Hematology News

When sterilizing face masks, the type of face mask and the method of sterilization have a bearing on subsequent filtration efficiency, according to researchers. The greatest reduction in filtration efficiency after sterilization occurred with surgical face masks.

With plasma vapor hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) sterilization, filtration efficiency of N95 and KN95 masks was maintained at more than 95%, but for surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 95%. With chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) sterilization, on the other hand, filtration efficiency was maintained at above 95% for N95 masks, but for KN95 and surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 80%.

In a research letter published online June 15 in JAMA Network Open, researchers from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, report the results of a study of the two sterilization techniques on the pressure drop and filtration efficiency of N95, KN95, and surgical face masks.

“The H₂O₂ treatment showed a small effect on the overall filtration efficiency of the tested masks, but the ClO₂ treatment showed marked reduction in the overall filtration efficiency of the KN95s and surgical face masks. All pressure drop changes were within the acceptable range,” the researchers write.

The study did not evaluate the effect of repeated sterilizations on face masks.

Five masks of each type were sterilized with either H₂O₂ or ClO₂. Masks were then placed in a test chamber, and a salt aerosol was nebulized to assess both upstream and downstream filtration as well as pressure drop. The researchers used a mobility particle sizer to measure particle number concentration from 16.8 nm to 514 nm. An acceptable pressure drop was defined as a drop of less than 1.38 inches of water (35 mm) for inhalation.

Although pressure drop changes were within the acceptable range for all three mask types following sterilization with either method, H₂O₂ sterilization yielded the least reduction in filtration efficacy in all cases. After sterilization with H₂O₂, filtration efficiencies were 96.6%, 97.1%, and 91.6% for the N95s, KN95s, and the surgical face masks, respectively. In contrast, filtration efficiencies after ClO₂ sterilization were 95.1%, 76.2%, and 77.9%, respectively.

The researchers note that, although overall filtration efficiency was maintained with ClO₂ sterilization, there was a significant drop in efficiency with respect to particles of approximately 300 nm (0.3 microns) in size. For particles of that size, mean filtration efficiency decreased to 86.2% for N95s, 40.8% for KN95s, and 47.1% for surgical face masks.

The testing described in the report is “quite affordable at $350 per mask type, so it is hard to imagine any health care provider cannot set aside a small budget to conduct such an important test,” author Evan Floyd, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

Given the high demand for effective face masks and the current risk for counterfeit products, Floyd suggested that individual facilities test all masks intended for use by healthcare workers before and after sterilization procedures.

“However, if for some reason testing is not an option, we would recommend sticking to established brands and suppliers, perhaps reach out to your state health department or a local representative of the strategic stockpile of PPE,” he noted.

The authors acknowledge that further studies using a larger sample size and a greater variety of masks, as well as studies to evaluate different sterilization techniques, are required. Further, “measuring the respirator’s filtration efficiency by aerosol size instead of only measuring the overall filtration efficiency” should also be considered. Such an approach would enable researchers to evaluate the degree to which masks protect against specific infectious agents.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When sterilizing face masks, the type of face mask and the method of sterilization have a bearing on subsequent filtration efficiency, according to researchers. The greatest reduction in filtration efficiency after sterilization occurred with surgical face masks.

With plasma vapor hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) sterilization, filtration efficiency of N95 and KN95 masks was maintained at more than 95%, but for surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 95%. With chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) sterilization, on the other hand, filtration efficiency was maintained at above 95% for N95 masks, but for KN95 and surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 80%.

In a research letter published online June 15 in JAMA Network Open, researchers from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, report the results of a study of the two sterilization techniques on the pressure drop and filtration efficiency of N95, KN95, and surgical face masks.

“The H₂O₂ treatment showed a small effect on the overall filtration efficiency of the tested masks, but the ClO₂ treatment showed marked reduction in the overall filtration efficiency of the KN95s and surgical face masks. All pressure drop changes were within the acceptable range,” the researchers write.

The study did not evaluate the effect of repeated sterilizations on face masks.

Five masks of each type were sterilized with either H₂O₂ or ClO₂. Masks were then placed in a test chamber, and a salt aerosol was nebulized to assess both upstream and downstream filtration as well as pressure drop. The researchers used a mobility particle sizer to measure particle number concentration from 16.8 nm to 514 nm. An acceptable pressure drop was defined as a drop of less than 1.38 inches of water (35 mm) for inhalation.

Although pressure drop changes were within the acceptable range for all three mask types following sterilization with either method, H₂O₂ sterilization yielded the least reduction in filtration efficacy in all cases. After sterilization with H₂O₂, filtration efficiencies were 96.6%, 97.1%, and 91.6% for the N95s, KN95s, and the surgical face masks, respectively. In contrast, filtration efficiencies after ClO₂ sterilization were 95.1%, 76.2%, and 77.9%, respectively.

The researchers note that, although overall filtration efficiency was maintained with ClO₂ sterilization, there was a significant drop in efficiency with respect to particles of approximately 300 nm (0.3 microns) in size. For particles of that size, mean filtration efficiency decreased to 86.2% for N95s, 40.8% for KN95s, and 47.1% for surgical face masks.

The testing described in the report is “quite affordable at $350 per mask type, so it is hard to imagine any health care provider cannot set aside a small budget to conduct such an important test,” author Evan Floyd, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

Given the high demand for effective face masks and the current risk for counterfeit products, Floyd suggested that individual facilities test all masks intended for use by healthcare workers before and after sterilization procedures.

“However, if for some reason testing is not an option, we would recommend sticking to established brands and suppliers, perhaps reach out to your state health department or a local representative of the strategic stockpile of PPE,” he noted.

The authors acknowledge that further studies using a larger sample size and a greater variety of masks, as well as studies to evaluate different sterilization techniques, are required. Further, “measuring the respirator’s filtration efficiency by aerosol size instead of only measuring the overall filtration efficiency” should also be considered. Such an approach would enable researchers to evaluate the degree to which masks protect against specific infectious agents.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When sterilizing face masks, the type of face mask and the method of sterilization have a bearing on subsequent filtration efficiency, according to researchers. The greatest reduction in filtration efficiency after sterilization occurred with surgical face masks.

With plasma vapor hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) sterilization, filtration efficiency of N95 and KN95 masks was maintained at more than 95%, but for surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 95%. With chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) sterilization, on the other hand, filtration efficiency was maintained at above 95% for N95 masks, but for KN95 and surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 80%.

In a research letter published online June 15 in JAMA Network Open, researchers from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, report the results of a study of the two sterilization techniques on the pressure drop and filtration efficiency of N95, KN95, and surgical face masks.

“The H₂O₂ treatment showed a small effect on the overall filtration efficiency of the tested masks, but the ClO₂ treatment showed marked reduction in the overall filtration efficiency of the KN95s and surgical face masks. All pressure drop changes were within the acceptable range,” the researchers write.

The study did not evaluate the effect of repeated sterilizations on face masks.

Five masks of each type were sterilized with either H₂O₂ or ClO₂. Masks were then placed in a test chamber, and a salt aerosol was nebulized to assess both upstream and downstream filtration as well as pressure drop. The researchers used a mobility particle sizer to measure particle number concentration from 16.8 nm to 514 nm. An acceptable pressure drop was defined as a drop of less than 1.38 inches of water (35 mm) for inhalation.

Although pressure drop changes were within the acceptable range for all three mask types following sterilization with either method, H₂O₂ sterilization yielded the least reduction in filtration efficacy in all cases. After sterilization with H₂O₂, filtration efficiencies were 96.6%, 97.1%, and 91.6% for the N95s, KN95s, and the surgical face masks, respectively. In contrast, filtration efficiencies after ClO₂ sterilization were 95.1%, 76.2%, and 77.9%, respectively.

The researchers note that, although overall filtration efficiency was maintained with ClO₂ sterilization, there was a significant drop in efficiency with respect to particles of approximately 300 nm (0.3 microns) in size. For particles of that size, mean filtration efficiency decreased to 86.2% for N95s, 40.8% for KN95s, and 47.1% for surgical face masks.

The testing described in the report is “quite affordable at $350 per mask type, so it is hard to imagine any health care provider cannot set aside a small budget to conduct such an important test,” author Evan Floyd, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

Given the high demand for effective face masks and the current risk for counterfeit products, Floyd suggested that individual facilities test all masks intended for use by healthcare workers before and after sterilization procedures.

“However, if for some reason testing is not an option, we would recommend sticking to established brands and suppliers, perhaps reach out to your state health department or a local representative of the strategic stockpile of PPE,” he noted.

The authors acknowledge that further studies using a larger sample size and a greater variety of masks, as well as studies to evaluate different sterilization techniques, are required. Further, “measuring the respirator’s filtration efficiency by aerosol size instead of only measuring the overall filtration efficiency” should also be considered. Such an approach would enable researchers to evaluate the degree to which masks protect against specific infectious agents.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Comorbidities increase COVID-19 deaths by factor of 12

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the CDC.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females.

The pandemic “continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” noted the CDC, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.” Read more.

Preventive services coalition recommends routine anxiety screening for women

Women and girls aged 13 years and older with no current diagnosis of anxiety should be screened routinely for anxiety, according to a new recommendation from the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative.

The lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorders in women in the United States is 40%, approximately twice that of men, and anxiety can be a manifestation of underlying issues including posttraumatic stress, sexual harassment, and assault.

“The WPSI based its rationale for anxiety screening on several considerations,” the researchers noted. “Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent mental health disorders in women, and the problems created by untreated anxiety can impair function in all areas of a woman’s life.” Read more.

High-fat, high-sugar diet may promote adult acne

A diet higher in fat, sugar, and milk was associated with having acne in a cross-sectional study of approximately 24,000 adults in France.

Although acne patients may believe that eating certain foods exacerbates acne, data on the effects of nutrition on acne, including associations between acne and a high-glycemic diet, are limited and have produced conflicting results, noted investigators.

“The results of our study appear to support the hypothesis that the Western diet (rich in animal products and fatty and sugary foods) is associated with the presence of acne in adulthood,” the researchers concluded.
 

Population study supports migraine-dementia link

Preliminary results from a population-based cohort study support previous reports that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, but further determined that migraine with aura and frequent hospital contacts significantly increased dementia risk after age 60 years, according to results from a Danish registry presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The preliminary findings revealed that the median age at diagnosis was 49 years and about 70% of the migraine population were women. “There was a 50% higher dementia rate in individuals who had any migraine diagnosis,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“To the best of our knowledge, no previous national register–based studies have investigated the risk of dementia among individuals who suffer from migraine with aura,” Dr. Sabrina Islamoska said.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Comorbidities increase COVID-19 deaths by factor of 12

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the CDC.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females.

The pandemic “continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” noted the CDC, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.” Read more.

Preventive services coalition recommends routine anxiety screening for women

Women and girls aged 13 years and older with no current diagnosis of anxiety should be screened routinely for anxiety, according to a new recommendation from the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative.

The lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorders in women in the United States is 40%, approximately twice that of men, and anxiety can be a manifestation of underlying issues including posttraumatic stress, sexual harassment, and assault.

“The WPSI based its rationale for anxiety screening on several considerations,” the researchers noted. “Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent mental health disorders in women, and the problems created by untreated anxiety can impair function in all areas of a woman’s life.” Read more.

High-fat, high-sugar diet may promote adult acne

A diet higher in fat, sugar, and milk was associated with having acne in a cross-sectional study of approximately 24,000 adults in France.

Although acne patients may believe that eating certain foods exacerbates acne, data on the effects of nutrition on acne, including associations between acne and a high-glycemic diet, are limited and have produced conflicting results, noted investigators.

“The results of our study appear to support the hypothesis that the Western diet (rich in animal products and fatty and sugary foods) is associated with the presence of acne in adulthood,” the researchers concluded.
 

Population study supports migraine-dementia link

Preliminary results from a population-based cohort study support previous reports that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, but further determined that migraine with aura and frequent hospital contacts significantly increased dementia risk after age 60 years, according to results from a Danish registry presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The preliminary findings revealed that the median age at diagnosis was 49 years and about 70% of the migraine population were women. “There was a 50% higher dementia rate in individuals who had any migraine diagnosis,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“To the best of our knowledge, no previous national register–based studies have investigated the risk of dementia among individuals who suffer from migraine with aura,” Dr. Sabrina Islamoska said.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Comorbidities increase COVID-19 deaths by factor of 12

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the CDC.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females.

The pandemic “continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” noted the CDC, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.” Read more.

Preventive services coalition recommends routine anxiety screening for women

Women and girls aged 13 years and older with no current diagnosis of anxiety should be screened routinely for anxiety, according to a new recommendation from the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative.

The lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorders in women in the United States is 40%, approximately twice that of men, and anxiety can be a manifestation of underlying issues including posttraumatic stress, sexual harassment, and assault.

“The WPSI based its rationale for anxiety screening on several considerations,” the researchers noted. “Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent mental health disorders in women, and the problems created by untreated anxiety can impair function in all areas of a woman’s life.” Read more.

High-fat, high-sugar diet may promote adult acne

A diet higher in fat, sugar, and milk was associated with having acne in a cross-sectional study of approximately 24,000 adults in France.

Although acne patients may believe that eating certain foods exacerbates acne, data on the effects of nutrition on acne, including associations between acne and a high-glycemic diet, are limited and have produced conflicting results, noted investigators.

“The results of our study appear to support the hypothesis that the Western diet (rich in animal products and fatty and sugary foods) is associated with the presence of acne in adulthood,” the researchers concluded.
 

Population study supports migraine-dementia link

Preliminary results from a population-based cohort study support previous reports that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, but further determined that migraine with aura and frequent hospital contacts significantly increased dementia risk after age 60 years, according to results from a Danish registry presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The preliminary findings revealed that the median age at diagnosis was 49 years and about 70% of the migraine population were women. “There was a 50% higher dementia rate in individuals who had any migraine diagnosis,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“To the best of our knowledge, no previous national register–based studies have investigated the risk of dementia among individuals who suffer from migraine with aura,” Dr. Sabrina Islamoska said.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Adult patients with Burkitt lymphoma can achieve equally sound survival outcomes with dose-adjusted chemotherapy versus high-intensity regimens, but can do so while avoiding the severe toxicities, U.S. study data shows.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Ed Uthman, MD/Creative Commons License

Although Burkitt lymphoma is the most common B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in children, it accounts for only 1% to 2% of adult lymphoma cases.

Highly dose-intensive chemotherapy regimens, developed for children and young adults, have rendered the disease curable. But older patients in particular, and patients with comorbidities such as HIV, can suffer severe adverse effects, as well as late sequelae like second malignancies.

Mark Roschewski, MD, from the lymphoid malignancies branch at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues therefore examined whether a dose-adjusted regimen would maintain outcomes while reducing toxicities.

Tailoring treatment with etoposide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with prednisone, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (EPOCH-R) to whether patients had high- or low-risk disease, they achieved 4-year survival rates of higher than 85%.

The research, published by the Journal of Clinical Oncology, also showed that patients taking the regimen, which was well tolerated, had low rates of relapse in the central nervous system.

The team reports that their results with the dose-adjusted regimen “significantly improve on the complexity, cost, and toxicity profile of other regimens,” also highlighting that it is administered on an outpatient basis.

As the outcomes also “compare favorably” with those with high intensity regimens, they say the findings “support our treatment strategies to ameliorate toxicity while maintaining efficacy.”

Importantly, they suggest highly dose-intensive chemotherapy is unnecessary for cure, and carefully defined low-risk patients may be treated with limited chemotherapy.

Dr. Roschewski said in an interview that, in patients aged 40 years and older, dose-adjusted EPOCH-R is “probably the preferred choice,” despite its “weakness” in controlling the disease in patients with active CNS involvement.

However, the “real question” is what to use in younger patients, Dr. Roschewski said, as the “unknown” is whether the additional magnitude of a high-intensity regimen that “gets into the CNS” outweighs the risk of toxicities.

“What was important about our study,” he said, was that patients with CNS involvement “did the worst but it was equally split among patients that died of toxicity and patients that progressed.”

In other words, each choice increases one risk while decreasing another. “So I would have to have that discussion with the patient, and individual patient decisions are typically based on the details,” said Dr. Roschewski.

One issue, however, that could limit the adoption of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R is that, without a randomized study comparing it directly with a high-intensity regimen, clinicians may to stick to what they know.

Dr. Roschewski said that “this is particularly true of more experienced clinicians.”

“They’re less likely, I think, to adopt something else outside of a randomized study because our natural inclination with this disease has always been dose intensity is critical. ... This is a dogma, and to shift from that probably does require a higher level of evidence, at least for some practitioners,” he explained.
 

Further study details

Following a pilot study of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R in 30 adult patients in which the authors say the regimen showed “high efficacy,” they enrolled 113 patients with untreated Burkitt lymphoma at 22 centers between June 2010 and May 2017.

The patients were divided into low-risk and high-risk categories, with low-risk defined as stage 1 or 2 disease, normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, ECOG performance status ≤ 1, and no tumor mass ≥ 7 cm.

High-risk patients were given six cycles of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R (with rituximab on day 1 only) along with CNS prophylaxis or active therapy with intrathecal methotrexate.

In contrast, low-risk patients were given two cycles of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R, with rituximab on days 1 and 5, followed by positron emission tomography.

If that was negative, the patients had one additional treatment cycle and no CNS prophylaxis, but if it was positive, they were given four additional cycles, plus intrathecal methotrexate.

Of the 113 patients enrolled, 79% were male, median age was 49 years, and 62% were aged at least 40 years, including 26% aged at least 60 years.

The team determined that 13% of the patients were of low risk, 87% were high risk, and 11% had cerebrospinal fluid involvement. One-quarter (24.7%) were HIV positive, with a median CD4+ T-cell count of 268 cells/mm³.

The majority (87%) of low-risk patients received three treatment cycles, and 82% of high-risk patents were administered six treatment cycles.

Over a median follow-up of 58.7 months (4.9 years), the 4-year event-free survival (EFS) rate across the whole cohort was 84.5% and overall survival was 87%.

At the time of analysis, all low-risk patients were in remission; among high-risk patients, the 4-year EFS was 82.1% and overall survival was 84.9%.

The team reports that treatment was equally effective across age groups, and irrespective of HIV status and International Prognostic Index risk group.

Only 2% of high-risk patients with no pretreatment evidence of CNS involvement had relapses in the brain parenchyma. Just over half (55%) of patients with cerebrospinal fluid involvement at presentation experienced disease progression or died.

Five patients died of treatment-related toxicity. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia occurred during 17% of cycles, and febrile neutropenia was seen during 16%. Tumor lysis syndrome was rare, occurring in 5% of patients.

Next, the researchers are planning on focusing on CNS disease, looking at EPOCH-R as the backbone and adding intrathecal methotrexate and an additional targeted agent with known CNS penetration.

Dr. Roschewski said that is “a very attractive strategy and ... we will initiate enrollment in that study probably in the next couple of months here at the NCI,” he added, noting that it will be an early phase 1 study.

Another issue he identified that “doesn’t get spoken about quite as much but I do think is important is potentially working on supportive care guidelines for how we manage these patients.” Dr. Roschewski explained, “One of the things you see over and over in these Burkitt lymphoma studies is that some patients don’t make it through therapy because they’re so sick at the beginning, and they have certain risks.

“I think simply improving that type of care, independent of what regimen is used, can potentially improve the outcomes across patient groups.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, AIDS Malignancy Consortium, and the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program and Lymphoid Malignancies Branch. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adult patients with Burkitt lymphoma can achieve equally sound survival outcomes with dose-adjusted chemotherapy versus high-intensity regimens, but can do so while avoiding the severe toxicities, U.S. study data shows.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Ed Uthman, MD/Creative Commons License

Although Burkitt lymphoma is the most common B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in children, it accounts for only 1% to 2% of adult lymphoma cases.

Highly dose-intensive chemotherapy regimens, developed for children and young adults, have rendered the disease curable. But older patients in particular, and patients with comorbidities such as HIV, can suffer severe adverse effects, as well as late sequelae like second malignancies.

Mark Roschewski, MD, from the lymphoid malignancies branch at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues therefore examined whether a dose-adjusted regimen would maintain outcomes while reducing toxicities.

Tailoring treatment with etoposide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with prednisone, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (EPOCH-R) to whether patients had high- or low-risk disease, they achieved 4-year survival rates of higher than 85%.

The research, published by the Journal of Clinical Oncology, also showed that patients taking the regimen, which was well tolerated, had low rates of relapse in the central nervous system.

The team reports that their results with the dose-adjusted regimen “significantly improve on the complexity, cost, and toxicity profile of other regimens,” also highlighting that it is administered on an outpatient basis.

As the outcomes also “compare favorably” with those with high intensity regimens, they say the findings “support our treatment strategies to ameliorate toxicity while maintaining efficacy.”

Importantly, they suggest highly dose-intensive chemotherapy is unnecessary for cure, and carefully defined low-risk patients may be treated with limited chemotherapy.

Dr. Roschewski said in an interview that, in patients aged 40 years and older, dose-adjusted EPOCH-R is “probably the preferred choice,” despite its “weakness” in controlling the disease in patients with active CNS involvement.

However, the “real question” is what to use in younger patients, Dr. Roschewski said, as the “unknown” is whether the additional magnitude of a high-intensity regimen that “gets into the CNS” outweighs the risk of toxicities.

“What was important about our study,” he said, was that patients with CNS involvement “did the worst but it was equally split among patients that died of toxicity and patients that progressed.”

In other words, each choice increases one risk while decreasing another. “So I would have to have that discussion with the patient, and individual patient decisions are typically based on the details,” said Dr. Roschewski.

One issue, however, that could limit the adoption of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R is that, without a randomized study comparing it directly with a high-intensity regimen, clinicians may to stick to what they know.

Dr. Roschewski said that “this is particularly true of more experienced clinicians.”

“They’re less likely, I think, to adopt something else outside of a randomized study because our natural inclination with this disease has always been dose intensity is critical. ... This is a dogma, and to shift from that probably does require a higher level of evidence, at least for some practitioners,” he explained.
 

Further study details

Following a pilot study of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R in 30 adult patients in which the authors say the regimen showed “high efficacy,” they enrolled 113 patients with untreated Burkitt lymphoma at 22 centers between June 2010 and May 2017.

The patients were divided into low-risk and high-risk categories, with low-risk defined as stage 1 or 2 disease, normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, ECOG performance status ≤ 1, and no tumor mass ≥ 7 cm.

High-risk patients were given six cycles of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R (with rituximab on day 1 only) along with CNS prophylaxis or active therapy with intrathecal methotrexate.

In contrast, low-risk patients were given two cycles of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R, with rituximab on days 1 and 5, followed by positron emission tomography.

If that was negative, the patients had one additional treatment cycle and no CNS prophylaxis, but if it was positive, they were given four additional cycles, plus intrathecal methotrexate.

Of the 113 patients enrolled, 79% were male, median age was 49 years, and 62% were aged at least 40 years, including 26% aged at least 60 years.

The team determined that 13% of the patients were of low risk, 87% were high risk, and 11% had cerebrospinal fluid involvement. One-quarter (24.7%) were HIV positive, with a median CD4+ T-cell count of 268 cells/mm³.

The majority (87%) of low-risk patients received three treatment cycles, and 82% of high-risk patents were administered six treatment cycles.

Over a median follow-up of 58.7 months (4.9 years), the 4-year event-free survival (EFS) rate across the whole cohort was 84.5% and overall survival was 87%.

At the time of analysis, all low-risk patients were in remission; among high-risk patients, the 4-year EFS was 82.1% and overall survival was 84.9%.

The team reports that treatment was equally effective across age groups, and irrespective of HIV status and International Prognostic Index risk group.

Only 2% of high-risk patients with no pretreatment evidence of CNS involvement had relapses in the brain parenchyma. Just over half (55%) of patients with cerebrospinal fluid involvement at presentation experienced disease progression or died.

Five patients died of treatment-related toxicity. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia occurred during 17% of cycles, and febrile neutropenia was seen during 16%. Tumor lysis syndrome was rare, occurring in 5% of patients.

Next, the researchers are planning on focusing on CNS disease, looking at EPOCH-R as the backbone and adding intrathecal methotrexate and an additional targeted agent with known CNS penetration.

Dr. Roschewski said that is “a very attractive strategy and ... we will initiate enrollment in that study probably in the next couple of months here at the NCI,” he added, noting that it will be an early phase 1 study.

Another issue he identified that “doesn’t get spoken about quite as much but I do think is important is potentially working on supportive care guidelines for how we manage these patients.” Dr. Roschewski explained, “One of the things you see over and over in these Burkitt lymphoma studies is that some patients don’t make it through therapy because they’re so sick at the beginning, and they have certain risks.

“I think simply improving that type of care, independent of what regimen is used, can potentially improve the outcomes across patient groups.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, AIDS Malignancy Consortium, and the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program and Lymphoid Malignancies Branch. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adult patients with Burkitt lymphoma can achieve equally sound survival outcomes with dose-adjusted chemotherapy versus high-intensity regimens, but can do so while avoiding the severe toxicities, U.S. study data shows.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Ed Uthman, MD/Creative Commons License

Although Burkitt lymphoma is the most common B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in children, it accounts for only 1% to 2% of adult lymphoma cases.

Highly dose-intensive chemotherapy regimens, developed for children and young adults, have rendered the disease curable. But older patients in particular, and patients with comorbidities such as HIV, can suffer severe adverse effects, as well as late sequelae like second malignancies.

Mark Roschewski, MD, from the lymphoid malignancies branch at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues therefore examined whether a dose-adjusted regimen would maintain outcomes while reducing toxicities.

Tailoring treatment with etoposide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with prednisone, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (EPOCH-R) to whether patients had high- or low-risk disease, they achieved 4-year survival rates of higher than 85%.

The research, published by the Journal of Clinical Oncology, also showed that patients taking the regimen, which was well tolerated, had low rates of relapse in the central nervous system.

The team reports that their results with the dose-adjusted regimen “significantly improve on the complexity, cost, and toxicity profile of other regimens,” also highlighting that it is administered on an outpatient basis.

As the outcomes also “compare favorably” with those with high intensity regimens, they say the findings “support our treatment strategies to ameliorate toxicity while maintaining efficacy.”

Importantly, they suggest highly dose-intensive chemotherapy is unnecessary for cure, and carefully defined low-risk patients may be treated with limited chemotherapy.

Dr. Roschewski said in an interview that, in patients aged 40 years and older, dose-adjusted EPOCH-R is “probably the preferred choice,” despite its “weakness” in controlling the disease in patients with active CNS involvement.

However, the “real question” is what to use in younger patients, Dr. Roschewski said, as the “unknown” is whether the additional magnitude of a high-intensity regimen that “gets into the CNS” outweighs the risk of toxicities.

“What was important about our study,” he said, was that patients with CNS involvement “did the worst but it was equally split among patients that died of toxicity and patients that progressed.”

In other words, each choice increases one risk while decreasing another. “So I would have to have that discussion with the patient, and individual patient decisions are typically based on the details,” said Dr. Roschewski.

One issue, however, that could limit the adoption of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R is that, without a randomized study comparing it directly with a high-intensity regimen, clinicians may to stick to what they know.

Dr. Roschewski said that “this is particularly true of more experienced clinicians.”

“They’re less likely, I think, to adopt something else outside of a randomized study because our natural inclination with this disease has always been dose intensity is critical. ... This is a dogma, and to shift from that probably does require a higher level of evidence, at least for some practitioners,” he explained.
 

Further study details

Following a pilot study of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R in 30 adult patients in which the authors say the regimen showed “high efficacy,” they enrolled 113 patients with untreated Burkitt lymphoma at 22 centers between June 2010 and May 2017.

The patients were divided into low-risk and high-risk categories, with low-risk defined as stage 1 or 2 disease, normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, ECOG performance status ≤ 1, and no tumor mass ≥ 7 cm.

High-risk patients were given six cycles of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R (with rituximab on day 1 only) along with CNS prophylaxis or active therapy with intrathecal methotrexate.

In contrast, low-risk patients were given two cycles of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R, with rituximab on days 1 and 5, followed by positron emission tomography.

If that was negative, the patients had one additional treatment cycle and no CNS prophylaxis, but if it was positive, they were given four additional cycles, plus intrathecal methotrexate.

Of the 113 patients enrolled, 79% were male, median age was 49 years, and 62% were aged at least 40 years, including 26% aged at least 60 years.

The team determined that 13% of the patients were of low risk, 87% were high risk, and 11% had cerebrospinal fluid involvement. One-quarter (24.7%) were HIV positive, with a median CD4+ T-cell count of 268 cells/mm³.

The majority (87%) of low-risk patients received three treatment cycles, and 82% of high-risk patents were administered six treatment cycles.

Over a median follow-up of 58.7 months (4.9 years), the 4-year event-free survival (EFS) rate across the whole cohort was 84.5% and overall survival was 87%.

At the time of analysis, all low-risk patients were in remission; among high-risk patients, the 4-year EFS was 82.1% and overall survival was 84.9%.

The team reports that treatment was equally effective across age groups, and irrespective of HIV status and International Prognostic Index risk group.

Only 2% of high-risk patients with no pretreatment evidence of CNS involvement had relapses in the brain parenchyma. Just over half (55%) of patients with cerebrospinal fluid involvement at presentation experienced disease progression or died.

Five patients died of treatment-related toxicity. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia occurred during 17% of cycles, and febrile neutropenia was seen during 16%. Tumor lysis syndrome was rare, occurring in 5% of patients.

Next, the researchers are planning on focusing on CNS disease, looking at EPOCH-R as the backbone and adding intrathecal methotrexate and an additional targeted agent with known CNS penetration.

Dr. Roschewski said that is “a very attractive strategy and ... we will initiate enrollment in that study probably in the next couple of months here at the NCI,” he added, noting that it will be an early phase 1 study.

Another issue he identified that “doesn’t get spoken about quite as much but I do think is important is potentially working on supportive care guidelines for how we manage these patients.” Dr. Roschewski explained, “One of the things you see over and over in these Burkitt lymphoma studies is that some patients don’t make it through therapy because they’re so sick at the beginning, and they have certain risks.

“I think simply improving that type of care, independent of what regimen is used, can potentially improve the outcomes across patient groups.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, AIDS Malignancy Consortium, and the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program and Lymphoid Malignancies Branch. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The global COVID-19 pandemic has escalated everyone’s stress levels, especially clinicians caring for hospitalized patients. New pressures have added to everyday stress, new studies have revised prior patient care recommendations, and the world generally seems upside down. What can a busy hospitalist do to maintain a modicum of sanity in all the craziness?

The stressors facing hospitalists

Uncertainty

Of all the burdens COVID-19 has unleashed, the biggest may be uncertainty. Not only is there unease about the virus itself, there also is legitimate concern about the future of medicine, said Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist and senior director of clinical affairs at the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora.

“What does it look like after an event like this, particularly in areas like academic medicine and teaching our next generation and getting funding for research? And how do we continue to produce physicians that can provide excellent care?” she asked.

There is also uncertainty in the best way to care for patients, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“There are some models that are emerging to predict who will have a worse outcome, but they’re still not great models, so we have uncertainty for a given patient.” And, she noted, as the science continues to evolve, there exists a constant worry that “you might have inadvertently caused someone harm.”

The financial implications of the pandemic are creating uncertainty too. “When you fund a health care system with elective procedures and you can’t do those, and instead have to shift to the most essential services, a lot of places are seeing a massive deficit, which is going to affect staff morale and some physician offices are going to close,” said Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a primary care and internal medicine physician and chair of the King County Medical Society Physician Wellness Committee in Seattle.
 

Fear

When the pandemic began in the United States, “fear of the unknown was perhaps the scariest part, particularly as it pertained to personal protective equipment,” said Mark Rudolph, MD, SFHM, chief experience officer and vice president of patient experience and physician development at Sound Physicians in Tacoma, Wash. “For most clinicians, this is the first time that they are themselves in harm’s way while they do their jobs. And worse, they risk bringing the virus home to their families. That is the concern I hear most.”

Anxiety

Worrying about being able to provide excellent patient care is a big stressor, especially since this is the heart and soul of why most hospitalists have gone into their line of work.

“Part of providing excellent care to your patients is providing excellent supportive care to their families,” Dr. Harry said. “There’s some dissonance there in not being able to allow the family to come visit, but wanting to keep them safe, and it feels really hard to support your patients and support their families in the best way. It can feel like you’re just watching and waiting to see what will happen, and that we don’t have a lot of agency over which direction things take.”

There is concern for health care team members as well, Dr. Harry added. “Physicians care a lot about their teams and how they’re doing. I think there’s a sense of esprit de corps among folks and worry for each other there.”
 

Guilt

Although you may be at the hospital all day, you may feel guilty when you are not providing direct patient care. Or maybe you or someone on your team has an immunodeficiency and can’t be on the front line. Perhaps one of your team members contracted COVID-19 and you did not. Whatever the case, guilt is another emotion that is rampant among hospitalists right now, Dr. Barrett said.

Burnout

Unfortunately, burnout is a potential reality in times of high stress. “Burnout is dynamic,” said Dr. Poorman. “It’s a process by which your emotional and cognitive reserves are exhausted. The people with the highest burnout are the ones who are still trying to provide the standard of care, or above the standard of care in dysfunctional systems.”

Dr. Harry noted that burnout presents in different ways for different people, but Dr. Rudolph added that it’s crucial for hospitalist team members to watch for signs of burnout so they can intervene and/or get help for their colleagues.

Warning signs in yourself or others that burnout could be on the horizon include:

• Fatigue/exhaustion – Whether emotional or physical (or both), this can become a problem if it “just doesn’t seem to go away despite rest and time away from work,” said Dr. Rudolph.
• Behavioral changes – Any behavior that’s out of the ordinary may be a red flag, like lashing out at someone at work.
• Overwork – Working too much can be caused by an inability to let go of patient care, Dr. Barrett said.
• Not working enough – This may include avoiding tasks and having difficulty meeting deadlines.
• Maladaptive coping behaviors – Excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs is a common coping mechanism. “Even excessive consumption of news is something that people are using to numb out a little bit,” said Dr. Harry.
• Depersonalization – “This is where you start to look at patients, colleagues, or administrators as ‘them’ and you can’t connect as deeply,” Dr. Harry said. “Part of that’s protective and a normal thing to do during a big trauma like this, but it’s also incredibly distancing. Any language that people start using that feels like ‘us’ or ‘them’ is a warning sign.”
• Disengagement – Many people disengage from their work, but Dr. Poorman said physicians tend to disengage from other parts of their lives, such as exercise and family interaction.

Protecting yourself while supporting others

Like the illustration of putting the oxygen mask on yourself first so you can help others, it’s important to protect your own mental and physical health as you support your fellow physicians. Here’s what the experts suggest.

Focus on basic needs

“When you’re in the midst of a trauma, which we are, you don’t want to open all of that up and go to the depths of your thoughts about the grief of all of it because it can actually make the trauma worse,” said Dr. Harry. “There’s a lot of literature that debriefing is really helpful after the event, but if you do it during the event, it can be really dangerous.”

Instead, she said, the goal should be focusing on your basic needs and what you need to do to get through each day, like keeping you and your family in good health. “What is your purpose? Staying connected to why you do this and staying focused on the present is really important,” Dr. Harry noted.

Do your best to get a good night’s sleep, exercise as much as you can, talk to others, and see a mental health provider if your anxiety is too high, advises Dr. Barrett. “Even avoiding blue light from phones and screens within 2 hours of bedtime, parking further away from the hospital and walking, and taking the stairs are things that add up in a big way.”
 

Keep up your normal routine

“Right now, it’s really critical for clinicians to keep up components of their routine that feel ‘normal,’ ” Dr. Rudolph said. “Whether it’s exercise, playing board games with their kids, or spending time on a hobby, it’s critical to allow yourself these comfortable, predictable, and rewarding detours.”

Set limits

People under stress tend to find unhealthy ways to cope. Instead, try being intentional about what you are consuming by putting limits on things like your news, alcohol consumption, and the number of hours you work, said Dr. Harry.

Implement a culture of wellness

Dr. Barrett believes in creating the work culture we want to be in, one that ensures people have psychological safety, allows them to ask for help, encourages them to disconnect completely from work, and makes them feel valued and listened to. She likes the example of “the pause,” which is called by a team member right after a patient expires.

“It’s a 30-second moment of silence where we reflect on the patient, their loved ones, and every member of the health care team who helped support and treat them,” said Dr. Barrett. “At the conclusion, you say: ‘Thank you. Is there anything you need to be able to go back to the care of other patients?’ Because it’s unnatural to have this terrible thing that happened and then just act like nothing happened.”
 

Target resources

Be proactive and know where to find resources before you need them, advised Dr. Harry. “Most institutions have free mental health resources, either through their employee assistance programs or HR, plus there’s lots of national organizations that are offering free resources to health care providers.”

Focus on what you can control

Separating what is under your control from what is not is a struggle for everyone, Dr. Poorman said, but it’s helpful to think about the ways you can have an impact and what you’re able to control.

“There was a woman who was diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson’s that I heard giving an interview at the beginning of this pandemic,” she said. “It was the most helpful advice I got, which was: ‘Think of the next good thing you can do.’ You can’t fix everything, so what’s the next good thing you can do?”
 

Maintain connectivity

Make sure you are utilizing your support circle and staying connected. “That sense of connection is incredibly protective on multiple fronts for depression, for burnout, for suicide ideation, etc.,” Dr. Harry said.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s your teammates at work, your family at home, your best friend from medical school – whomever you can debrief with, vent with, and just share your thoughts and feelings with, these outlets are critical for all of us to process our emotions and diffuse stress and anxiety,” said Dr. Rudolph.

Dr. Poorman is concerned that there could be a spike in physician suicides caused by increased stress, so she also encourages talking openly about what is going on and about getting help when it’s necessary. “Many of us are afraid to seek care because we can actually have our ability to practice medicine questioned, but now is not the time for heroes. Now is the time for people who are willing to recognize their own strengths and limitations to take care of one another.”
 

Be compassionate toward others

Keep in mind that everyone is stressed out and offer empathy and compassion. “I think everybody’s struggling to try to figure this out and the more that we can give each other the benefit of the doubt and a little grace, the more protective that is,” said Dr. Harry.

Listening is meaningful too. “Recognizing opportunities to validate and acknowledge the feelings that are being shared with you by your colleagues is critical,” Dr. Rudolph said. “We all need to know that we’re not alone, that our thoughts and feelings are okay, and when we share a difficult story, the value of someone saying something as simple as, ‘wow, that sounds like it was really hard,’ is immense.”
 

Be compassionate toward yourself

Try to give yourself a break and be as compassionate with yourself as you would with others. It’s okay that you’re not getting in shape, publishing prolifically, or redesigning your house right now.

“There’s a lot of data linking lack of self-compassion to burnout,” said Dr. Harry. She says there are courses on self-compassion available that help you work on being kinder to yourself.
 

Get a “battle buddy”

The American Medical Association has a free “buddy system” program called PeerRx to help physicians cope during the pandemic. Dr. Rudolph said that now is a great time to use this military-developed intervention in which each team member checks in with a chosen partner at agreed-upon intervals.

For example, “You can tell that person: ‘If I don’t call my family for a week that’s a red flag for me.’ And then you hold each other accountable to those things,” Dr. Harry said.

The buddy system is another way to harness that sense of connection that is so vital to our health and well-being.

“The simple act of showing that you care … can make all the difference when you’re doing this kind of work that is both challenging and dangerous,” said Dr. Rudolph.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has escalated everyone’s stress levels, especially clinicians caring for hospitalized patients. New pressures have added to everyday stress, new studies have revised prior patient care recommendations, and the world generally seems upside down. What can a busy hospitalist do to maintain a modicum of sanity in all the craziness?

The stressors facing hospitalists

Uncertainty

Of all the burdens COVID-19 has unleashed, the biggest may be uncertainty. Not only is there unease about the virus itself, there also is legitimate concern about the future of medicine, said Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist and senior director of clinical affairs at the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora.

“What does it look like after an event like this, particularly in areas like academic medicine and teaching our next generation and getting funding for research? And how do we continue to produce physicians that can provide excellent care?” she asked.

There is also uncertainty in the best way to care for patients, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“There are some models that are emerging to predict who will have a worse outcome, but they’re still not great models, so we have uncertainty for a given patient.” And, she noted, as the science continues to evolve, there exists a constant worry that “you might have inadvertently caused someone harm.”

The financial implications of the pandemic are creating uncertainty too. “When you fund a health care system with elective procedures and you can’t do those, and instead have to shift to the most essential services, a lot of places are seeing a massive deficit, which is going to affect staff morale and some physician offices are going to close,” said Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a primary care and internal medicine physician and chair of the King County Medical Society Physician Wellness Committee in Seattle.
 

Fear

When the pandemic began in the United States, “fear of the unknown was perhaps the scariest part, particularly as it pertained to personal protective equipment,” said Mark Rudolph, MD, SFHM, chief experience officer and vice president of patient experience and physician development at Sound Physicians in Tacoma, Wash. “For most clinicians, this is the first time that they are themselves in harm’s way while they do their jobs. And worse, they risk bringing the virus home to their families. That is the concern I hear most.”

Anxiety

Worrying about being able to provide excellent patient care is a big stressor, especially since this is the heart and soul of why most hospitalists have gone into their line of work.

“Part of providing excellent care to your patients is providing excellent supportive care to their families,” Dr. Harry said. “There’s some dissonance there in not being able to allow the family to come visit, but wanting to keep them safe, and it feels really hard to support your patients and support their families in the best way. It can feel like you’re just watching and waiting to see what will happen, and that we don’t have a lot of agency over which direction things take.”

There is concern for health care team members as well, Dr. Harry added. “Physicians care a lot about their teams and how they’re doing. I think there’s a sense of esprit de corps among folks and worry for each other there.”
 

Guilt

Although you may be at the hospital all day, you may feel guilty when you are not providing direct patient care. Or maybe you or someone on your team has an immunodeficiency and can’t be on the front line. Perhaps one of your team members contracted COVID-19 and you did not. Whatever the case, guilt is another emotion that is rampant among hospitalists right now, Dr. Barrett said.

Burnout

Unfortunately, burnout is a potential reality in times of high stress. “Burnout is dynamic,” said Dr. Poorman. “It’s a process by which your emotional and cognitive reserves are exhausted. The people with the highest burnout are the ones who are still trying to provide the standard of care, or above the standard of care in dysfunctional systems.”

Dr. Harry noted that burnout presents in different ways for different people, but Dr. Rudolph added that it’s crucial for hospitalist team members to watch for signs of burnout so they can intervene and/or get help for their colleagues.

Warning signs in yourself or others that burnout could be on the horizon include:

• Fatigue/exhaustion – Whether emotional or physical (or both), this can become a problem if it “just doesn’t seem to go away despite rest and time away from work,” said Dr. Rudolph.
• Behavioral changes – Any behavior that’s out of the ordinary may be a red flag, like lashing out at someone at work.
• Overwork – Working too much can be caused by an inability to let go of patient care, Dr. Barrett said.
• Not working enough – This may include avoiding tasks and having difficulty meeting deadlines.
• Maladaptive coping behaviors – Excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs is a common coping mechanism. “Even excessive consumption of news is something that people are using to numb out a little bit,” said Dr. Harry.
• Depersonalization – “This is where you start to look at patients, colleagues, or administrators as ‘them’ and you can’t connect as deeply,” Dr. Harry said. “Part of that’s protective and a normal thing to do during a big trauma like this, but it’s also incredibly distancing. Any language that people start using that feels like ‘us’ or ‘them’ is a warning sign.”
• Disengagement – Many people disengage from their work, but Dr. Poorman said physicians tend to disengage from other parts of their lives, such as exercise and family interaction.

Protecting yourself while supporting others

Like the illustration of putting the oxygen mask on yourself first so you can help others, it’s important to protect your own mental and physical health as you support your fellow physicians. Here’s what the experts suggest.

Focus on basic needs

“When you’re in the midst of a trauma, which we are, you don’t want to open all of that up and go to the depths of your thoughts about the grief of all of it because it can actually make the trauma worse,” said Dr. Harry. “There’s a lot of literature that debriefing is really helpful after the event, but if you do it during the event, it can be really dangerous.”

Instead, she said, the goal should be focusing on your basic needs and what you need to do to get through each day, like keeping you and your family in good health. “What is your purpose? Staying connected to why you do this and staying focused on the present is really important,” Dr. Harry noted.

Do your best to get a good night’s sleep, exercise as much as you can, talk to others, and see a mental health provider if your anxiety is too high, advises Dr. Barrett. “Even avoiding blue light from phones and screens within 2 hours of bedtime, parking further away from the hospital and walking, and taking the stairs are things that add up in a big way.”
 

Keep up your normal routine

“Right now, it’s really critical for clinicians to keep up components of their routine that feel ‘normal,’ ” Dr. Rudolph said. “Whether it’s exercise, playing board games with their kids, or spending time on a hobby, it’s critical to allow yourself these comfortable, predictable, and rewarding detours.”

Set limits

People under stress tend to find unhealthy ways to cope. Instead, try being intentional about what you are consuming by putting limits on things like your news, alcohol consumption, and the number of hours you work, said Dr. Harry.

Implement a culture of wellness

Dr. Barrett believes in creating the work culture we want to be in, one that ensures people have psychological safety, allows them to ask for help, encourages them to disconnect completely from work, and makes them feel valued and listened to. She likes the example of “the pause,” which is called by a team member right after a patient expires.

“It’s a 30-second moment of silence where we reflect on the patient, their loved ones, and every member of the health care team who helped support and treat them,” said Dr. Barrett. “At the conclusion, you say: ‘Thank you. Is there anything you need to be able to go back to the care of other patients?’ Because it’s unnatural to have this terrible thing that happened and then just act like nothing happened.”
 

Target resources

Be proactive and know where to find resources before you need them, advised Dr. Harry. “Most institutions have free mental health resources, either through their employee assistance programs or HR, plus there’s lots of national organizations that are offering free resources to health care providers.”

Focus on what you can control

Separating what is under your control from what is not is a struggle for everyone, Dr. Poorman said, but it’s helpful to think about the ways you can have an impact and what you’re able to control.

“There was a woman who was diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson’s that I heard giving an interview at the beginning of this pandemic,” she said. “It was the most helpful advice I got, which was: ‘Think of the next good thing you can do.’ You can’t fix everything, so what’s the next good thing you can do?”
 

Maintain connectivity

Make sure you are utilizing your support circle and staying connected. “That sense of connection is incredibly protective on multiple fronts for depression, for burnout, for suicide ideation, etc.,” Dr. Harry said.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s your teammates at work, your family at home, your best friend from medical school – whomever you can debrief with, vent with, and just share your thoughts and feelings with, these outlets are critical for all of us to process our emotions and diffuse stress and anxiety,” said Dr. Rudolph.

Dr. Poorman is concerned that there could be a spike in physician suicides caused by increased stress, so she also encourages talking openly about what is going on and about getting help when it’s necessary. “Many of us are afraid to seek care because we can actually have our ability to practice medicine questioned, but now is not the time for heroes. Now is the time for people who are willing to recognize their own strengths and limitations to take care of one another.”
 

Be compassionate toward others

Keep in mind that everyone is stressed out and offer empathy and compassion. “I think everybody’s struggling to try to figure this out and the more that we can give each other the benefit of the doubt and a little grace, the more protective that is,” said Dr. Harry.

Listening is meaningful too. “Recognizing opportunities to validate and acknowledge the feelings that are being shared with you by your colleagues is critical,” Dr. Rudolph said. “We all need to know that we’re not alone, that our thoughts and feelings are okay, and when we share a difficult story, the value of someone saying something as simple as, ‘wow, that sounds like it was really hard,’ is immense.”
 

Be compassionate toward yourself

Try to give yourself a break and be as compassionate with yourself as you would with others. It’s okay that you’re not getting in shape, publishing prolifically, or redesigning your house right now.

“There’s a lot of data linking lack of self-compassion to burnout,” said Dr. Harry. She says there are courses on self-compassion available that help you work on being kinder to yourself.
 

Get a “battle buddy”

The American Medical Association has a free “buddy system” program called PeerRx to help physicians cope during the pandemic. Dr. Rudolph said that now is a great time to use this military-developed intervention in which each team member checks in with a chosen partner at agreed-upon intervals.

For example, “You can tell that person: ‘If I don’t call my family for a week that’s a red flag for me.’ And then you hold each other accountable to those things,” Dr. Harry said.

The buddy system is another way to harness that sense of connection that is so vital to our health and well-being.

“The simple act of showing that you care … can make all the difference when you’re doing this kind of work that is both challenging and dangerous,” said Dr. Rudolph.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has escalated everyone’s stress levels, especially clinicians caring for hospitalized patients. New pressures have added to everyday stress, new studies have revised prior patient care recommendations, and the world generally seems upside down. What can a busy hospitalist do to maintain a modicum of sanity in all the craziness?

The stressors facing hospitalists

Uncertainty

Of all the burdens COVID-19 has unleashed, the biggest may be uncertainty. Not only is there unease about the virus itself, there also is legitimate concern about the future of medicine, said Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist and senior director of clinical affairs at the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora.

“What does it look like after an event like this, particularly in areas like academic medicine and teaching our next generation and getting funding for research? And how do we continue to produce physicians that can provide excellent care?” she asked.

There is also uncertainty in the best way to care for patients, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“There are some models that are emerging to predict who will have a worse outcome, but they’re still not great models, so we have uncertainty for a given patient.” And, she noted, as the science continues to evolve, there exists a constant worry that “you might have inadvertently caused someone harm.”

The financial implications of the pandemic are creating uncertainty too. “When you fund a health care system with elective procedures and you can’t do those, and instead have to shift to the most essential services, a lot of places are seeing a massive deficit, which is going to affect staff morale and some physician offices are going to close,” said Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a primary care and internal medicine physician and chair of the King County Medical Society Physician Wellness Committee in Seattle.
 

Fear

When the pandemic began in the United States, “fear of the unknown was perhaps the scariest part, particularly as it pertained to personal protective equipment,” said Mark Rudolph, MD, SFHM, chief experience officer and vice president of patient experience and physician development at Sound Physicians in Tacoma, Wash. “For most clinicians, this is the first time that they are themselves in harm’s way while they do their jobs. And worse, they risk bringing the virus home to their families. That is the concern I hear most.”

Anxiety

Worrying about being able to provide excellent patient care is a big stressor, especially since this is the heart and soul of why most hospitalists have gone into their line of work.

“Part of providing excellent care to your patients is providing excellent supportive care to their families,” Dr. Harry said. “There’s some dissonance there in not being able to allow the family to come visit, but wanting to keep them safe, and it feels really hard to support your patients and support their families in the best way. It can feel like you’re just watching and waiting to see what will happen, and that we don’t have a lot of agency over which direction things take.”

There is concern for health care team members as well, Dr. Harry added. “Physicians care a lot about their teams and how they’re doing. I think there’s a sense of esprit de corps among folks and worry for each other there.”
 

Guilt

Although you may be at the hospital all day, you may feel guilty when you are not providing direct patient care. Or maybe you or someone on your team has an immunodeficiency and can’t be on the front line. Perhaps one of your team members contracted COVID-19 and you did not. Whatever the case, guilt is another emotion that is rampant among hospitalists right now, Dr. Barrett said.

Burnout

Unfortunately, burnout is a potential reality in times of high stress. “Burnout is dynamic,” said Dr. Poorman. “It’s a process by which your emotional and cognitive reserves are exhausted. The people with the highest burnout are the ones who are still trying to provide the standard of care, or above the standard of care in dysfunctional systems.”

Dr. Harry noted that burnout presents in different ways for different people, but Dr. Rudolph added that it’s crucial for hospitalist team members to watch for signs of burnout so they can intervene and/or get help for their colleagues.

Warning signs in yourself or others that burnout could be on the horizon include:

• Fatigue/exhaustion – Whether emotional or physical (or both), this can become a problem if it “just doesn’t seem to go away despite rest and time away from work,” said Dr. Rudolph.
• Behavioral changes – Any behavior that’s out of the ordinary may be a red flag, like lashing out at someone at work.
• Overwork – Working too much can be caused by an inability to let go of patient care, Dr. Barrett said.
• Not working enough – This may include avoiding tasks and having difficulty meeting deadlines.
• Maladaptive coping behaviors – Excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs is a common coping mechanism. “Even excessive consumption of news is something that people are using to numb out a little bit,” said Dr. Harry.
• Depersonalization – “This is where you start to look at patients, colleagues, or administrators as ‘them’ and you can’t connect as deeply,” Dr. Harry said. “Part of that’s protective and a normal thing to do during a big trauma like this, but it’s also incredibly distancing. Any language that people start using that feels like ‘us’ or ‘them’ is a warning sign.”
• Disengagement – Many people disengage from their work, but Dr. Poorman said physicians tend to disengage from other parts of their lives, such as exercise and family interaction.

Protecting yourself while supporting others

Like the illustration of putting the oxygen mask on yourself first so you can help others, it’s important to protect your own mental and physical health as you support your fellow physicians. Here’s what the experts suggest.

Focus on basic needs

“When you’re in the midst of a trauma, which we are, you don’t want to open all of that up and go to the depths of your thoughts about the grief of all of it because it can actually make the trauma worse,” said Dr. Harry. “There’s a lot of literature that debriefing is really helpful after the event, but if you do it during the event, it can be really dangerous.”

Instead, she said, the goal should be focusing on your basic needs and what you need to do to get through each day, like keeping you and your family in good health. “What is your purpose? Staying connected to why you do this and staying focused on the present is really important,” Dr. Harry noted.

Do your best to get a good night’s sleep, exercise as much as you can, talk to others, and see a mental health provider if your anxiety is too high, advises Dr. Barrett. “Even avoiding blue light from phones and screens within 2 hours of bedtime, parking further away from the hospital and walking, and taking the stairs are things that add up in a big way.”
 

Keep up your normal routine

“Right now, it’s really critical for clinicians to keep up components of their routine that feel ‘normal,’ ” Dr. Rudolph said. “Whether it’s exercise, playing board games with their kids, or spending time on a hobby, it’s critical to allow yourself these comfortable, predictable, and rewarding detours.”

Set limits

People under stress tend to find unhealthy ways to cope. Instead, try being intentional about what you are consuming by putting limits on things like your news, alcohol consumption, and the number of hours you work, said Dr. Harry.

Implement a culture of wellness

Dr. Barrett believes in creating the work culture we want to be in, one that ensures people have psychological safety, allows them to ask for help, encourages them to disconnect completely from work, and makes them feel valued and listened to. She likes the example of “the pause,” which is called by a team member right after a patient expires.

“It’s a 30-second moment of silence where we reflect on the patient, their loved ones, and every member of the health care team who helped support and treat them,” said Dr. Barrett. “At the conclusion, you say: ‘Thank you. Is there anything you need to be able to go back to the care of other patients?’ Because it’s unnatural to have this terrible thing that happened and then just act like nothing happened.”
 

Target resources

Be proactive and know where to find resources before you need them, advised Dr. Harry. “Most institutions have free mental health resources, either through their employee assistance programs or HR, plus there’s lots of national organizations that are offering free resources to health care providers.”

Focus on what you can control

Separating what is under your control from what is not is a struggle for everyone, Dr. Poorman said, but it’s helpful to think about the ways you can have an impact and what you’re able to control.

“There was a woman who was diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson’s that I heard giving an interview at the beginning of this pandemic,” she said. “It was the most helpful advice I got, which was: ‘Think of the next good thing you can do.’ You can’t fix everything, so what’s the next good thing you can do?”
 

Maintain connectivity

Make sure you are utilizing your support circle and staying connected. “That sense of connection is incredibly protective on multiple fronts for depression, for burnout, for suicide ideation, etc.,” Dr. Harry said.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s your teammates at work, your family at home, your best friend from medical school – whomever you can debrief with, vent with, and just share your thoughts and feelings with, these outlets are critical for all of us to process our emotions and diffuse stress and anxiety,” said Dr. Rudolph.

Dr. Poorman is concerned that there could be a spike in physician suicides caused by increased stress, so she also encourages talking openly about what is going on and about getting help when it’s necessary. “Many of us are afraid to seek care because we can actually have our ability to practice medicine questioned, but now is not the time for heroes. Now is the time for people who are willing to recognize their own strengths and limitations to take care of one another.”
 

Be compassionate toward others

Keep in mind that everyone is stressed out and offer empathy and compassion. “I think everybody’s struggling to try to figure this out and the more that we can give each other the benefit of the doubt and a little grace, the more protective that is,” said Dr. Harry.

Listening is meaningful too. “Recognizing opportunities to validate and acknowledge the feelings that are being shared with you by your colleagues is critical,” Dr. Rudolph said. “We all need to know that we’re not alone, that our thoughts and feelings are okay, and when we share a difficult story, the value of someone saying something as simple as, ‘wow, that sounds like it was really hard,’ is immense.”
 

Be compassionate toward yourself

Try to give yourself a break and be as compassionate with yourself as you would with others. It’s okay that you’re not getting in shape, publishing prolifically, or redesigning your house right now.

“There’s a lot of data linking lack of self-compassion to burnout,” said Dr. Harry. She says there are courses on self-compassion available that help you work on being kinder to yourself.
 

Get a “battle buddy”

The American Medical Association has a free “buddy system” program called PeerRx to help physicians cope during the pandemic. Dr. Rudolph said that now is a great time to use this military-developed intervention in which each team member checks in with a chosen partner at agreed-upon intervals.

For example, “You can tell that person: ‘If I don’t call my family for a week that’s a red flag for me.’ And then you hold each other accountable to those things,” Dr. Harry said.

The buddy system is another way to harness that sense of connection that is so vital to our health and well-being.

“The simple act of showing that you care … can make all the difference when you’re doing this kind of work that is both challenging and dangerous,” said Dr. Rudolph.

The majority of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma respond well enough to a current standard regimen of four cycles of chemotherapy and can skip the additional radiotherapy that is normally included in the combined modality treatment, say experts reporting the final results from an international phase 3 randomized trial dubbed HD17.

“Most patients with this disease will not need radiotherapy any longer,” concluded first author Peter Borchmann, MD, assistant medical director in the department of hematology/oncology at the University Hospital Cologne (Germany).

Dr. Borchmann was speaking online as part of the virtual edition of the European Hematology Association 25th Annual Congress 2020.

“Importantly, the mortality of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma in the HD17 study did not differ from the normal healthy German population, and this is the first time we have had this finding in one of our studies,” he emphasized.

Dr. Borchmann added that positron emission tomography imaging is key in deciding which patients can skip radiation.

“We conclude from the HD17 trial that the combined modality concept can and should be replaced by a PET-guided omission of radiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma,” he said.

“The vast majority of early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma patients can be treated with the brief and highly effective 2+2 chemotherapy alone,” he added.

Therefore, he continued, “PET-guided 2+2 chemotherapy is the new standard of care for the German Hodgkin study group,” which conducted the trial.

The use of both chemotherapy and radiation has long been a standard approach to treatment, and this combined modality treatment is highly effective, Dr. Borchmann explained. But it can cause long-term damage, and the known longer-term negative effects of radiotherapy, such as cardiovascular disease and second malignancies, are a particular concern because patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma are relatively young, with a median age of around 30 years at disease onset.

An expert approached for comment said that the momentum to skip radiotherapy when possible is an ongoing issue, and importantly, this study adds to those efforts.

“The treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma has moved for many years now to less radiation therapy, and this trend will continue with the results of this study,” commented John G. Gribben, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplantation Program and medical director of the North East London Cancer Research Network Centre at Barts Cancer Center of Excellence and the London School of Medicine.

“We have moved to lower doses and involved fields with the intent of decreasing toxicity, and particularly long-term toxicity from radiotherapy,” he said in an interview. 

HD17 study details  

For the multicenter, phase 3 HD17 trial, Dr. Borchmann and colleagues turned to PET to identify patients who had and had not responded well to chemotherapy (PET negative and PET positive) and to determine if those who had responded well could safely avoid radiotherapy without compromising efficacy.

“We wanted to determine if we could reduce the treatment intensity by omission of radiotherapy in patients who respond very well to the systemic treatment, so who have a complete metabolic remission after the chemotherapy,” Dr. Borchmann said.

The 2+2 treatment approach includes two cycles of eBEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) and two subsequent cycles of ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine).

The trial enrolled 1,100 patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma between January 2012 and March 2017. Of these, 979 patients had confirmed PET results, with 651 (66.5%) found to be PET negative, defined as having a Deauville score (DS) of less than 3 (DS3); 238 (24.3%) were DS3, and 90 (9.2%) were DS4.

The study met its primary endpoint of noninferiority in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years, with a PFS of 95.1% in the PET-guided group (n = 447), compared with 97.3% in the standard combined-modality treatment group (n = 428), over a median observation time of 45 months, for a difference of 2.2% (P = .12).

“We found that the survival levels were very high, and we can safely conclude the noninferiority of the PET-guided approach in PET-negative patients,” Dr. Borchmann said.

A further analysis showed that the 597 PET-negative patients who did not receive radiotherapy because of their PET status had 5-year PFS that was noninferior to the combined modality group (95.9% vs. 97.7%, respectively; P = .20).

And among 646 patients who received the 2+2 regimen plus radiotherapy, of those confirmed as PET positive (n = 328), the estimated 5-year PFS was significantly lower (94.2%), compared with those determined to be PET negative (n = 318; 97.6%; hazard ratio, 3.03).

A cut-off of DS4 for positivity was associated with a stronger effect, with a lower estimated 5-year PFS of 81.6% vs. 98.8% for DS3 patients and 97.6% for DS less than 3 (P < .0001).

“Only DS4 has a prognostic impact, but not DS3,” Dr. Borchmann said. “DS4 positivity indicates a relevant risk for treatment failure, however, there are few patients in this risk group (9.2% in this trial).”

The 5-year overall survival rates in an intent-to-treat analysis were 98.8% in the standard combined modality group and 98.4% in the PET-guided group.

With a median observation time of 47 months, there have been 10 fatal events in the trial out of 1,100 patients, including two Hodgkin lymphoma-related events and one treatment-related death.

“Overall, Hodgkin lymphoma or treatment-related mortality rates were extremely low,” Dr. Borchmann said.

The study was funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Borchmann and Dr. Gribben have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The majority of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma respond well enough to a current standard regimen of four cycles of chemotherapy and can skip the additional radiotherapy that is normally included in the combined modality treatment, say experts reporting the final results from an international phase 3 randomized trial dubbed HD17.

“Most patients with this disease will not need radiotherapy any longer,” concluded first author Peter Borchmann, MD, assistant medical director in the department of hematology/oncology at the University Hospital Cologne (Germany).

Dr. Borchmann was speaking online as part of the virtual edition of the European Hematology Association 25th Annual Congress 2020.

“Importantly, the mortality of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma in the HD17 study did not differ from the normal healthy German population, and this is the first time we have had this finding in one of our studies,” he emphasized.

Dr. Borchmann added that positron emission tomography imaging is key in deciding which patients can skip radiation.

“We conclude from the HD17 trial that the combined modality concept can and should be replaced by a PET-guided omission of radiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma,” he said.

“The vast majority of early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma patients can be treated with the brief and highly effective 2+2 chemotherapy alone,” he added.

Therefore, he continued, “PET-guided 2+2 chemotherapy is the new standard of care for the German Hodgkin study group,” which conducted the trial.

The use of both chemotherapy and radiation has long been a standard approach to treatment, and this combined modality treatment is highly effective, Dr. Borchmann explained. But it can cause long-term damage, and the known longer-term negative effects of radiotherapy, such as cardiovascular disease and second malignancies, are a particular concern because patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma are relatively young, with a median age of around 30 years at disease onset.

An expert approached for comment said that the momentum to skip radiotherapy when possible is an ongoing issue, and importantly, this study adds to those efforts.

“The treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma has moved for many years now to less radiation therapy, and this trend will continue with the results of this study,” commented John G. Gribben, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplantation Program and medical director of the North East London Cancer Research Network Centre at Barts Cancer Center of Excellence and the London School of Medicine.

“We have moved to lower doses and involved fields with the intent of decreasing toxicity, and particularly long-term toxicity from radiotherapy,” he said in an interview. 

HD17 study details  

For the multicenter, phase 3 HD17 trial, Dr. Borchmann and colleagues turned to PET to identify patients who had and had not responded well to chemotherapy (PET negative and PET positive) and to determine if those who had responded well could safely avoid radiotherapy without compromising efficacy.

“We wanted to determine if we could reduce the treatment intensity by omission of radiotherapy in patients who respond very well to the systemic treatment, so who have a complete metabolic remission after the chemotherapy,” Dr. Borchmann said.

The 2+2 treatment approach includes two cycles of eBEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) and two subsequent cycles of ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine).

The trial enrolled 1,100 patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma between January 2012 and March 2017. Of these, 979 patients had confirmed PET results, with 651 (66.5%) found to be PET negative, defined as having a Deauville score (DS) of less than 3 (DS3); 238 (24.3%) were DS3, and 90 (9.2%) were DS4.

The study met its primary endpoint of noninferiority in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years, with a PFS of 95.1% in the PET-guided group (n = 447), compared with 97.3% in the standard combined-modality treatment group (n = 428), over a median observation time of 45 months, for a difference of 2.2% (P = .12).

“We found that the survival levels were very high, and we can safely conclude the noninferiority of the PET-guided approach in PET-negative patients,” Dr. Borchmann said.

A further analysis showed that the 597 PET-negative patients who did not receive radiotherapy because of their PET status had 5-year PFS that was noninferior to the combined modality group (95.9% vs. 97.7%, respectively; P = .20).

And among 646 patients who received the 2+2 regimen plus radiotherapy, of those confirmed as PET positive (n = 328), the estimated 5-year PFS was significantly lower (94.2%), compared with those determined to be PET negative (n = 318; 97.6%; hazard ratio, 3.03).

A cut-off of DS4 for positivity was associated with a stronger effect, with a lower estimated 5-year PFS of 81.6% vs. 98.8% for DS3 patients and 97.6% for DS less than 3 (P < .0001).

“Only DS4 has a prognostic impact, but not DS3,” Dr. Borchmann said. “DS4 positivity indicates a relevant risk for treatment failure, however, there are few patients in this risk group (9.2% in this trial).”

The 5-year overall survival rates in an intent-to-treat analysis were 98.8% in the standard combined modality group and 98.4% in the PET-guided group.

With a median observation time of 47 months, there have been 10 fatal events in the trial out of 1,100 patients, including two Hodgkin lymphoma-related events and one treatment-related death.

“Overall, Hodgkin lymphoma or treatment-related mortality rates were extremely low,” Dr. Borchmann said.

The study was funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Borchmann and Dr. Gribben have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The majority of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma respond well enough to a current standard regimen of four cycles of chemotherapy and can skip the additional radiotherapy that is normally included in the combined modality treatment, say experts reporting the final results from an international phase 3 randomized trial dubbed HD17.

“Most patients with this disease will not need radiotherapy any longer,” concluded first author Peter Borchmann, MD, assistant medical director in the department of hematology/oncology at the University Hospital Cologne (Germany).

Dr. Borchmann was speaking online as part of the virtual edition of the European Hematology Association 25th Annual Congress 2020.

“Importantly, the mortality of patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma in the HD17 study did not differ from the normal healthy German population, and this is the first time we have had this finding in one of our studies,” he emphasized.

Dr. Borchmann added that positron emission tomography imaging is key in deciding which patients can skip radiation.

“We conclude from the HD17 trial that the combined modality concept can and should be replaced by a PET-guided omission of radiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma,” he said.

“The vast majority of early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma patients can be treated with the brief and highly effective 2+2 chemotherapy alone,” he added.

Therefore, he continued, “PET-guided 2+2 chemotherapy is the new standard of care for the German Hodgkin study group,” which conducted the trial.

The use of both chemotherapy and radiation has long been a standard approach to treatment, and this combined modality treatment is highly effective, Dr. Borchmann explained. But it can cause long-term damage, and the known longer-term negative effects of radiotherapy, such as cardiovascular disease and second malignancies, are a particular concern because patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma are relatively young, with a median age of around 30 years at disease onset.

An expert approached for comment said that the momentum to skip radiotherapy when possible is an ongoing issue, and importantly, this study adds to those efforts.

“The treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma has moved for many years now to less radiation therapy, and this trend will continue with the results of this study,” commented John G. Gribben, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplantation Program and medical director of the North East London Cancer Research Network Centre at Barts Cancer Center of Excellence and the London School of Medicine.

“We have moved to lower doses and involved fields with the intent of decreasing toxicity, and particularly long-term toxicity from radiotherapy,” he said in an interview. 

HD17 study details  

For the multicenter, phase 3 HD17 trial, Dr. Borchmann and colleagues turned to PET to identify patients who had and had not responded well to chemotherapy (PET negative and PET positive) and to determine if those who had responded well could safely avoid radiotherapy without compromising efficacy.

“We wanted to determine if we could reduce the treatment intensity by omission of radiotherapy in patients who respond very well to the systemic treatment, so who have a complete metabolic remission after the chemotherapy,” Dr. Borchmann said.

The 2+2 treatment approach includes two cycles of eBEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) and two subsequent cycles of ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine).

The trial enrolled 1,100 patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma between January 2012 and March 2017. Of these, 979 patients had confirmed PET results, with 651 (66.5%) found to be PET negative, defined as having a Deauville score (DS) of less than 3 (DS3); 238 (24.3%) were DS3, and 90 (9.2%) were DS4.

The study met its primary endpoint of noninferiority in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years, with a PFS of 95.1% in the PET-guided group (n = 447), compared with 97.3% in the standard combined-modality treatment group (n = 428), over a median observation time of 45 months, for a difference of 2.2% (P = .12).

“We found that the survival levels were very high, and we can safely conclude the noninferiority of the PET-guided approach in PET-negative patients,” Dr. Borchmann said.

A further analysis showed that the 597 PET-negative patients who did not receive radiotherapy because of their PET status had 5-year PFS that was noninferior to the combined modality group (95.9% vs. 97.7%, respectively; P = .20).

And among 646 patients who received the 2+2 regimen plus radiotherapy, of those confirmed as PET positive (n = 328), the estimated 5-year PFS was significantly lower (94.2%), compared with those determined to be PET negative (n = 318; 97.6%; hazard ratio, 3.03).

A cut-off of DS4 for positivity was associated with a stronger effect, with a lower estimated 5-year PFS of 81.6% vs. 98.8% for DS3 patients and 97.6% for DS less than 3 (P < .0001).

“Only DS4 has a prognostic impact, but not DS3,” Dr. Borchmann said. “DS4 positivity indicates a relevant risk for treatment failure, however, there are few patients in this risk group (9.2% in this trial).”

The 5-year overall survival rates in an intent-to-treat analysis were 98.8% in the standard combined modality group and 98.4% in the PET-guided group.

With a median observation time of 47 months, there have been 10 fatal events in the trial out of 1,100 patients, including two Hodgkin lymphoma-related events and one treatment-related death.

“Overall, Hodgkin lymphoma or treatment-related mortality rates were extremely low,” Dr. Borchmann said.

The study was funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Dr. Borchmann and Dr. Gribben have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) may offer the chance of a cure for patients with leukemia and other blood cancers, but the process of preparing the body to receive such a transplant can be brutal, involving whole body irradiation as well as chemotherapy conditioning. New results show that both steps are needed: a trial that omitted whole body irradiation in young patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was stopped early because of significantly poorer outcomes.

The multicenter, global FORUM (For Omitting Radiation Under Majority Age) trial involved 75 centers in 17 countries between 2013 and 2018.

“Our study shows significantly better outcomes for total body irradiation compared to myeloablative chemo-conditioning arms, with no differences between the [two] chemo-conditioning groups,” concluded Christina Peters, MD, professor of pediatrics in the department of stem cell transplantation at St Anna Children’s Hospital in Vienna.

The findings in favor of total body irradiation were pronounced enough that the study was halted early by a safety committee, she added.

Dr. Peters presented the findings as part of the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Describing the results as “sobering,” session comoderator Shai Izraeli, MD, director of the department of hematology-oncology at Schneider Children’s Medical Center, in Petah Tikva, Israel, said an online comment from the virtual meeting audience reflected the reaction to these unwelcome results: “So we are still stuck with total body irradiation?”

Dr. Peters said the good news is that the number of patients needing to undergo stem cell transplants is low, and with research advances, may hopefully drop even further.

“Only 10% of patients under the age of 18 nowadays undergo allogeneic HSCT, and perhaps in the future that will become even less if we are able to rescue some of the groups with other immunological measures such as CAR-T cells and antibodies,” she said.

“I think it is very important to better identify those who really need total body irradiation in the future,” she added.

In an interview, Dr. Izraeli agreed.

“The prognosis of children after bone marrow transplantation is excellent – the majority are cured from their leukemia,” he said. “And we have to remember that those who undergo bone marrow transplant have the worst leukemias.”

He pointed out that, in fact, contemporary chemotherapy alone is effective in the treatment of more than 90% of patients with ALL younger than aged 18.

For the 10% of patients who do not respond to chemotherapy alone and undergo allogeneic HSCT, about 50%-80% of pediatric patients who have resistant leukemia are cured. However, the total body irradiation used to prepare the body to receive the transplant is linked to potentially serious consequences later in life, including sterility, lung problems, growth retardation, and secondary cancer.

To determine if the irradiation component could be safely replaced with a chemotherapy-based conditioning approach, Dr. Peters and colleagues conducted the FORUM trial.

In total 413 patients undergoing HSCT were enrolled and randomized to pretransplant conditioning with total body irradiation and etoposide (n = 202) or a chemotherapy-only approach with fludarabine/thiotepa/busulfan (flu/thio/bu; n = 99) or fludarabine/thiotepa/treosulfan (treo; n = 93).

Most patients (72%) had B-cell precursor ALL and 23% had T-cell ALL. Just over half (54%) were transplanted in first complete remission (CR1), 40% in CR2, and 4% in CR3.

The source of stem cells was bone marrow for most patients (82%); peripheral blood stem cell for 12%, and cord blood for 4%.
 

Study stopped early

The aim of the study was to demonstrate noninferiority with the chemotherapy approach.

However, the significantly inferior outcome observed in the chemotherapy-only group led to randomization being halted in March 2019.

The 2-year overall survival in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, with a mean observation time of 2.1 years, was 0.75 ± 0.04 for chemo-conditioning versus 0.91 ± 0.02 for total body irradiation/etoposide (ITT P < .001).

The ITT analysis showed relapses were significantly higher in the chemo-conditioning group (2-year cumulative incidence of relapse [CIR], 0.33) compared with the total body irradiation group (CIR, 0.12; P < .001).

The 2-year event-free survival (EFS) rate was also significantly higher in the total body irradiation group (0.86 vs 0.58; P < .001), and transplant-related mortality over 2 years was lower with total body irradiation (0.02 vs 0.09; P = .02).

A per-protocol analysis showed the 2-year overall survival to be the same in the two chemotherapy groups (both 0.77 ± 0.05) compared with 0.91 ± 0.02 in the total body irradiation group (P = .003).

“In this cohort [the 91% overall survival rate] may even be lower than contemporary intensive frontline therapy results that are achieved nowadays,” Dr. Peters said.

In looking at subgroups, there were no significant differences according to age group or cancer phenotype, while MLL rearrangement was associated with higher relapse incidence.

Remission status was found to notably influence EFS, dropping from 0.91 in CR1 patients with total body irradiation to 0.76 in CR2 patients. However, total body irradiation remained significantly higher compared with the chemo-conditioning groups in CR1 (P = .004) and CR2 (P < .001).

Transplant-related mortality was not significantly different between the total body irradiation and chemo-conditioning groups in the CR1 or CR2 groups (P = .09 and P = .18, respectively), despite the significant difference when remission status was not included.

Overall, “we tried to identify subgroups in which total body irradiation might be eliminated, however in all analyses, total body irradiation was better than chemo-conditioning in all arms,” Dr. Peters said.

Meanwhile, the findings underscore that even when patients cannot receive total body irradiation, the alternative chemo-conditioning therapy in fact shows favorable efficacy on its own, Dr. Izraeli said.

“The prognosis of the chemotherapy group is also quite remarkably good, although less than the total body irradiation arm. This means that if for some reason total body irradiation cannot be given, the chemotherapy is a very reasonable alternative.”

Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Medac, Jazz, and Neovii. Dr. Izraeli has reported no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: EHA Congress. Abstract S102.

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

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) may offer the chance of a cure for patients with leukemia and other blood cancers, but the process of preparing the body to receive such a transplant can be brutal, involving whole body irradiation as well as chemotherapy conditioning. New results show that both steps are needed: a trial that omitted whole body irradiation in young patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was stopped early because of significantly poorer outcomes.

The multicenter, global FORUM (For Omitting Radiation Under Majority Age) trial involved 75 centers in 17 countries between 2013 and 2018.

“Our study shows significantly better outcomes for total body irradiation compared to myeloablative chemo-conditioning arms, with no differences between the [two] chemo-conditioning groups,” concluded Christina Peters, MD, professor of pediatrics in the department of stem cell transplantation at St Anna Children’s Hospital in Vienna.

The findings in favor of total body irradiation were pronounced enough that the study was halted early by a safety committee, she added.

Dr. Peters presented the findings as part of the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Describing the results as “sobering,” session comoderator Shai Izraeli, MD, director of the department of hematology-oncology at Schneider Children’s Medical Center, in Petah Tikva, Israel, said an online comment from the virtual meeting audience reflected the reaction to these unwelcome results: “So we are still stuck with total body irradiation?”

Dr. Peters said the good news is that the number of patients needing to undergo stem cell transplants is low, and with research advances, may hopefully drop even further.

“Only 10% of patients under the age of 18 nowadays undergo allogeneic HSCT, and perhaps in the future that will become even less if we are able to rescue some of the groups with other immunological measures such as CAR-T cells and antibodies,” she said.

“I think it is very important to better identify those who really need total body irradiation in the future,” she added.

In an interview, Dr. Izraeli agreed.

“The prognosis of children after bone marrow transplantation is excellent – the majority are cured from their leukemia,” he said. “And we have to remember that those who undergo bone marrow transplant have the worst leukemias.”

He pointed out that, in fact, contemporary chemotherapy alone is effective in the treatment of more than 90% of patients with ALL younger than aged 18.

For the 10% of patients who do not respond to chemotherapy alone and undergo allogeneic HSCT, about 50%-80% of pediatric patients who have resistant leukemia are cured. However, the total body irradiation used to prepare the body to receive the transplant is linked to potentially serious consequences later in life, including sterility, lung problems, growth retardation, and secondary cancer.

To determine if the irradiation component could be safely replaced with a chemotherapy-based conditioning approach, Dr. Peters and colleagues conducted the FORUM trial.

In total 413 patients undergoing HSCT were enrolled and randomized to pretransplant conditioning with total body irradiation and etoposide (n = 202) or a chemotherapy-only approach with fludarabine/thiotepa/busulfan (flu/thio/bu; n = 99) or fludarabine/thiotepa/treosulfan (treo; n = 93).

Most patients (72%) had B-cell precursor ALL and 23% had T-cell ALL. Just over half (54%) were transplanted in first complete remission (CR1), 40% in CR2, and 4% in CR3.

The source of stem cells was bone marrow for most patients (82%); peripheral blood stem cell for 12%, and cord blood for 4%.
 

Study stopped early

The aim of the study was to demonstrate noninferiority with the chemotherapy approach.

However, the significantly inferior outcome observed in the chemotherapy-only group led to randomization being halted in March 2019.

The 2-year overall survival in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, with a mean observation time of 2.1 years, was 0.75 ± 0.04 for chemo-conditioning versus 0.91 ± 0.02 for total body irradiation/etoposide (ITT P < .001).

The ITT analysis showed relapses were significantly higher in the chemo-conditioning group (2-year cumulative incidence of relapse [CIR], 0.33) compared with the total body irradiation group (CIR, 0.12; P < .001).

The 2-year event-free survival (EFS) rate was also significantly higher in the total body irradiation group (0.86 vs 0.58; P < .001), and transplant-related mortality over 2 years was lower with total body irradiation (0.02 vs 0.09; P = .02).

A per-protocol analysis showed the 2-year overall survival to be the same in the two chemotherapy groups (both 0.77 ± 0.05) compared with 0.91 ± 0.02 in the total body irradiation group (P = .003).

“In this cohort [the 91% overall survival rate] may even be lower than contemporary intensive frontline therapy results that are achieved nowadays,” Dr. Peters said.

In looking at subgroups, there were no significant differences according to age group or cancer phenotype, while MLL rearrangement was associated with higher relapse incidence.

Remission status was found to notably influence EFS, dropping from 0.91 in CR1 patients with total body irradiation to 0.76 in CR2 patients. However, total body irradiation remained significantly higher compared with the chemo-conditioning groups in CR1 (P = .004) and CR2 (P < .001).

Transplant-related mortality was not significantly different between the total body irradiation and chemo-conditioning groups in the CR1 or CR2 groups (P = .09 and P = .18, respectively), despite the significant difference when remission status was not included.

Overall, “we tried to identify subgroups in which total body irradiation might be eliminated, however in all analyses, total body irradiation was better than chemo-conditioning in all arms,” Dr. Peters said.

Meanwhile, the findings underscore that even when patients cannot receive total body irradiation, the alternative chemo-conditioning therapy in fact shows favorable efficacy on its own, Dr. Izraeli said.

“The prognosis of the chemotherapy group is also quite remarkably good, although less than the total body irradiation arm. This means that if for some reason total body irradiation cannot be given, the chemotherapy is a very reasonable alternative.”

Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Medac, Jazz, and Neovii. Dr. Izraeli has reported no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: EHA Congress. Abstract S102.

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

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) may offer the chance of a cure for patients with leukemia and other blood cancers, but the process of preparing the body to receive such a transplant can be brutal, involving whole body irradiation as well as chemotherapy conditioning. New results show that both steps are needed: a trial that omitted whole body irradiation in young patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was stopped early because of significantly poorer outcomes.

The multicenter, global FORUM (For Omitting Radiation Under Majority Age) trial involved 75 centers in 17 countries between 2013 and 2018.

“Our study shows significantly better outcomes for total body irradiation compared to myeloablative chemo-conditioning arms, with no differences between the [two] chemo-conditioning groups,” concluded Christina Peters, MD, professor of pediatrics in the department of stem cell transplantation at St Anna Children’s Hospital in Vienna.

The findings in favor of total body irradiation were pronounced enough that the study was halted early by a safety committee, she added.

Dr. Peters presented the findings as part of the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Describing the results as “sobering,” session comoderator Shai Izraeli, MD, director of the department of hematology-oncology at Schneider Children’s Medical Center, in Petah Tikva, Israel, said an online comment from the virtual meeting audience reflected the reaction to these unwelcome results: “So we are still stuck with total body irradiation?”

Dr. Peters said the good news is that the number of patients needing to undergo stem cell transplants is low, and with research advances, may hopefully drop even further.

“Only 10% of patients under the age of 18 nowadays undergo allogeneic HSCT, and perhaps in the future that will become even less if we are able to rescue some of the groups with other immunological measures such as CAR-T cells and antibodies,” she said.

“I think it is very important to better identify those who really need total body irradiation in the future,” she added.

In an interview, Dr. Izraeli agreed.

“The prognosis of children after bone marrow transplantation is excellent – the majority are cured from their leukemia,” he said. “And we have to remember that those who undergo bone marrow transplant have the worst leukemias.”

He pointed out that, in fact, contemporary chemotherapy alone is effective in the treatment of more than 90% of patients with ALL younger than aged 18.

For the 10% of patients who do not respond to chemotherapy alone and undergo allogeneic HSCT, about 50%-80% of pediatric patients who have resistant leukemia are cured. However, the total body irradiation used to prepare the body to receive the transplant is linked to potentially serious consequences later in life, including sterility, lung problems, growth retardation, and secondary cancer.

To determine if the irradiation component could be safely replaced with a chemotherapy-based conditioning approach, Dr. Peters and colleagues conducted the FORUM trial.

In total 413 patients undergoing HSCT were enrolled and randomized to pretransplant conditioning with total body irradiation and etoposide (n = 202) or a chemotherapy-only approach with fludarabine/thiotepa/busulfan (flu/thio/bu; n = 99) or fludarabine/thiotepa/treosulfan (treo; n = 93).

Most patients (72%) had B-cell precursor ALL and 23% had T-cell ALL. Just over half (54%) were transplanted in first complete remission (CR1), 40% in CR2, and 4% in CR3.

The source of stem cells was bone marrow for most patients (82%); peripheral blood stem cell for 12%, and cord blood for 4%.
 

Study stopped early

The aim of the study was to demonstrate noninferiority with the chemotherapy approach.

However, the significantly inferior outcome observed in the chemotherapy-only group led to randomization being halted in March 2019.

The 2-year overall survival in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, with a mean observation time of 2.1 years, was 0.75 ± 0.04 for chemo-conditioning versus 0.91 ± 0.02 for total body irradiation/etoposide (ITT P < .001).

The ITT analysis showed relapses were significantly higher in the chemo-conditioning group (2-year cumulative incidence of relapse [CIR], 0.33) compared with the total body irradiation group (CIR, 0.12; P < .001).

The 2-year event-free survival (EFS) rate was also significantly higher in the total body irradiation group (0.86 vs 0.58; P < .001), and transplant-related mortality over 2 years was lower with total body irradiation (0.02 vs 0.09; P = .02).

A per-protocol analysis showed the 2-year overall survival to be the same in the two chemotherapy groups (both 0.77 ± 0.05) compared with 0.91 ± 0.02 in the total body irradiation group (P = .003).

“In this cohort [the 91% overall survival rate] may even be lower than contemporary intensive frontline therapy results that are achieved nowadays,” Dr. Peters said.

In looking at subgroups, there were no significant differences according to age group or cancer phenotype, while MLL rearrangement was associated with higher relapse incidence.

Remission status was found to notably influence EFS, dropping from 0.91 in CR1 patients with total body irradiation to 0.76 in CR2 patients. However, total body irradiation remained significantly higher compared with the chemo-conditioning groups in CR1 (P = .004) and CR2 (P < .001).

Transplant-related mortality was not significantly different between the total body irradiation and chemo-conditioning groups in the CR1 or CR2 groups (P = .09 and P = .18, respectively), despite the significant difference when remission status was not included.

Overall, “we tried to identify subgroups in which total body irradiation might be eliminated, however in all analyses, total body irradiation was better than chemo-conditioning in all arms,” Dr. Peters said.

Meanwhile, the findings underscore that even when patients cannot receive total body irradiation, the alternative chemo-conditioning therapy in fact shows favorable efficacy on its own, Dr. Izraeli said.

“The prognosis of the chemotherapy group is also quite remarkably good, although less than the total body irradiation arm. This means that if for some reason total body irradiation cannot be given, the chemotherapy is a very reasonable alternative.”

Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Medac, Jazz, and Neovii. Dr. Izraeli has reported no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: EHA Congress. Abstract S102.

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

With new daily coronavirus cases rising in at least two dozen states, an explosion of new infections in Arizona is stretching some hospitals and alarming public health experts who link the surge in cases to the state’s lifting of a stay-at-home order a month ago.

Arizona has emerged as one of the country’s newest coronavirus hot spots, with the weekly average of daily cases more than doubling from 2 weeks ago. The total number of people hospitalized is climbing, too.

Over the past week, Arizona has seen an average of more than 1,300 new COVID-19 cases each day.

After the state’s largest hospital system warned about a shortage of ICU beds, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, pushed back on claims that the health care system could soon be overwhelmed.

“The entire time we’ve been focused on a possible worst-case scenario with surge capacity for hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators,” Ducey told reporters on Thursday. “Those are not needed or necessary right now.”

While he acknowledged a spike in positive cases, Ducey said a second stay-at-home order was “not under discussion.”

“We put the stay-at-home order there so we could prepare for what we are going through,” he said.

Some states have reopened more slowly with a set of specific benchmarks for different regions, but Arizona took a more aggressive approach.

The state began easing restrictions on businesses in early May and lifted its statewide lockdown order after May 15. Under Arizona’s reopening plan, businesses are advised to follow federal guidance on social distancing.

There is also no requirement for everyone to wear masks in public.

Public health experts agree: The timing of this spike reflects the state’s reopening.

“Perhaps, Arizona will be a warning sign to other areas,” said Katherine Ellingson, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona. “We never had that consistent downward trend that would signal it’s time to reopen and we have everything in place to do it safely.”

Before Arizona lifted its stay-at-home order, only about 5% of COVID-19 tests registered as positive. On Monday, that number was around 16%.

A slower reopening gives public health agencies time to identify whether cases are rising and then respond with contact tracing and isolating those who are infected.

“With a fast, rapid reopening, we don’t have the time to mobilize those resources,” said Ellingson.

Maricopa County, home to about 60% of the state’s population, has ramped up contact tracing in recent weeks, but it may not have enough capacity if the surge in cases continues.

Dr. Peter Hotez said the spike in Arizona, as well as in parts of Texas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, is the consequence of removing restrictions too quickly and without a public health system that can keep pace.

“It was just ‘open it up’ and then more or less business as usual, with a little bit of window dressing,” said Hotez, the dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “This is not an abstract number of cases. We’re seeing people pile into intensive care units.”

Arizona’s governor has also faced criticism from the mayors of Arizona’s two biggest cities for not putting in place more stringent requirements.

“There is a pandemic and it’s spreading uncontrollably,” said Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat. Ducey, she said, “is just putting up his hands and saying ‘the spread is happening and we just have to go about our business.’”

And the governor’s executive order forbids local governments from implementing their own extra measures, which adds to Romero’s frustration. Texas has a similar measure.

“What he did was pretty much tie the hands of mayors and public health officials,” Romero said.

Arizona’s hospital industry has tried to tamp down fears that it’s on the verge of a crisis. Hospitals are still performing elective surgeries.

“It’s very unfortunate because hospitals right now in Arizona are quite busy with elective procedures,” said Saskia Popescu, a Phoenix-based epidemiologist with George Mason University. “You throw in increasing cases of COVID, and that’s going to very much stress your hospital systems.”

Phoenix’s triple-digit summer temperatures actually may fuel the spread of the virus. People forgo outdoor activities and retreat to air-conditioned indoor spaces, where the risk of transmitting the virus goes up significantly.

“My concern is we’re going to see a lot more people in close quarters for prolonged periods of time,” Popescu said.

Since the stay-at-home order was lifted, Popescu and others say they’ve seen people returning to a pre-pandemic mindset, neglecting to wear masks or maintain social distance. Videos of crowded bars have only propelled these fears.

On Thursday, however, Arizona’s top doctor stressed there were also dangers to keeping the state on lockdown, including the mental health effects of loneliness and isolation.

“We know that it’s in the community. We are not going to be able to stop the spread. And so we can’t stop living as well,” said Dr. Cara Christ, health director for the Arizona Department of Health Services.

But Dr. Quinn Snyder, an emergency medicine physician in Mesa, Arizona, said there needs to be more consistent messaging on public health measures like wearing masks.

“Frankly, I just think a wholesale reevaluation of where we’re at is critical right now, but I can tell you that we’re not doing nearly enough,” said Snyder, who has seen the uptick in seriously ill COVID-19 patients firsthand.

“If we continue to head down this path, the virus will press our health care facilities beyond capacity, where we’re going to have to be making tough decisions like who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

With new daily coronavirus cases rising in at least two dozen states, an explosion of new infections in Arizona is stretching some hospitals and alarming public health experts who link the surge in cases to the state’s lifting of a stay-at-home order a month ago.

Arizona has emerged as one of the country’s newest coronavirus hot spots, with the weekly average of daily cases more than doubling from 2 weeks ago. The total number of people hospitalized is climbing, too.

Over the past week, Arizona has seen an average of more than 1,300 new COVID-19 cases each day.

After the state’s largest hospital system warned about a shortage of ICU beds, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, pushed back on claims that the health care system could soon be overwhelmed.

“The entire time we’ve been focused on a possible worst-case scenario with surge capacity for hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators,” Ducey told reporters on Thursday. “Those are not needed or necessary right now.”

While he acknowledged a spike in positive cases, Ducey said a second stay-at-home order was “not under discussion.”

“We put the stay-at-home order there so we could prepare for what we are going through,” he said.

Some states have reopened more slowly with a set of specific benchmarks for different regions, but Arizona took a more aggressive approach.

The state began easing restrictions on businesses in early May and lifted its statewide lockdown order after May 15. Under Arizona’s reopening plan, businesses are advised to follow federal guidance on social distancing.

There is also no requirement for everyone to wear masks in public.

Public health experts agree: The timing of this spike reflects the state’s reopening.

“Perhaps, Arizona will be a warning sign to other areas,” said Katherine Ellingson, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona. “We never had that consistent downward trend that would signal it’s time to reopen and we have everything in place to do it safely.”

Before Arizona lifted its stay-at-home order, only about 5% of COVID-19 tests registered as positive. On Monday, that number was around 16%.

A slower reopening gives public health agencies time to identify whether cases are rising and then respond with contact tracing and isolating those who are infected.

“With a fast, rapid reopening, we don’t have the time to mobilize those resources,” said Ellingson.

Maricopa County, home to about 60% of the state’s population, has ramped up contact tracing in recent weeks, but it may not have enough capacity if the surge in cases continues.

Dr. Peter Hotez said the spike in Arizona, as well as in parts of Texas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, is the consequence of removing restrictions too quickly and without a public health system that can keep pace.

“It was just ‘open it up’ and then more or less business as usual, with a little bit of window dressing,” said Hotez, the dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “This is not an abstract number of cases. We’re seeing people pile into intensive care units.”

Arizona’s governor has also faced criticism from the mayors of Arizona’s two biggest cities for not putting in place more stringent requirements.

“There is a pandemic and it’s spreading uncontrollably,” said Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat. Ducey, she said, “is just putting up his hands and saying ‘the spread is happening and we just have to go about our business.’”

And the governor’s executive order forbids local governments from implementing their own extra measures, which adds to Romero’s frustration. Texas has a similar measure.

“What he did was pretty much tie the hands of mayors and public health officials,” Romero said.

Arizona’s hospital industry has tried to tamp down fears that it’s on the verge of a crisis. Hospitals are still performing elective surgeries.

“It’s very unfortunate because hospitals right now in Arizona are quite busy with elective procedures,” said Saskia Popescu, a Phoenix-based epidemiologist with George Mason University. “You throw in increasing cases of COVID, and that’s going to very much stress your hospital systems.”

Phoenix’s triple-digit summer temperatures actually may fuel the spread of the virus. People forgo outdoor activities and retreat to air-conditioned indoor spaces, where the risk of transmitting the virus goes up significantly.

“My concern is we’re going to see a lot more people in close quarters for prolonged periods of time,” Popescu said.

Since the stay-at-home order was lifted, Popescu and others say they’ve seen people returning to a pre-pandemic mindset, neglecting to wear masks or maintain social distance. Videos of crowded bars have only propelled these fears.

On Thursday, however, Arizona’s top doctor stressed there were also dangers to keeping the state on lockdown, including the mental health effects of loneliness and isolation.

“We know that it’s in the community. We are not going to be able to stop the spread. And so we can’t stop living as well,” said Dr. Cara Christ, health director for the Arizona Department of Health Services.

But Dr. Quinn Snyder, an emergency medicine physician in Mesa, Arizona, said there needs to be more consistent messaging on public health measures like wearing masks.

“Frankly, I just think a wholesale reevaluation of where we’re at is critical right now, but I can tell you that we’re not doing nearly enough,” said Snyder, who has seen the uptick in seriously ill COVID-19 patients firsthand.

“If we continue to head down this path, the virus will press our health care facilities beyond capacity, where we’re going to have to be making tough decisions like who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

With new daily coronavirus cases rising in at least two dozen states, an explosion of new infections in Arizona is stretching some hospitals and alarming public health experts who link the surge in cases to the state’s lifting of a stay-at-home order a month ago.

Arizona has emerged as one of the country’s newest coronavirus hot spots, with the weekly average of daily cases more than doubling from 2 weeks ago. The total number of people hospitalized is climbing, too.

Over the past week, Arizona has seen an average of more than 1,300 new COVID-19 cases each day.

After the state’s largest hospital system warned about a shortage of ICU beds, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, pushed back on claims that the health care system could soon be overwhelmed.

“The entire time we’ve been focused on a possible worst-case scenario with surge capacity for hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators,” Ducey told reporters on Thursday. “Those are not needed or necessary right now.”

While he acknowledged a spike in positive cases, Ducey said a second stay-at-home order was “not under discussion.”

“We put the stay-at-home order there so we could prepare for what we are going through,” he said.

Some states have reopened more slowly with a set of specific benchmarks for different regions, but Arizona took a more aggressive approach.

The state began easing restrictions on businesses in early May and lifted its statewide lockdown order after May 15. Under Arizona’s reopening plan, businesses are advised to follow federal guidance on social distancing.

There is also no requirement for everyone to wear masks in public.

Public health experts agree: The timing of this spike reflects the state’s reopening.

“Perhaps, Arizona will be a warning sign to other areas,” said Katherine Ellingson, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona. “We never had that consistent downward trend that would signal it’s time to reopen and we have everything in place to do it safely.”

Before Arizona lifted its stay-at-home order, only about 5% of COVID-19 tests registered as positive. On Monday, that number was around 16%.

A slower reopening gives public health agencies time to identify whether cases are rising and then respond with contact tracing and isolating those who are infected.

“With a fast, rapid reopening, we don’t have the time to mobilize those resources,” said Ellingson.

Maricopa County, home to about 60% of the state’s population, has ramped up contact tracing in recent weeks, but it may not have enough capacity if the surge in cases continues.

Dr. Peter Hotez said the spike in Arizona, as well as in parts of Texas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, is the consequence of removing restrictions too quickly and without a public health system that can keep pace.

“It was just ‘open it up’ and then more or less business as usual, with a little bit of window dressing,” said Hotez, the dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “This is not an abstract number of cases. We’re seeing people pile into intensive care units.”

Arizona’s governor has also faced criticism from the mayors of Arizona’s two biggest cities for not putting in place more stringent requirements.

“There is a pandemic and it’s spreading uncontrollably,” said Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat. Ducey, she said, “is just putting up his hands and saying ‘the spread is happening and we just have to go about our business.’”

And the governor’s executive order forbids local governments from implementing their own extra measures, which adds to Romero’s frustration. Texas has a similar measure.

“What he did was pretty much tie the hands of mayors and public health officials,” Romero said.

Arizona’s hospital industry has tried to tamp down fears that it’s on the verge of a crisis. Hospitals are still performing elective surgeries.

“It’s very unfortunate because hospitals right now in Arizona are quite busy with elective procedures,” said Saskia Popescu, a Phoenix-based epidemiologist with George Mason University. “You throw in increasing cases of COVID, and that’s going to very much stress your hospital systems.”

Phoenix’s triple-digit summer temperatures actually may fuel the spread of the virus. People forgo outdoor activities and retreat to air-conditioned indoor spaces, where the risk of transmitting the virus goes up significantly.

“My concern is we’re going to see a lot more people in close quarters for prolonged periods of time,” Popescu said.

Since the stay-at-home order was lifted, Popescu and others say they’ve seen people returning to a pre-pandemic mindset, neglecting to wear masks or maintain social distance. Videos of crowded bars have only propelled these fears.

On Thursday, however, Arizona’s top doctor stressed there were also dangers to keeping the state on lockdown, including the mental health effects of loneliness and isolation.

“We know that it’s in the community. We are not going to be able to stop the spread. And so we can’t stop living as well,” said Dr. Cara Christ, health director for the Arizona Department of Health Services.

But Dr. Quinn Snyder, an emergency medicine physician in Mesa, Arizona, said there needs to be more consistent messaging on public health measures like wearing masks.

“Frankly, I just think a wholesale reevaluation of where we’re at is critical right now, but I can tell you that we’re not doing nearly enough,” said Snyder, who has seen the uptick in seriously ill COVID-19 patients firsthand.

“If we continue to head down this path, the virus will press our health care facilities beyond capacity, where we’re going to have to be making tough decisions like who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.