layer of support for the patient and family’ – still holds true,” she said.
“I try to make it clear to people that palliative care is not synonymous with end-of-life care. We don’t want people to think that a palliative care referral implies imminent death. The goal is not to get more people to have a do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) order, but to determine the patient and family’s treatment goals and whether a DNAR order fits those goals.”
The tough conversations
Dr. Gundersen is cochair of SHM’s Palliative Care Special Interest Group, along with Rab Razzak, MD, clinical director of palliative medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, one of the hospitals affiliated with Case Western University in Cleveland. (Connect with them on Twitter: @Top_Gundersen and @rabrazzak.)
Dr. Razzak also transitioned from hospital medicine to palliative medicine 10 years ago. “As a hospitalist, I enjoyed the tough conversations and bringing the human element into my health care interactions,” he explained. “To me, palliative care is a philosophy of care that puts the person we call the patient at the center of the interaction, while we try to figure out how to best care for them as a person.”
When the pandemic hit, University Hospitals made 20 ICU beds available for COVID-19 patients, Dr. Razzak said. This unit has since been full but not overflowing, while overall hospital census went down. The palliative care team at the hospital includes four inpatient doctors, nurse practitioners, and a chaplain, as well as an outpatient team primarily focused on oncology.
“In some settings, palliative care has been at the forefront of difficult conversations, when things aren’t going well for the patient and there’s much uncertainty,” Dr. Razzak said. The interface between hospital medicine and palliative care can be complementary, he added. “We talk about primary palliative care, which we want every discipline to be able to do – lead meaningful conversations, help manage symptoms.”
The take-home message for hospitalists, he said, is to get training in how to have these discussions, using such resources as VitalTalk (https://www.vitaltalk.org/), a nonprofit organization that disseminates education in communication skills for difficult conversations, and the Center to Advance Palliative Care (www.capc.org) at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “Once you’ve mastered the conversation, it will get easier. But ask for help when you need it, and learn how to know when you need it.”
Dr. Gundersen added that hospital medicine groups and palliative care teams could reach out to each other and talk about what they did in the crisis and how they can work together in the future. She recommends frequent ongoing support and collaboration that could range from formal conferences or training sessions to informal team interactions, perhaps with sandwiches in the doctor’s lounge – provided that there’s room for social distancing. She has recently started giving talks in the community and grand rounds presentations in hospitals about palliative care.
Other approaches and applications
In New York City, the initial epicenter for the pandemic in the United States, the adult palliative care service of Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) experienced a sevenfold increase in consultation requests at the apex of the crisis, said its director, Craig Blinderman, MD. That demand was impossible to meet with existing staff. So Dr. Blinderman and colleagues established a virtual consultation model, recruiting and deploying volunteer out-of-state palliative care specialists to staff it.
An eight-bed palliative care unit was opened at CUMC for COVID-19 patients whose surrogates had opted not to initiate or continue intubation or life-sustaining treatments. This helped to relieve some of the pressures on the ICUs while making it possible for in-person visits to the hospice unit by families – in full PPE. Palliative care staff were embedded in various units in the hospital.
A palliative care response team composed of a hospice and palliative medicine fellow and four psychiatry residents or fellows, based in the emergency department and with supervision from the palliative care team, provided time-critical goals of care conversations with families using telemedicine – and a forum for listening to their suffering. Dr. Blinderman and colleagues also have found time to write up their experience for medical journals.1,2
There’s no reason to think that hospitalists, with a little basic training, couldn’t be having these same goals of care conversations, Dr. Blinderman said. “But the fact that hospitalists, at the pandemic’s peak, along with ICU doctors, were seeing an unprecedented magnitude of dying on a daily basis generated a lot of moral distress for them.”
Palliative care professionals, because they engage with these issues in a different way, may be somewhat better equipped to deal with the sheer emotional demands when so many are dying, as at the peak of the surge in New York. “We don’t see dying as a failure on our part but an opportunity to relieve suffering,” Dr. Blinderman said. And the palliative care field also emphasizes the importance of self-care for its practitioners.
“How do we meet the incredible palliative care needs in the epicenter of a pandemic? That question also applies to other kinds of crises we could imagine, for example, climate-related disasters,” Dr. Blinderman said. “What lessons have we learned about the value of palliative care and how to start incorporating it more integrally into the delivery of hospital care? Here we showed that we could work collaboratively with our colleagues at other major medical centers, bringing together their expertise to help us when we didn’t have the bandwidth to meet the demand,” he said.
Scripts can help
“Also, it won’t make sense to just go back to normal (after the crisis fades),” Dr. Blinderman said. “We need to take a close look at how our society is functioning in the wake of the pandemic and the ways the health care system has failed us. We have learned that we’re all interconnected and we need to work together to serve our communities – locally and nationally – applying basic distributive justice.”
Could there be, for example, a national infrastructure for mobilizing and deploying palliative care resources to areas of greatest need, similar to what was done in New York?
At Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, a number of palliative care clinicians at the system’s hospitals worked together to develop scripts designed to help other clinicians start goals of care conversations with patients and families, for use in the hospital as well as in outpatient primary care and other settings, with results integrated into the system’s electronic health record.
Front-line clinicians may not have the time to ask for formal consults from palliative care because of high volume and rapidly changing patient status, explained Eytan Szmuilowicz, MD, director of the section of palliative medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Or they may not have access to specialty-level palliative care in their settings.
The scripts are aimed at primary care, emergency physicians, and hospitalists needing to consider critical care placement or attempted resuscitation and to ICU clinicians helping families make decisions about life-sustaining treatments. They also can help facilitate advance care planning discussions. An example is “CALMER,” a six-step mnemonic guide to promote goals of care discussions with hospitalized patients. For more information on these scripts, contact Dr. Szmuilowicz: [email protected].
Eerily quiet
The COVID-19 crisis has been quite a whirlwind for hospital medicine, said Jeanie Youngwerth, MD, a hospitalist and program director of the palliative care service at the University of Colorado in Denver, which was a significant viral hotspot early on.
“When it first started, things seemed to change almost overnight – starting on Friday, March 13. People had to take action right away to develop work flows and the technology to allow us to see as many patients as possible,” she said. By the time Monday came, it was a whole new ballgame.
Dr. Youngwerth and two colleagues worked quickly to develop inpatient telemedicine capacity where none existed. “We knew we would not be going into patients’ rooms, but most of our team showed up in the hospital to work with the primary care teams. Our job was to see what we could do that actually made a difference,” she said.
“The hospital became a very strange place. You’d walk down the hallway and it was eerily quiet. Everybody you came across was being so nice to each other.” Televisits became a powerful way to bring the human connection back to medical care.
“What we learned from families was that they were thirsting to have some kind of connection with their loved one, and to be able to talk about their loved one and who they were as a person,” she said. “We’d contact the family through video visits and then, when the family meeting ended, the nurse would bring an iPad into the patient’s room so the family could see their loved one on a ventilator. They would immediately start communicating with their loved one, praying aloud, singing, playing music. It would make a huge difference for the family – and for the staff.”
References
1. Nakagawa S et al. Pandemic palliative care consultations spanning state and institutional borders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16643.
2. Lee J Abrukin L, Flores S. Early intervention of palliative care in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2713.
The best and worst states for health care in 2020
according to the personal finance website WalletHub.
The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.
The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.
The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.
Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.
Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.
Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.
according to the personal finance website WalletHub.
The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.
The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.
The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.
Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.
Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.
Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.
according to the personal finance website WalletHub.
The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.
The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.
The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.
Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.
Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.
Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.
FDA approves new drug for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
A novel drug, tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi, MorphoSys US), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
The product is a humanized Fc-modified cytolytic CD19 targeting monoclonal antibody. It mediates B-cell lysis through apoptosis and immune effector mechanism, including antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP).
It is indicated for use in combination with lenalidomide for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL that is not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, and in patients who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).
Tafasitamab-cxix in combination with lenalidomide is the first treatment that approved by the FDA for second-line use for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, notes the manufacturer.
The approval “brings a new treatment option to patients in dire need across the United States,” said Gilles Salles, MD, chair of the clinical hematology department at the University of Lyon (France), and lead investigator of the L-MIND study.
The FDA granted an accelerated approval on the basis of overall response rate from an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial in 81 patients (known as L-MIND). Further trials are underway to confirm clinical benefit.
The L-MIND trial was conducted in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had received at least one, but no more than three, prior lines of therapy, including an anti-CD20 targeting therapy (e.g., rituximab), who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy or who refused subsequent ASCT.
All patients received tafasitamab-cxix 12 mg/kg intravenously with lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle) for a maximum of 12 cycles, followed by tafasitamab-cxix as monotherapy.
The best ORR (defined as complete and partial responders) in 71 patients with a diagnosis of DLBCL confirmed by central pathology was 55%, with complete responses in 37% and partial responses in 18% of patients. The median response duration was 21.7 months (range, 0-24).
The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, cough, fever, peripheral edema, respiratory tract infection, and decreased appetite.
Precautions and warnings include infusion-related reactions (6%), serious or severe myelosuppression (including neutropenia [50%], thrombocytopenia [18%], and anemia [7%]), infections (73%), and embryo-fetal toxicity.
DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults worldwide, characterized by rapidly growing masses of malignant B-cells in the lymph nodes, spleen, liver, bone marrow or other organs. It is an aggressive disease with about one in three patients not responding to initial therapy or relapsing thereafter, notes the manufacturer. In the United States each year approximately 10,000 patients who are not eligible for ASCT are diagnosed with relapsed or refractory DLBCL.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A novel drug, tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi, MorphoSys US), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
The product is a humanized Fc-modified cytolytic CD19 targeting monoclonal antibody. It mediates B-cell lysis through apoptosis and immune effector mechanism, including antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP).
It is indicated for use in combination with lenalidomide for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL that is not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, and in patients who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).
Tafasitamab-cxix in combination with lenalidomide is the first treatment that approved by the FDA for second-line use for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, notes the manufacturer.
The approval “brings a new treatment option to patients in dire need across the United States,” said Gilles Salles, MD, chair of the clinical hematology department at the University of Lyon (France), and lead investigator of the L-MIND study.
The FDA granted an accelerated approval on the basis of overall response rate from an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial in 81 patients (known as L-MIND). Further trials are underway to confirm clinical benefit.
The L-MIND trial was conducted in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had received at least one, but no more than three, prior lines of therapy, including an anti-CD20 targeting therapy (e.g., rituximab), who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy or who refused subsequent ASCT.
All patients received tafasitamab-cxix 12 mg/kg intravenously with lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle) for a maximum of 12 cycles, followed by tafasitamab-cxix as monotherapy.
The best ORR (defined as complete and partial responders) in 71 patients with a diagnosis of DLBCL confirmed by central pathology was 55%, with complete responses in 37% and partial responses in 18% of patients. The median response duration was 21.7 months (range, 0-24).
The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, cough, fever, peripheral edema, respiratory tract infection, and decreased appetite.
Precautions and warnings include infusion-related reactions (6%), serious or severe myelosuppression (including neutropenia [50%], thrombocytopenia [18%], and anemia [7%]), infections (73%), and embryo-fetal toxicity.
DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults worldwide, characterized by rapidly growing masses of malignant B-cells in the lymph nodes, spleen, liver, bone marrow or other organs. It is an aggressive disease with about one in three patients not responding to initial therapy or relapsing thereafter, notes the manufacturer. In the United States each year approximately 10,000 patients who are not eligible for ASCT are diagnosed with relapsed or refractory DLBCL.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A novel drug, tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi, MorphoSys US), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
The product is a humanized Fc-modified cytolytic CD19 targeting monoclonal antibody. It mediates B-cell lysis through apoptosis and immune effector mechanism, including antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP).
It is indicated for use in combination with lenalidomide for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL that is not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, and in patients who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).
Tafasitamab-cxix in combination with lenalidomide is the first treatment that approved by the FDA for second-line use for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, notes the manufacturer.
The approval “brings a new treatment option to patients in dire need across the United States,” said Gilles Salles, MD, chair of the clinical hematology department at the University of Lyon (France), and lead investigator of the L-MIND study.
The FDA granted an accelerated approval on the basis of overall response rate from an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial in 81 patients (known as L-MIND). Further trials are underway to confirm clinical benefit.
The L-MIND trial was conducted in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had received at least one, but no more than three, prior lines of therapy, including an anti-CD20 targeting therapy (e.g., rituximab), who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy or who refused subsequent ASCT.
All patients received tafasitamab-cxix 12 mg/kg intravenously with lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle) for a maximum of 12 cycles, followed by tafasitamab-cxix as monotherapy.
The best ORR (defined as complete and partial responders) in 71 patients with a diagnosis of DLBCL confirmed by central pathology was 55%, with complete responses in 37% and partial responses in 18% of patients. The median response duration was 21.7 months (range, 0-24).
The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, cough, fever, peripheral edema, respiratory tract infection, and decreased appetite.
Precautions and warnings include infusion-related reactions (6%), serious or severe myelosuppression (including neutropenia [50%], thrombocytopenia [18%], and anemia [7%]), infections (73%), and embryo-fetal toxicity.
DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults worldwide, characterized by rapidly growing masses of malignant B-cells in the lymph nodes, spleen, liver, bone marrow or other organs. It is an aggressive disease with about one in three patients not responding to initial therapy or relapsing thereafter, notes the manufacturer. In the United States each year approximately 10,000 patients who are not eligible for ASCT are diagnosed with relapsed or refractory DLBCL.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Global study to track COVID-19’s impact on the brain
At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.
The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.
Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
‘Frightening’ headlines
As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.
Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.
The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.
She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
New recommendations
Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:
- Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
- Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
- Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
- Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)
“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”
Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”
Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.
With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.
Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.
The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.
Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
‘Frightening’ headlines
As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.
Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.
The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.
She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
New recommendations
Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:
- Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
- Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
- Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
- Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)
“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”
Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”
Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.
With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.
Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.
The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.
Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
‘Frightening’ headlines
As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.
Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.
The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.
She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
New recommendations
Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:
- Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
- Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
- Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
- Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)
“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”
Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”
Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.
With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.
Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAIC 2020
COVID-19 taking financial toll on people in U.S. with diabetes
The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.
Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.
The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.
A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.
“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.
She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.
“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes
In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.
A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.
Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.
In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.
Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.
Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure
Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.
Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.
“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.
It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.
Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.
The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.
A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.
“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.
She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.
“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes
In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.
A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.
Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.
In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.
Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.
Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure
Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.
Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.
“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.
It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.
Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.
The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.
A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.
“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.
She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.
“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes
In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.
A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.
Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.
In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.
Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.
Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure
Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.
Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.
“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.
It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.