Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

To the Editor:

I read with interest the article by Sosa and colleagues¹ in which they present some stimulating analyses pertaining to a topic that we have been discussing at my institution for several years. Part of this discussion deals with the complexity of our hospital and how complexity is affected by comorbidity coding.

In 2013, we implemented the International Refined-DRGs (IR-DRGs) system to measure complexity at our hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. Our perception at that time was that the case mix index (CMI) was very low (0.7566), even for a general hospital with a high volume of pathologies with low relative weight (RW). Two medical auditors were assigned to review the medical records in order to improve the quality, quantity, and order of diagnoses. Emphasis was placed on patients with stays longer than 5 days and with only 1 diagnosis coded at admission. Additionally, International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (World Health Organization version) diagnoses from chapters R (Symptoms and Signs Not Elsewhere Classified) and V through Y (External Causes) were blocked in the electronic health record. With these measures, our CMI increased 74%, reaching 1.3151 by the end of 2021, with a maximum peak of 1.6743 in May 2021, which coincided with the third peak of COVID-19 in Colombia.

However, the article by Sosa and colleagues draws my attention to the following: why do the authors state that their CMI is low and the patient acuity was under-represented? Is this due to a comparison with similar hospitals, or to a recommendation from a regulatory agency? We have found our CMI remains low because of a high volume of nonsurgical care (60%), deliveries, and digestive, respiratory, and urinary pathologies of low RW.

Also, was the perceived low CMI causing problems with payers? And further, how did the authors avoid the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis of patients, and were there audit mechanisms to avoid this? While there was a clear change in expected mortality, did the observed mortality also change with the strategies implemented? This last question is relevant because, if the observed mortality were maintained, this would provide evidence that a coding problem was the cause of their hospital’s low CMI.

I reiterate my congratulations to the authors for presenting analyses that are very useful to other providers and researchers worldwide interested in addressing management issues related to the correct identification and classification of patients.

Carlos Kerguelen, MD, MA
Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia
[email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

To the Editor:

I read with interest the article by Sosa and colleagues¹ in which they present some stimulating analyses pertaining to a topic that we have been discussing at my institution for several years. Part of this discussion deals with the complexity of our hospital and how complexity is affected by comorbidity coding.

In 2013, we implemented the International Refined-DRGs (IR-DRGs) system to measure complexity at our hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. Our perception at that time was that the case mix index (CMI) was very low (0.7566), even for a general hospital with a high volume of pathologies with low relative weight (RW). Two medical auditors were assigned to review the medical records in order to improve the quality, quantity, and order of diagnoses. Emphasis was placed on patients with stays longer than 5 days and with only 1 diagnosis coded at admission. Additionally, International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (World Health Organization version) diagnoses from chapters R (Symptoms and Signs Not Elsewhere Classified) and V through Y (External Causes) were blocked in the electronic health record. With these measures, our CMI increased 74%, reaching 1.3151 by the end of 2021, with a maximum peak of 1.6743 in May 2021, which coincided with the third peak of COVID-19 in Colombia.

However, the article by Sosa and colleagues draws my attention to the following: why do the authors state that their CMI is low and the patient acuity was under-represented? Is this due to a comparison with similar hospitals, or to a recommendation from a regulatory agency? We have found our CMI remains low because of a high volume of nonsurgical care (60%), deliveries, and digestive, respiratory, and urinary pathologies of low RW.

Also, was the perceived low CMI causing problems with payers? And further, how did the authors avoid the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis of patients, and were there audit mechanisms to avoid this? While there was a clear change in expected mortality, did the observed mortality also change with the strategies implemented? This last question is relevant because, if the observed mortality were maintained, this would provide evidence that a coding problem was the cause of their hospital’s low CMI.

I reiterate my congratulations to the authors for presenting analyses that are very useful to other providers and researchers worldwide interested in addressing management issues related to the correct identification and classification of patients.

Carlos Kerguelen, MD, MA
Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia
[email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

To the Editor:

I read with interest the article by Sosa and colleagues¹ in which they present some stimulating analyses pertaining to a topic that we have been discussing at my institution for several years. Part of this discussion deals with the complexity of our hospital and how complexity is affected by comorbidity coding.

In 2013, we implemented the International Refined-DRGs (IR-DRGs) system to measure complexity at our hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. Our perception at that time was that the case mix index (CMI) was very low (0.7566), even for a general hospital with a high volume of pathologies with low relative weight (RW). Two medical auditors were assigned to review the medical records in order to improve the quality, quantity, and order of diagnoses. Emphasis was placed on patients with stays longer than 5 days and with only 1 diagnosis coded at admission. Additionally, International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (World Health Organization version) diagnoses from chapters R (Symptoms and Signs Not Elsewhere Classified) and V through Y (External Causes) were blocked in the electronic health record. With these measures, our CMI increased 74%, reaching 1.3151 by the end of 2021, with a maximum peak of 1.6743 in May 2021, which coincided with the third peak of COVID-19 in Colombia.

However, the article by Sosa and colleagues draws my attention to the following: why do the authors state that their CMI is low and the patient acuity was under-represented? Is this due to a comparison with similar hospitals, or to a recommendation from a regulatory agency? We have found our CMI remains low because of a high volume of nonsurgical care (60%), deliveries, and digestive, respiratory, and urinary pathologies of low RW.

Also, was the perceived low CMI causing problems with payers? And further, how did the authors avoid the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis of patients, and were there audit mechanisms to avoid this? While there was a clear change in expected mortality, did the observed mortality also change with the strategies implemented? This last question is relevant because, if the observed mortality were maintained, this would provide evidence that a coding problem was the cause of their hospital’s low CMI.

I reiterate my congratulations to the authors for presenting analyses that are very useful to other providers and researchers worldwide interested in addressing management issues related to the correct identification and classification of patients.

Carlos Kerguelen, MD, MA
Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia
[email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

From Memora Health (Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert), San Francisco, CA; and Harvard Medical School (Dr. Colbert), Boston, MA.

A close relative was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. He was cared for at a high-ranked cancer center by physicians with demonstrated expertise, and even had the support of a care navigator. Still, he was often left feeling overwhelmed and confused, holding an inch-thick stack of papers, instructions, and pamphlets. As he left his treatment planning visit, reeling from the emotional burden of his diagnosis and all the unfamiliar terminology, he didn’t know what to do or what to expect. Later, when he experienced early signs of tumor lysis syndrome, he struggled to reach his care team for triage and guidance. When he went to the emergency room, his oncologist was never informed.

This scenario is unfortunately common, and versions of this scenario play out thousands of times each day across the US health system. Within the clinic and hospital setting, patients receive excellent care from their providers, but a disconnect emerges once the patient leaves these medical settings: patients at home struggle to find guidance and support, while care teams lack the tools to engage patients between visits or monitor their health across care settings, providers, or episodes of care.

Leveraging Technology to Move From Episodes of Care to Complex Care Journeys

The use of automated messaging, artificial intelligence and natural language processing–driven chat experiences, and text-based support is becoming more common. However, health care lags behind other industries in the adoption of these technologies.^1,2 The slow pace can be warranted, given that health care is more complicated and higher risk than inquiring about a lost package, ordering groceries, or applying for a mortgage. At the same time, many of the consumer engagement tools used to guide an applicant through the multiple steps and complexities of their home loan process or to prompt viewers to select new shows to binge have applications in health care.

Over the past few years, technologies have emerged that guide patients through complex care journeys and allow care teams to monitor and engage patients between visits. These solutions come in different formats, but generally patients can receive messages on their phones that contain disease-specific educational content, prompts to fill prescriptions and take medications, and reminders and guidance on how to prepare for appointments and procedures. These programs also collect relevant data from patients through survey and electronic patient-reported outcomes instruments, as well as connected patient monitoring devices, that help track patient progress and identify issues as they arise. Many programs also incorporate symptom triage pathways and use natural language processing to respond automatically to patient questions and concerns.^3,4

These technology solutions can automate many tasks that in the past required a care team member to spend hours on the phone. Newly freed from such repetitive tasks, care teams can now focus on more in-depth interactions with those patients who are most in need—the types of interactions that are more satisfying and rewarding. Such assistance is particularly needed today with the staffing shortages faced by most health systems.⁵

In addition, technology allows teams to see the panel of patients they are caring for and to quickly identify and take action on any specific needs or issues. Care teams can focus on any patient and see where they are in their journey. When appropriate, some solutions also allow care teams to engage directly with patients through text-messaging, creating a seamless experience and unified communication channel. Ideally, these solutions should be linked or embedded within the electronic health record or other primary system of record, so that teams can easily access these tools through their existing workflows and avoid creating yet another interface to navigate.

The Impact of Low-Tech Solutions to Deliver High-Touch Support

There is evidence showing that digital patient navigation tools impact patient care. In the oncology setting, patients with a digital navigator have achieved over 95% adherence rates with complex oral chemotherapy regimens (Memora Health Unpublished Data. 2022.). In the postpartum setting, a text message–based program improved screening rates for postpartum depression and did so with very high patient satisfaction ratings.⁶ Particularly notable is the fact that this depression screening program achieved these results in a population that was predominantly low income, with more than half belonging to underrepresented minority populations.⁶

We believe these digital patient navigation technologies, specifically low-tech solutions that don’t require app downloads, portal log-ins, or high-speed internet, will transform care delivery over the next 5 to 10 years. Successful management of complex conditions like diabetes or cancer requires more than 3 hours of care each day,⁷ yet most patients spend only 1 or 2 hours per month directly interacting with their health care providers. However, most patients carry their phones with them at all times, and artificial intelligence–enabled text support is “always on” to provide support, monitoring, and guidance, wherever a patient happens to be when assistance is needed.

Shifting the Model to Support a Lifetime of Care

While still in the early stages of development, these tools have the potential to radically alter the practice of medicine, shifting the focus from episodic interactions to continuous journey-based care delivery. Outside of an acute event bringing a patient into the clinic or emergency room, many patients go a year or more without seeing their primary care providers.⁸ During that time, an immense amount of information is underreported or completely lost. Capturing this information in real-time and more holistically over a person’s lifetime of care could provide physicians better insight to both better manage and more fully evaluate the success of treatment plans by tracking patient symptoms, pain, and functional status over time. With this more longitudinal view of the patient, we see a pathway towards achieving the Quadruple Aim: patients who are more supported will achieve better outcomes at lower cost, they will have a better experience, and care teams will be empowered to focus their time on more satisfying activities rather than repetitive administrative tasks.

Corresponding author: James A. Colbert, MD, MBA; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert are employed by Memora Health, an organization that helps health care systems digitize and automate care journeys.

From Memora Health (Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert), San Francisco, CA; and Harvard Medical School (Dr. Colbert), Boston, MA.

A close relative was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. He was cared for at a high-ranked cancer center by physicians with demonstrated expertise, and even had the support of a care navigator. Still, he was often left feeling overwhelmed and confused, holding an inch-thick stack of papers, instructions, and pamphlets. As he left his treatment planning visit, reeling from the emotional burden of his diagnosis and all the unfamiliar terminology, he didn’t know what to do or what to expect. Later, when he experienced early signs of tumor lysis syndrome, he struggled to reach his care team for triage and guidance. When he went to the emergency room, his oncologist was never informed.

This scenario is unfortunately common, and versions of this scenario play out thousands of times each day across the US health system. Within the clinic and hospital setting, patients receive excellent care from their providers, but a disconnect emerges once the patient leaves these medical settings: patients at home struggle to find guidance and support, while care teams lack the tools to engage patients between visits or monitor their health across care settings, providers, or episodes of care.

Leveraging Technology to Move From Episodes of Care to Complex Care Journeys

The use of automated messaging, artificial intelligence and natural language processing–driven chat experiences, and text-based support is becoming more common. However, health care lags behind other industries in the adoption of these technologies.^1,2 The slow pace can be warranted, given that health care is more complicated and higher risk than inquiring about a lost package, ordering groceries, or applying for a mortgage. At the same time, many of the consumer engagement tools used to guide an applicant through the multiple steps and complexities of their home loan process or to prompt viewers to select new shows to binge have applications in health care.

Over the past few years, technologies have emerged that guide patients through complex care journeys and allow care teams to monitor and engage patients between visits. These solutions come in different formats, but generally patients can receive messages on their phones that contain disease-specific educational content, prompts to fill prescriptions and take medications, and reminders and guidance on how to prepare for appointments and procedures. These programs also collect relevant data from patients through survey and electronic patient-reported outcomes instruments, as well as connected patient monitoring devices, that help track patient progress and identify issues as they arise. Many programs also incorporate symptom triage pathways and use natural language processing to respond automatically to patient questions and concerns.^3,4

These technology solutions can automate many tasks that in the past required a care team member to spend hours on the phone. Newly freed from such repetitive tasks, care teams can now focus on more in-depth interactions with those patients who are most in need—the types of interactions that are more satisfying and rewarding. Such assistance is particularly needed today with the staffing shortages faced by most health systems.⁵

In addition, technology allows teams to see the panel of patients they are caring for and to quickly identify and take action on any specific needs or issues. Care teams can focus on any patient and see where they are in their journey. When appropriate, some solutions also allow care teams to engage directly with patients through text-messaging, creating a seamless experience and unified communication channel. Ideally, these solutions should be linked or embedded within the electronic health record or other primary system of record, so that teams can easily access these tools through their existing workflows and avoid creating yet another interface to navigate.

The Impact of Low-Tech Solutions to Deliver High-Touch Support

There is evidence showing that digital patient navigation tools impact patient care. In the oncology setting, patients with a digital navigator have achieved over 95% adherence rates with complex oral chemotherapy regimens (Memora Health Unpublished Data. 2022.). In the postpartum setting, a text message–based program improved screening rates for postpartum depression and did so with very high patient satisfaction ratings.⁶ Particularly notable is the fact that this depression screening program achieved these results in a population that was predominantly low income, with more than half belonging to underrepresented minority populations.⁶

We believe these digital patient navigation technologies, specifically low-tech solutions that don’t require app downloads, portal log-ins, or high-speed internet, will transform care delivery over the next 5 to 10 years. Successful management of complex conditions like diabetes or cancer requires more than 3 hours of care each day,⁷ yet most patients spend only 1 or 2 hours per month directly interacting with their health care providers. However, most patients carry their phones with them at all times, and artificial intelligence–enabled text support is “always on” to provide support, monitoring, and guidance, wherever a patient happens to be when assistance is needed.

Shifting the Model to Support a Lifetime of Care

While still in the early stages of development, these tools have the potential to radically alter the practice of medicine, shifting the focus from episodic interactions to continuous journey-based care delivery. Outside of an acute event bringing a patient into the clinic or emergency room, many patients go a year or more without seeing their primary care providers.⁸ During that time, an immense amount of information is underreported or completely lost. Capturing this information in real-time and more holistically over a person’s lifetime of care could provide physicians better insight to both better manage and more fully evaluate the success of treatment plans by tracking patient symptoms, pain, and functional status over time. With this more longitudinal view of the patient, we see a pathway towards achieving the Quadruple Aim: patients who are more supported will achieve better outcomes at lower cost, they will have a better experience, and care teams will be empowered to focus their time on more satisfying activities rather than repetitive administrative tasks.

Corresponding author: James A. Colbert, MD, MBA; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert are employed by Memora Health, an organization that helps health care systems digitize and automate care journeys.

From Memora Health (Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert), San Francisco, CA; and Harvard Medical School (Dr. Colbert), Boston, MA.

A close relative was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. He was cared for at a high-ranked cancer center by physicians with demonstrated expertise, and even had the support of a care navigator. Still, he was often left feeling overwhelmed and confused, holding an inch-thick stack of papers, instructions, and pamphlets. As he left his treatment planning visit, reeling from the emotional burden of his diagnosis and all the unfamiliar terminology, he didn’t know what to do or what to expect. Later, when he experienced early signs of tumor lysis syndrome, he struggled to reach his care team for triage and guidance. When he went to the emergency room, his oncologist was never informed.

This scenario is unfortunately common, and versions of this scenario play out thousands of times each day across the US health system. Within the clinic and hospital setting, patients receive excellent care from their providers, but a disconnect emerges once the patient leaves these medical settings: patients at home struggle to find guidance and support, while care teams lack the tools to engage patients between visits or monitor their health across care settings, providers, or episodes of care.

Leveraging Technology to Move From Episodes of Care to Complex Care Journeys

The use of automated messaging, artificial intelligence and natural language processing–driven chat experiences, and text-based support is becoming more common. However, health care lags behind other industries in the adoption of these technologies.^1,2 The slow pace can be warranted, given that health care is more complicated and higher risk than inquiring about a lost package, ordering groceries, or applying for a mortgage. At the same time, many of the consumer engagement tools used to guide an applicant through the multiple steps and complexities of their home loan process or to prompt viewers to select new shows to binge have applications in health care.

Over the past few years, technologies have emerged that guide patients through complex care journeys and allow care teams to monitor and engage patients between visits. These solutions come in different formats, but generally patients can receive messages on their phones that contain disease-specific educational content, prompts to fill prescriptions and take medications, and reminders and guidance on how to prepare for appointments and procedures. These programs also collect relevant data from patients through survey and electronic patient-reported outcomes instruments, as well as connected patient monitoring devices, that help track patient progress and identify issues as they arise. Many programs also incorporate symptom triage pathways and use natural language processing to respond automatically to patient questions and concerns.^3,4

These technology solutions can automate many tasks that in the past required a care team member to spend hours on the phone. Newly freed from such repetitive tasks, care teams can now focus on more in-depth interactions with those patients who are most in need—the types of interactions that are more satisfying and rewarding. Such assistance is particularly needed today with the staffing shortages faced by most health systems.⁵

In addition, technology allows teams to see the panel of patients they are caring for and to quickly identify and take action on any specific needs or issues. Care teams can focus on any patient and see where they are in their journey. When appropriate, some solutions also allow care teams to engage directly with patients through text-messaging, creating a seamless experience and unified communication channel. Ideally, these solutions should be linked or embedded within the electronic health record or other primary system of record, so that teams can easily access these tools through their existing workflows and avoid creating yet another interface to navigate.

The Impact of Low-Tech Solutions to Deliver High-Touch Support

There is evidence showing that digital patient navigation tools impact patient care. In the oncology setting, patients with a digital navigator have achieved over 95% adherence rates with complex oral chemotherapy regimens (Memora Health Unpublished Data. 2022.). In the postpartum setting, a text message–based program improved screening rates for postpartum depression and did so with very high patient satisfaction ratings.⁶ Particularly notable is the fact that this depression screening program achieved these results in a population that was predominantly low income, with more than half belonging to underrepresented minority populations.⁶

We believe these digital patient navigation technologies, specifically low-tech solutions that don’t require app downloads, portal log-ins, or high-speed internet, will transform care delivery over the next 5 to 10 years. Successful management of complex conditions like diabetes or cancer requires more than 3 hours of care each day,⁷ yet most patients spend only 1 or 2 hours per month directly interacting with their health care providers. However, most patients carry their phones with them at all times, and artificial intelligence–enabled text support is “always on” to provide support, monitoring, and guidance, wherever a patient happens to be when assistance is needed.

Shifting the Model to Support a Lifetime of Care

While still in the early stages of development, these tools have the potential to radically alter the practice of medicine, shifting the focus from episodic interactions to continuous journey-based care delivery. Outside of an acute event bringing a patient into the clinic or emergency room, many patients go a year or more without seeing their primary care providers.⁸ During that time, an immense amount of information is underreported or completely lost. Capturing this information in real-time and more holistically over a person’s lifetime of care could provide physicians better insight to both better manage and more fully evaluate the success of treatment plans by tracking patient symptoms, pain, and functional status over time. With this more longitudinal view of the patient, we see a pathway towards achieving the Quadruple Aim: patients who are more supported will achieve better outcomes at lower cost, they will have a better experience, and care teams will be empowered to focus their time on more satisfying activities rather than repetitive administrative tasks.

Corresponding author: James A. Colbert, MD, MBA; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert are employed by Memora Health, an organization that helps health care systems digitize and automate care journeys.

This issue of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes (JCOM) debuts a new cover design that brings forward the articles and features in each issue. Although the Journal’s cover has a new look, JCOM’s goals remain the same—improving care by disseminating evidence of quality improvement in health care and sharing access to the medical literature with our readers. We continue our mission to promote the best medical practice by providing clinicians with updates and communicating advances that lead to measurable improvement in health care delivery, quality, and outcomes.

As we continue the work of improving health care quality, knowledge gaps and unmet needs in the literature remain. These unmet needs are evident throughout all phases of health care delivery. Moreover, the Institutes of Medicine report that centered on efforts to build a safer health care environment by redesigning health care processes remains salient.¹ The journey to continuous improvement in health care, where we achieve threshold change in the quality of each process and across the entire health care system, requires collective effort. Such efforts include establishing clear metrics and measurements for improvement goals throughout the patient’s journey through diagnosis, treatment, transitions of care, and disease management.^2,3 To address evidence and knowledge gaps in the literature, JCOM publishes reports of original studies and quality improvement projects as well as reviews, providing its 30,000 readers with new evidence to implement in daily practice. We welcome submissions of original research reports, reports of quality improvement projects that follow the SQUIRE 2.0 standards,⁴ and perspectives on developments and innovations in health care delivery.

The next chapter in health care delivery improvement will encompass value-based care.⁵ This new era of clinical outcomes management will dictate the metrics and outcomes reporting⁶ and how to plan future investments. The value-based phase will increase innovation and shape policies that advance population health, transforming every step in the care delivery journey.⁷ The next phase in health care delivery will also create a viable financial structure while implementing effective performance measures for optimal outcomes through patient-centered care and optimization of cost and care strategies. In light of health care’s evolution toward a value-based model, JCOM welcomes submissions of manuscripts that explore themes central to this model, including patient-centered care, implementation of best practices, system design, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the balance between cost optimization and quality. For JCOM’s authors and readers, our editorial team remains commited to the highest standards in timely publishing to support our community through our collective expertise and dedication to quality improvement.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; [email protected]

This issue of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes (JCOM) debuts a new cover design that brings forward the articles and features in each issue. Although the Journal’s cover has a new look, JCOM’s goals remain the same—improving care by disseminating evidence of quality improvement in health care and sharing access to the medical literature with our readers. We continue our mission to promote the best medical practice by providing clinicians with updates and communicating advances that lead to measurable improvement in health care delivery, quality, and outcomes.

As we continue the work of improving health care quality, knowledge gaps and unmet needs in the literature remain. These unmet needs are evident throughout all phases of health care delivery. Moreover, the Institutes of Medicine report that centered on efforts to build a safer health care environment by redesigning health care processes remains salient.¹ The journey to continuous improvement in health care, where we achieve threshold change in the quality of each process and across the entire health care system, requires collective effort. Such efforts include establishing clear metrics and measurements for improvement goals throughout the patient’s journey through diagnosis, treatment, transitions of care, and disease management.^2,3 To address evidence and knowledge gaps in the literature, JCOM publishes reports of original studies and quality improvement projects as well as reviews, providing its 30,000 readers with new evidence to implement in daily practice. We welcome submissions of original research reports, reports of quality improvement projects that follow the SQUIRE 2.0 standards,⁴ and perspectives on developments and innovations in health care delivery.

The next chapter in health care delivery improvement will encompass value-based care.⁵ This new era of clinical outcomes management will dictate the metrics and outcomes reporting⁶ and how to plan future investments. The value-based phase will increase innovation and shape policies that advance population health, transforming every step in the care delivery journey.⁷ The next phase in health care delivery will also create a viable financial structure while implementing effective performance measures for optimal outcomes through patient-centered care and optimization of cost and care strategies. In light of health care’s evolution toward a value-based model, JCOM welcomes submissions of manuscripts that explore themes central to this model, including patient-centered care, implementation of best practices, system design, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the balance between cost optimization and quality. For JCOM’s authors and readers, our editorial team remains commited to the highest standards in timely publishing to support our community through our collective expertise and dedication to quality improvement.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; [email protected]

This issue of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes (JCOM) debuts a new cover design that brings forward the articles and features in each issue. Although the Journal’s cover has a new look, JCOM’s goals remain the same—improving care by disseminating evidence of quality improvement in health care and sharing access to the medical literature with our readers. We continue our mission to promote the best medical practice by providing clinicians with updates and communicating advances that lead to measurable improvement in health care delivery, quality, and outcomes.

As we continue the work of improving health care quality, knowledge gaps and unmet needs in the literature remain. These unmet needs are evident throughout all phases of health care delivery. Moreover, the Institutes of Medicine report that centered on efforts to build a safer health care environment by redesigning health care processes remains salient.¹ The journey to continuous improvement in health care, where we achieve threshold change in the quality of each process and across the entire health care system, requires collective effort. Such efforts include establishing clear metrics and measurements for improvement goals throughout the patient’s journey through diagnosis, treatment, transitions of care, and disease management.^2,3 To address evidence and knowledge gaps in the literature, JCOM publishes reports of original studies and quality improvement projects as well as reviews, providing its 30,000 readers with new evidence to implement in daily practice. We welcome submissions of original research reports, reports of quality improvement projects that follow the SQUIRE 2.0 standards,⁴ and perspectives on developments and innovations in health care delivery.

The next chapter in health care delivery improvement will encompass value-based care.⁵ This new era of clinical outcomes management will dictate the metrics and outcomes reporting⁶ and how to plan future investments. The value-based phase will increase innovation and shape policies that advance population health, transforming every step in the care delivery journey.⁷ The next phase in health care delivery will also create a viable financial structure while implementing effective performance measures for optimal outcomes through patient-centered care and optimization of cost and care strategies. In light of health care’s evolution toward a value-based model, JCOM welcomes submissions of manuscripts that explore themes central to this model, including patient-centered care, implementation of best practices, system design, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the balance between cost optimization and quality. For JCOM’s authors and readers, our editorial team remains commited to the highest standards in timely publishing to support our community through our collective expertise and dedication to quality improvement.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; [email protected]

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To examine whether implementation of a geriatric trauma clinical pathway is associated with reduced rates of delirium in older adults with traumatic injury.

Design: Retrospective case-control study of electronic health records.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and did not undergo an operation. A Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary Stanford Quality Pathways team and formally launched on November 1, 2018. The clinical pathway was designed to incorporate geriatric best practices, which included order sets (eg, age-appropriate nonpharmacological interventions and pharmacological dosages), guidelines (eg, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health systems 4M framework), automated consultations (comprehensive geriatric assessment), and escalation pathways executed by a multidisciplinary team (eg, pain, bowel, and sleep regulation). The clinical pathway began with admission to the emergency department (ED) (ie, automatic trigger of geriatric trauma care admission order set), daily multidisciplinary team meetings during acute hospitalization, and a transitional care team consultation for postdischarge follow-up or home visit.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was delirium as determined by a positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score or a diagnosis of delirium by the clinical team. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Process measures for pathway compliance (eg, achieving adequate pain control, early mobilization, advance care planning) were assessed. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent the Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway intervention (postimplementation group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (baseline pre-implementation group).

Main results: Of the 859 eligible patients, 712 were included in the analysis (442 [62.1%] in the baseline pre-implementation group and 270 [37.9%] in the postimplementation group); mean (SD) age was 81.4 (9.1) years, and 394 (55.3%) were women. The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls being the most common cause of injury (247 [55.9%] in the baseline group vs 162 [60.0%] in the postimplementation group; P = .43). Injuries as measured by Injury Severity Score (ISS) were minor or moderate in both groups (261 [59.0%] in baseline group vs 168 [62.2%] in postimplementation group; P = .87). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for delirium in the postimplementation group was lower compared to the baseline pre-implementation group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80; P < .001). Measures of advance care planning in the postimplementation group improved, including more frequent goals-of-care documentation (53.7% in postimplementation group vs 16.7% in baseline group; P < .001) and a shortened time to first goals-of-care discussion upon presenting to the ED (36 hours in postimplementation group vs 50 hours in baseline group; P = .03).

Conclusion: Implementation of a multidisciplinary geriatric trauma clinical pathway for older adults with traumatic injury at a single level I trauma center was associated with reduced rates of delirium.

Study 2 Overview (Bryant et al)

Objective: To determine whether an interdisciplinary care pathway for frail trauma patients can improve in-hospital mortality, complications, and 30-day readmissions.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of frail patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and survived more than 24 hours; admitted to and discharged from the trauma unit; and determined to be pre-frail or frail by a geriatrician’s assessment. A Frailty Identification and Care Pathway designed to reduce delirium and complications in frail older trauma patients was developed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented in 2016. The standardized evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway included utilization of order sets and interventions for delirium prevention, early ambulation, bowel and pain regimens, nutrition and physical therapy consults, medication management, care-goal setting, and geriatric assessments.

Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were delirium as determined by a positive CAM score, major complications as defined by the Trauma Quality Improvement Project, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day hospital readmission. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention (postintervention group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (pre-intervention group).

Main results: A total of 269 frail patients were included in the analysis (125 in pre-intervention group vs 144 in postintervention group). Patient demographic and admission characteristics were similar between the 2 groups: mean age was 83.5 (7.1) years, 60.6% were women, and median ISS was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-14). The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls accounting for 92.8% and 86.1% of injuries in the pre-intervention and postintervention groups, respectively (P = .07). In univariate analysis, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention was associated with a significant reduction in delirium (12.5% vs 21.6%, P = .04) and 30-day hospital readmission (2.7% vs 9.6%, P = .01) compared to patients in the pre-intervention group. However, rates of major complications (28.5% vs 28.0%, P = 0.93) and in-hospital mortality (4.2% vs 7.2%, P = .28) were similar between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ISS), patients in the postintervention group had lower delirium (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88; P = .02) and 30-day hospital readmission (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .02) rates compared to those in the pre-intervention group.

Conclusion: Implementation of an interdisciplinary care protocol for frail geriatric trauma patients significantly decreased their risks for in-hospital delirium and 30-day hospital readmission.

Commentary

Traumatic injuries in older adults are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, with falls and motor vehicle accidents accounting for a majority of these injuries. Astoundingly, up to one-third of this vulnerable population presenting to hospitals with an ISS greater than 15 may die during hospitalization.¹ As a result, a large number of studies and clinical trials have focused on interventions that are designed to reduce fall risks, and hence reduce adverse consequences of traumatic injuries that may arise after falls.² However, this emphasis on falls prevention has overshadowed a need to develop effective geriatric-centered clinical interventions that aim to improve outcomes in older adults who present to hospitals with traumatic injuries. Furthermore, frailty—a geriatric syndrome indicative of an increased state of vulnerability and predictive of adverse outcomes such as delirium—is highly prevalent in older patients with traumatic injury.³ Thus, there is an urgent need to develop novel, hospital-based, traumatic injury–targeting strategies that incorporate a thoughtful redesign of the care framework that includes evidence-based interventions for geriatric syndromes such as delirium and frailty.

The study reported by Park et al (Study 1) represents the latest effort to evaluate inpatient management strategies designed to improve outcomes in hospitalized older adults who have sustained traumatic injury. Through the implementation of a novel multidisciplinary Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway that incorporates geriatric best practices, this intervention was found to be associated with a 46% lower risk of in-hospital delirium. Because of the inclusion of all age-eligible patients across all strata of traumatic injuries, rather than preselecting for those at the highest risk for poor clinical outcomes, the benefits of this intervention extend to those with minor or moderate injury severity. Furthermore, the improvement in delirium (ie, the primary outcome) is particularly meaningful given that delirium is one of the most common hospital-associated complications that increase hospital LOS, discharge to an institution, and mortality in older adults. Finally, the study’s observed reduced time to a first goals-of-care discussion and increased frequency of goals-of-care documentation after intervention should not be overlooked. The improvements in these 2 process measures are highly significant given that advanced care planning, an intervention that helps to align patients’ values, goals, and treatments, is completed at substantially lower rates in older adults in the acute hospital setting.⁴

Similarly, in an earlier published study, Bryant and colleagues (Study 2) also show that a geriatric-focused interdisciplinary trauma care pathway is associated with delirium risk reduction in hospitalized older trauma patients. Much like Study 1, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway utilized in Study 2 is an evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway that includes the use of geriatric assessments, order sets, and geriatric best practices. Moreover, its exclusive inclusion of pre-frail and frail older patients (ie, those at higher risk for poor outcomes) with moderate injury severity (median ISS of 10 [IQR, 9-14]) suggests that this type of care pathway benefits hospitalized older trauma patients, who are particularly vulnerable to adverse complications such as delirium. Moreover, the successful utilization of the FRAIL questionnaire, a validated frailty screening tool, by surgical residents in the ED to initiate this care pathway demonstrates the feasibility of its use in expediting frailty screening in older patients in trauma care.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Findings from the 2 studies discussed in this review indicate that implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways predicated on evidence-based geriatric principles and best practices is a promising approach to reduce delirium in hospitalized older trauma patients. These studies have helped to lay the groundwork in outlining the roadmaps (eg, processes and infrastructures) needed to create such clinical pathways. These key elements include: (1) integration of a multidisciplinary committee (eg, representation from trauma, emergency, and geriatric medicine, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, pharmacy, social work) in pathway design and implementation; (2) adaption of evidence-based geriatric best practices (eg, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health System 4M framework [medication, mentation, mobility, what matters]) to prioritize interventions and to design a pathway that incorporates these features; (3) incorporation of comprehensive geriatric assessment by interdisciplinary providers; (4) utilization of validated clinical instruments to assess physical and cognitive functions, frailty, delirium, and social determinants of health; (5) modification of electronic health record systems to encompass order sets that incorporate evidence-based, nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage symptoms (eg, delirium, pain, bowel movement, sleep, immobility, polypharmacy) essential to quality geriatric care; and (6) integration of patient and caregiver preferences via goals-of-care discussions and corresponding documentation and communication of these goals.

Additionally, these 2 studies imparted some strategies that may facilitate the implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways in trauma care. Examples of such facilitators include: (1) collaboration with champions within each specialty to reinforce education and buy-in; (2) creation of automatically triggered order sets upon patient presentation to the ED that unites distinct features of clinical pathways; (3) adaption and reorganization of existing hospital infrastructures and resources to meet the needs of clinical pathways implementation (eg, utilizing information technology resources to develop electronic health record order sets; using quality department to develop clinical pathway guidelines and electronic outcome dashboards); and (4) development of individualized patient and caregiver education materials based on care needs (eg, principles of delirium prevention and preservation of mobility during hospitalization) to prepare and engage these stakeholders in patient care and recovery.

Practice Points

• A geriatric interdisciplinary care model can be effectively applied to the management of acute trauma in older patients.
• Interdisciplinary clinical pathways should incorporate geriatric best practices and guidelines and age-appropriate order sets to prioritize and integrate care.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To examine whether implementation of a geriatric trauma clinical pathway is associated with reduced rates of delirium in older adults with traumatic injury.

Design: Retrospective case-control study of electronic health records.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and did not undergo an operation. A Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary Stanford Quality Pathways team and formally launched on November 1, 2018. The clinical pathway was designed to incorporate geriatric best practices, which included order sets (eg, age-appropriate nonpharmacological interventions and pharmacological dosages), guidelines (eg, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health systems 4M framework), automated consultations (comprehensive geriatric assessment), and escalation pathways executed by a multidisciplinary team (eg, pain, bowel, and sleep regulation). The clinical pathway began with admission to the emergency department (ED) (ie, automatic trigger of geriatric trauma care admission order set), daily multidisciplinary team meetings during acute hospitalization, and a transitional care team consultation for postdischarge follow-up or home visit.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was delirium as determined by a positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score or a diagnosis of delirium by the clinical team. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Process measures for pathway compliance (eg, achieving adequate pain control, early mobilization, advance care planning) were assessed. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent the Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway intervention (postimplementation group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (baseline pre-implementation group).

Main results: Of the 859 eligible patients, 712 were included in the analysis (442 [62.1%] in the baseline pre-implementation group and 270 [37.9%] in the postimplementation group); mean (SD) age was 81.4 (9.1) years, and 394 (55.3%) were women. The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls being the most common cause of injury (247 [55.9%] in the baseline group vs 162 [60.0%] in the postimplementation group; P = .43). Injuries as measured by Injury Severity Score (ISS) were minor or moderate in both groups (261 [59.0%] in baseline group vs 168 [62.2%] in postimplementation group; P = .87). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for delirium in the postimplementation group was lower compared to the baseline pre-implementation group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80; P < .001). Measures of advance care planning in the postimplementation group improved, including more frequent goals-of-care documentation (53.7% in postimplementation group vs 16.7% in baseline group; P < .001) and a shortened time to first goals-of-care discussion upon presenting to the ED (36 hours in postimplementation group vs 50 hours in baseline group; P = .03).

Conclusion: Implementation of a multidisciplinary geriatric trauma clinical pathway for older adults with traumatic injury at a single level I trauma center was associated with reduced rates of delirium.

Study 2 Overview (Bryant et al)

Objective: To determine whether an interdisciplinary care pathway for frail trauma patients can improve in-hospital mortality, complications, and 30-day readmissions.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of frail patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and survived more than 24 hours; admitted to and discharged from the trauma unit; and determined to be pre-frail or frail by a geriatrician’s assessment. A Frailty Identification and Care Pathway designed to reduce delirium and complications in frail older trauma patients was developed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented in 2016. The standardized evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway included utilization of order sets and interventions for delirium prevention, early ambulation, bowel and pain regimens, nutrition and physical therapy consults, medication management, care-goal setting, and geriatric assessments.

Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were delirium as determined by a positive CAM score, major complications as defined by the Trauma Quality Improvement Project, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day hospital readmission. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention (postintervention group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (pre-intervention group).

Main results: A total of 269 frail patients were included in the analysis (125 in pre-intervention group vs 144 in postintervention group). Patient demographic and admission characteristics were similar between the 2 groups: mean age was 83.5 (7.1) years, 60.6% were women, and median ISS was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-14). The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls accounting for 92.8% and 86.1% of injuries in the pre-intervention and postintervention groups, respectively (P = .07). In univariate analysis, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention was associated with a significant reduction in delirium (12.5% vs 21.6%, P = .04) and 30-day hospital readmission (2.7% vs 9.6%, P = .01) compared to patients in the pre-intervention group. However, rates of major complications (28.5% vs 28.0%, P = 0.93) and in-hospital mortality (4.2% vs 7.2%, P = .28) were similar between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ISS), patients in the postintervention group had lower delirium (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88; P = .02) and 30-day hospital readmission (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .02) rates compared to those in the pre-intervention group.

Conclusion: Implementation of an interdisciplinary care protocol for frail geriatric trauma patients significantly decreased their risks for in-hospital delirium and 30-day hospital readmission.

Commentary

Traumatic injuries in older adults are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, with falls and motor vehicle accidents accounting for a majority of these injuries. Astoundingly, up to one-third of this vulnerable population presenting to hospitals with an ISS greater than 15 may die during hospitalization.¹ As a result, a large number of studies and clinical trials have focused on interventions that are designed to reduce fall risks, and hence reduce adverse consequences of traumatic injuries that may arise after falls.² However, this emphasis on falls prevention has overshadowed a need to develop effective geriatric-centered clinical interventions that aim to improve outcomes in older adults who present to hospitals with traumatic injuries. Furthermore, frailty—a geriatric syndrome indicative of an increased state of vulnerability and predictive of adverse outcomes such as delirium—is highly prevalent in older patients with traumatic injury.³ Thus, there is an urgent need to develop novel, hospital-based, traumatic injury–targeting strategies that incorporate a thoughtful redesign of the care framework that includes evidence-based interventions for geriatric syndromes such as delirium and frailty.

The study reported by Park et al (Study 1) represents the latest effort to evaluate inpatient management strategies designed to improve outcomes in hospitalized older adults who have sustained traumatic injury. Through the implementation of a novel multidisciplinary Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway that incorporates geriatric best practices, this intervention was found to be associated with a 46% lower risk of in-hospital delirium. Because of the inclusion of all age-eligible patients across all strata of traumatic injuries, rather than preselecting for those at the highest risk for poor clinical outcomes, the benefits of this intervention extend to those with minor or moderate injury severity. Furthermore, the improvement in delirium (ie, the primary outcome) is particularly meaningful given that delirium is one of the most common hospital-associated complications that increase hospital LOS, discharge to an institution, and mortality in older adults. Finally, the study’s observed reduced time to a first goals-of-care discussion and increased frequency of goals-of-care documentation after intervention should not be overlooked. The improvements in these 2 process measures are highly significant given that advanced care planning, an intervention that helps to align patients’ values, goals, and treatments, is completed at substantially lower rates in older adults in the acute hospital setting.⁴

Similarly, in an earlier published study, Bryant and colleagues (Study 2) also show that a geriatric-focused interdisciplinary trauma care pathway is associated with delirium risk reduction in hospitalized older trauma patients. Much like Study 1, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway utilized in Study 2 is an evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway that includes the use of geriatric assessments, order sets, and geriatric best practices. Moreover, its exclusive inclusion of pre-frail and frail older patients (ie, those at higher risk for poor outcomes) with moderate injury severity (median ISS of 10 [IQR, 9-14]) suggests that this type of care pathway benefits hospitalized older trauma patients, who are particularly vulnerable to adverse complications such as delirium. Moreover, the successful utilization of the FRAIL questionnaire, a validated frailty screening tool, by surgical residents in the ED to initiate this care pathway demonstrates the feasibility of its use in expediting frailty screening in older patients in trauma care.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Findings from the 2 studies discussed in this review indicate that implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways predicated on evidence-based geriatric principles and best practices is a promising approach to reduce delirium in hospitalized older trauma patients. These studies have helped to lay the groundwork in outlining the roadmaps (eg, processes and infrastructures) needed to create such clinical pathways. These key elements include: (1) integration of a multidisciplinary committee (eg, representation from trauma, emergency, and geriatric medicine, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, pharmacy, social work) in pathway design and implementation; (2) adaption of evidence-based geriatric best practices (eg, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health System 4M framework [medication, mentation, mobility, what matters]) to prioritize interventions and to design a pathway that incorporates these features; (3) incorporation of comprehensive geriatric assessment by interdisciplinary providers; (4) utilization of validated clinical instruments to assess physical and cognitive functions, frailty, delirium, and social determinants of health; (5) modification of electronic health record systems to encompass order sets that incorporate evidence-based, nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage symptoms (eg, delirium, pain, bowel movement, sleep, immobility, polypharmacy) essential to quality geriatric care; and (6) integration of patient and caregiver preferences via goals-of-care discussions and corresponding documentation and communication of these goals.

Additionally, these 2 studies imparted some strategies that may facilitate the implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways in trauma care. Examples of such facilitators include: (1) collaboration with champions within each specialty to reinforce education and buy-in; (2) creation of automatically triggered order sets upon patient presentation to the ED that unites distinct features of clinical pathways; (3) adaption and reorganization of existing hospital infrastructures and resources to meet the needs of clinical pathways implementation (eg, utilizing information technology resources to develop electronic health record order sets; using quality department to develop clinical pathway guidelines and electronic outcome dashboards); and (4) development of individualized patient and caregiver education materials based on care needs (eg, principles of delirium prevention and preservation of mobility during hospitalization) to prepare and engage these stakeholders in patient care and recovery.

Practice Points

• A geriatric interdisciplinary care model can be effectively applied to the management of acute trauma in older patients.
• Interdisciplinary clinical pathways should incorporate geriatric best practices and guidelines and age-appropriate order sets to prioritize and integrate care.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To examine whether implementation of a geriatric trauma clinical pathway is associated with reduced rates of delirium in older adults with traumatic injury.

Design: Retrospective case-control study of electronic health records.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and did not undergo an operation. A Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary Stanford Quality Pathways team and formally launched on November 1, 2018. The clinical pathway was designed to incorporate geriatric best practices, which included order sets (eg, age-appropriate nonpharmacological interventions and pharmacological dosages), guidelines (eg, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health systems 4M framework), automated consultations (comprehensive geriatric assessment), and escalation pathways executed by a multidisciplinary team (eg, pain, bowel, and sleep regulation). The clinical pathway began with admission to the emergency department (ED) (ie, automatic trigger of geriatric trauma care admission order set), daily multidisciplinary team meetings during acute hospitalization, and a transitional care team consultation for postdischarge follow-up or home visit.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was delirium as determined by a positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score or a diagnosis of delirium by the clinical team. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Process measures for pathway compliance (eg, achieving adequate pain control, early mobilization, advance care planning) were assessed. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent the Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway intervention (postimplementation group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (baseline pre-implementation group).

Main results: Of the 859 eligible patients, 712 were included in the analysis (442 [62.1%] in the baseline pre-implementation group and 270 [37.9%] in the postimplementation group); mean (SD) age was 81.4 (9.1) years, and 394 (55.3%) were women. The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls being the most common cause of injury (247 [55.9%] in the baseline group vs 162 [60.0%] in the postimplementation group; P = .43). Injuries as measured by Injury Severity Score (ISS) were minor or moderate in both groups (261 [59.0%] in baseline group vs 168 [62.2%] in postimplementation group; P = .87). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for delirium in the postimplementation group was lower compared to the baseline pre-implementation group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80; P < .001). Measures of advance care planning in the postimplementation group improved, including more frequent goals-of-care documentation (53.7% in postimplementation group vs 16.7% in baseline group; P < .001) and a shortened time to first goals-of-care discussion upon presenting to the ED (36 hours in postimplementation group vs 50 hours in baseline group; P = .03).

Conclusion: Implementation of a multidisciplinary geriatric trauma clinical pathway for older adults with traumatic injury at a single level I trauma center was associated with reduced rates of delirium.

Study 2 Overview (Bryant et al)

Objective: To determine whether an interdisciplinary care pathway for frail trauma patients can improve in-hospital mortality, complications, and 30-day readmissions.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of frail patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and survived more than 24 hours; admitted to and discharged from the trauma unit; and determined to be pre-frail or frail by a geriatrician’s assessment. A Frailty Identification and Care Pathway designed to reduce delirium and complications in frail older trauma patients was developed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented in 2016. The standardized evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway included utilization of order sets and interventions for delirium prevention, early ambulation, bowel and pain regimens, nutrition and physical therapy consults, medication management, care-goal setting, and geriatric assessments.

Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were delirium as determined by a positive CAM score, major complications as defined by the Trauma Quality Improvement Project, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day hospital readmission. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention (postintervention group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (pre-intervention group).

Main results: A total of 269 frail patients were included in the analysis (125 in pre-intervention group vs 144 in postintervention group). Patient demographic and admission characteristics were similar between the 2 groups: mean age was 83.5 (7.1) years, 60.6% were women, and median ISS was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-14). The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls accounting for 92.8% and 86.1% of injuries in the pre-intervention and postintervention groups, respectively (P = .07). In univariate analysis, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention was associated with a significant reduction in delirium (12.5% vs 21.6%, P = .04) and 30-day hospital readmission (2.7% vs 9.6%, P = .01) compared to patients in the pre-intervention group. However, rates of major complications (28.5% vs 28.0%, P = 0.93) and in-hospital mortality (4.2% vs 7.2%, P = .28) were similar between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ISS), patients in the postintervention group had lower delirium (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88; P = .02) and 30-day hospital readmission (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .02) rates compared to those in the pre-intervention group.

Conclusion: Implementation of an interdisciplinary care protocol for frail geriatric trauma patients significantly decreased their risks for in-hospital delirium and 30-day hospital readmission.

Commentary

Traumatic injuries in older adults are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, with falls and motor vehicle accidents accounting for a majority of these injuries. Astoundingly, up to one-third of this vulnerable population presenting to hospitals with an ISS greater than 15 may die during hospitalization.¹ As a result, a large number of studies and clinical trials have focused on interventions that are designed to reduce fall risks, and hence reduce adverse consequences of traumatic injuries that may arise after falls.² However, this emphasis on falls prevention has overshadowed a need to develop effective geriatric-centered clinical interventions that aim to improve outcomes in older adults who present to hospitals with traumatic injuries. Furthermore, frailty—a geriatric syndrome indicative of an increased state of vulnerability and predictive of adverse outcomes such as delirium—is highly prevalent in older patients with traumatic injury.³ Thus, there is an urgent need to develop novel, hospital-based, traumatic injury–targeting strategies that incorporate a thoughtful redesign of the care framework that includes evidence-based interventions for geriatric syndromes such as delirium and frailty.

The study reported by Park et al (Study 1) represents the latest effort to evaluate inpatient management strategies designed to improve outcomes in hospitalized older adults who have sustained traumatic injury. Through the implementation of a novel multidisciplinary Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway that incorporates geriatric best practices, this intervention was found to be associated with a 46% lower risk of in-hospital delirium. Because of the inclusion of all age-eligible patients across all strata of traumatic injuries, rather than preselecting for those at the highest risk for poor clinical outcomes, the benefits of this intervention extend to those with minor or moderate injury severity. Furthermore, the improvement in delirium (ie, the primary outcome) is particularly meaningful given that delirium is one of the most common hospital-associated complications that increase hospital LOS, discharge to an institution, and mortality in older adults. Finally, the study’s observed reduced time to a first goals-of-care discussion and increased frequency of goals-of-care documentation after intervention should not be overlooked. The improvements in these 2 process measures are highly significant given that advanced care planning, an intervention that helps to align patients’ values, goals, and treatments, is completed at substantially lower rates in older adults in the acute hospital setting.⁴

Similarly, in an earlier published study, Bryant and colleagues (Study 2) also show that a geriatric-focused interdisciplinary trauma care pathway is associated with delirium risk reduction in hospitalized older trauma patients. Much like Study 1, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway utilized in Study 2 is an evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway that includes the use of geriatric assessments, order sets, and geriatric best practices. Moreover, its exclusive inclusion of pre-frail and frail older patients (ie, those at higher risk for poor outcomes) with moderate injury severity (median ISS of 10 [IQR, 9-14]) suggests that this type of care pathway benefits hospitalized older trauma patients, who are particularly vulnerable to adverse complications such as delirium. Moreover, the successful utilization of the FRAIL questionnaire, a validated frailty screening tool, by surgical residents in the ED to initiate this care pathway demonstrates the feasibility of its use in expediting frailty screening in older patients in trauma care.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Findings from the 2 studies discussed in this review indicate that implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways predicated on evidence-based geriatric principles and best practices is a promising approach to reduce delirium in hospitalized older trauma patients. These studies have helped to lay the groundwork in outlining the roadmaps (eg, processes and infrastructures) needed to create such clinical pathways. These key elements include: (1) integration of a multidisciplinary committee (eg, representation from trauma, emergency, and geriatric medicine, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, pharmacy, social work) in pathway design and implementation; (2) adaption of evidence-based geriatric best practices (eg, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health System 4M framework [medication, mentation, mobility, what matters]) to prioritize interventions and to design a pathway that incorporates these features; (3) incorporation of comprehensive geriatric assessment by interdisciplinary providers; (4) utilization of validated clinical instruments to assess physical and cognitive functions, frailty, delirium, and social determinants of health; (5) modification of electronic health record systems to encompass order sets that incorporate evidence-based, nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage symptoms (eg, delirium, pain, bowel movement, sleep, immobility, polypharmacy) essential to quality geriatric care; and (6) integration of patient and caregiver preferences via goals-of-care discussions and corresponding documentation and communication of these goals.

Additionally, these 2 studies imparted some strategies that may facilitate the implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways in trauma care. Examples of such facilitators include: (1) collaboration with champions within each specialty to reinforce education and buy-in; (2) creation of automatically triggered order sets upon patient presentation to the ED that unites distinct features of clinical pathways; (3) adaption and reorganization of existing hospital infrastructures and resources to meet the needs of clinical pathways implementation (eg, utilizing information technology resources to develop electronic health record order sets; using quality department to develop clinical pathway guidelines and electronic outcome dashboards); and (4) development of individualized patient and caregiver education materials based on care needs (eg, principles of delirium prevention and preservation of mobility during hospitalization) to prepare and engage these stakeholders in patient care and recovery.

Practice Points

• A geriatric interdisciplinary care model can be effectively applied to the management of acute trauma in older patients.
• Interdisciplinary clinical pathways should incorporate geriatric best practices and guidelines and age-appropriate order sets to prioritize and integrate care.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study 1 Overview (Cortés et al)

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan with those of trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and taxane.

Design: Phase 3, multicenter, open-label randomized trial conducted at 169 centers and 15 countries.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients had to have unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer that had progressed during or after treatment with trastuzumab and a taxane or had disease that progressed within 6 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment involving trastuzumab or taxane. Patients with stable or previously treated brain metastases were eligible. Patients were not eligible for the study if they had symptomatic brain metastases, prior exposure to trastuzumab emtansine, or a history of interstitial lung disease.

Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1-to-1 fashion to receive either trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab emtansine 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified according to hormone-receptor status, prior treatment with epratuzumab, and the presence or absence of visceral disease.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival as determined by an independent central review. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, overall response, and safety.

Main results: A total of 524 patients were enrolled in the study, with 261 patients randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan and 263 patients randomized to trastuzumab emtansine. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, and 60% of patients in both groups received prior epratuzumab therapy. Stable brain metastases were present in around 20% of patients in each group, and 70% of patients in each group had visceral disease. The median duration of follow-up was 16.2 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 15.3 months with trastuzumab emtansine.

The median progression-free survival was not reached in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and was 6.8 months in the trastuzumab emtansine group (95% CI, 5.6-8.2). At 12 months the percentage of patients alive without disease progression was significantly larger in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death from any cause was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.22-0.37; P < .001). Subgroup analyses showed a benefit in progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan across all subgroups.

At the time of this analysis, the percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 94% with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 85.9% with trastuzumab emtansine. The response rates were significantly higher with trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine (79.7% vs 34.2%). A complete response was seen in 16% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm, compared with 8.7% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. The disease control rate (complete response, partial response, or stable disease) was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group (96.6% vs 76.8%).

Serious adverse events were reported in 19% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. Discontinuation due to adverse events was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, with 13.6% of patients discontinuing trastuzumab deruxtecan. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were seen in 52% of patients treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 48% of patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine. The most commonly reported adverse event with trastuzumab deruxtecan was nausea/vomiting and fatigue. These adverse events were seen more in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. No drug-related grade 5 adverse events were reported.

In the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, 10.5% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan developed interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis. Seven patients had grade 1 events, 18 patients had grade 2 events, and 2 patients had grade 3 events. No grade 4 or 5 events were noted in either treatment group. The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis in those receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan was 168 days (range, 33-507). Discontinuation of therapy due to interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 8% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan and 1% of patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine.

Conclusion: Trastuzumab deruxtecan significantly decreases the risk of disease progression or death compared to trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on prior trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy.

Study 2 Overview (Modi et al)

Objective: To assess the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with unresectable or metastatic breast cancer with low levels of HER2 expression.

Design: This was a randomized, 2-group, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Setting and participants: The trial was designed with a planned enrollment of 480 patients with hormone receptor–positive disease and 60 patients with hormone receptor–negative disease. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified according to HER2 status (immunohistochemical [IHC] 1+ vs IHC 2+/in situ hybridization [ISH] negative), number of prior lines of therapy, and hormone-receptor status. IHC scores for HER2 expression were determined through central testing. Specimens that had HER2 IHC scores of 2+ were reflexed to ISH. Specimens were considered HER2-low-expressing if they had an IHC score of 1+ or if they had an IHC score of 2+ and were ISH negative.

Eligible patients had to have received chemotherapy for metastatic disease or had disease recurrence during or within 6 months after completing adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with hormone receptor–positive disease must have had at least 1 line of endocrine therapy. Patients were eligible if they had stable brain metastases. Patients with interstitial lung disease were excluded.

Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nab-paclitaxel).

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival among all patients, overall survival in hormone receptor–positive patients, and overall survival in all patients. Additional secondary endpoints included objective response rates, duration of response, and efficacy in hormone receptor–negative patients.

Main results: A total of 373 patients were assigned to the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 184 patients were assigned to the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 88% of patients in each cohort were hormone receptor–positive. In the physician’s choice chemotherapy group, 51% received eribulin, 20% received capecitabine, 10% received nab-paclitaxel, 10% received gemcitabine, and 8% received paclitaxel. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between both cohorts. The median duration of follow-up was 18.4 months.

The median progression-free survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 10.1 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.4 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.4-0.64). Subgroup analyses revealed a benefit across all subgroups. The median progression-free survival among patients with a HER2 IHC score of 1+ and those with a HER2 IHC score of 2+/negative ISH were identical. In patients who received a prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor, the median progression-free survival was also 10 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group. In those who were CDK 4/6- naïve, the progression-free survival was 11.7 months. The progression-free survival in all patients was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.89).

The median overall survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 23.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with 17.5 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.86; P = .003). The median overall survival in the entire population was 23.4 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group vs 16.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. In the hormone receptor–negative cohort, the median overall survival was 18.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 8.3 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Complete responses were seen in 3.6% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 0.6% and the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. The median duration of response was 10.7 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 6.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group.

Incidence of serious adverse events was 27% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 25% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Grade 3 or higher events occurred in 52% of the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 67% of the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 16% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 14 patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5 patients in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group had an adverse event that was associated with death. Death due to pneumonitis in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group occurred in 2 patients. Drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 45 patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan. The majority of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. However, 3 patients had grade 5 interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis.

Conclusion: Treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to physician’s choice chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

Commentary

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is an antibody drug conjugate that consists of a humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor. This antibody drug conjugate is unique compared with prior antibody drug conjugates such as trastuzumab emtansine in that it has a high drug-to-antibody ratio (~8). Furthermore, there appears to be a unique bystander effect resulting in off-target cytotoxicity to neighboring tumor cells, enhancing the efficacy of this novel therapy. Prior studies of trastuzumab deruxtecan have shown durable activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.¹

HER2-positive breast cancer represents approximately 20% of breast cancer cases in women.² Historically, HER2 positivity has been defined by strong HER2 expression with IHC staining (ie, score 3+) or HER2 amplification through ISH. Conversely, HER2-negative disease has historically been defined as those with IHC scores of 0 or 1+. This group represents approximately 60% of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients.³ These patients have limited targeted treatment options after progressing on primary therapy. Prior data has shown that patients with low HER2 expression represent a heterogeneous population and thus, the historic categorization of HER2 status as positive or negative may in fact not adequately characterize the proportion of patients who may derive clinical benefit from HER2-directed therapies. Nevertheless, there have been no data to date that have shown improved outcomes in low HER2 expressers with anti-HER2 therapies.

The current studies add to the rapidly growing body of literature outlining the efficacy of the novel antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The implications of the data presented in these 2 studies are immediately practice changing.

In the DESTINY-Breast03 trial, Cortéz and colleagues show that trastuzumab deruxtecan therapy significantly prolongs progression-free survival compared with trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on first-line trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy. With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in this trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. The overall survival in this trial was immature at the time of this analysis, and thus continued follow-up to validate the results noted here are warranted.

The DESTINY-Breast04 trial by Modi et al expands the cohort of patients who benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan profoundly. This study defines a population of patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who will now be eligible for HER2-directed therapies. These data show that therapy with trastuzumab deruxtecan leads to a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2. This benefit was seen in both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including pre-treated triple-negative disease. Furthermore, this study does not define a threshold of HER2 expression by IHC that predicts benefit with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Patients with an IHC score of 1+ as well as those with a score of 2+/ISH negative both benefit to a similar extent from trastuzumab deruxtecan. Interestingly, in the DAISY trial, antitumor activity was noted with trastuzumab deruxtecan even in those without any detectable HER2 expression on IHC.⁴ Given the inconsistency and potential false negatives of IHC along with heterogeneous HER2 expression, further work is needed to better identify patients with low levels of HER2 expression who may benefit from this novel antibody drug conjugate. Thus, a reliable test to quantitatively assess the level of HER2 expression is needed in order to determine more accurately which patients will benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan.

Last, trastuzumab deruxtecan has been associated with interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis. Interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis occurred in approximately 10% of patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial and about 12% of patients in the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. Most of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. Nevertheless, clinicians must be aware of this risk and monitor patients frequently for the development of pneumonitis or interstitial lung disease.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The results of the current studies show a longer progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan in both HER2-low expressing metastatic breast cancer and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer following taxane and trastuzumab-based therapy. These results are clearly practice changing and represent a new standard of care in these patient populations. It is incumbent upon treating oncologists to work with our pathology colleagues to assess HER2 IHC thoroughly in order to identify all potential patients who may benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan in the metastatic setting. The continued advancement of anti-HER2 therapy will undoubtedly have a significant impact on patient outcomes going forward.

Practice Points

• With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.
• In the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy was seen in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2, including both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including those with pre-treated triple-negative disease.

­—Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study 1 Overview (Cortés et al)

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan with those of trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and taxane.

Design: Phase 3, multicenter, open-label randomized trial conducted at 169 centers and 15 countries.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients had to have unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer that had progressed during or after treatment with trastuzumab and a taxane or had disease that progressed within 6 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment involving trastuzumab or taxane. Patients with stable or previously treated brain metastases were eligible. Patients were not eligible for the study if they had symptomatic brain metastases, prior exposure to trastuzumab emtansine, or a history of interstitial lung disease.

Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1-to-1 fashion to receive either trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab emtansine 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified according to hormone-receptor status, prior treatment with epratuzumab, and the presence or absence of visceral disease.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival as determined by an independent central review. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, overall response, and safety.

Main results: A total of 524 patients were enrolled in the study, with 261 patients randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan and 263 patients randomized to trastuzumab emtansine. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, and 60% of patients in both groups received prior epratuzumab therapy. Stable brain metastases were present in around 20% of patients in each group, and 70% of patients in each group had visceral disease. The median duration of follow-up was 16.2 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 15.3 months with trastuzumab emtansine.

The median progression-free survival was not reached in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and was 6.8 months in the trastuzumab emtansine group (95% CI, 5.6-8.2). At 12 months the percentage of patients alive without disease progression was significantly larger in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death from any cause was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.22-0.37; P < .001). Subgroup analyses showed a benefit in progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan across all subgroups.

At the time of this analysis, the percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 94% with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 85.9% with trastuzumab emtansine. The response rates were significantly higher with trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine (79.7% vs 34.2%). A complete response was seen in 16% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm, compared with 8.7% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. The disease control rate (complete response, partial response, or stable disease) was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group (96.6% vs 76.8%).

Serious adverse events were reported in 19% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. Discontinuation due to adverse events was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, with 13.6% of patients discontinuing trastuzumab deruxtecan. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were seen in 52% of patients treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 48% of patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine. The most commonly reported adverse event with trastuzumab deruxtecan was nausea/vomiting and fatigue. These adverse events were seen more in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. No drug-related grade 5 adverse events were reported.

In the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, 10.5% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan developed interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis. Seven patients had grade 1 events, 18 patients had grade 2 events, and 2 patients had grade 3 events. No grade 4 or 5 events were noted in either treatment group. The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis in those receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan was 168 days (range, 33-507). Discontinuation of therapy due to interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 8% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan and 1% of patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine.

Conclusion: Trastuzumab deruxtecan significantly decreases the risk of disease progression or death compared to trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on prior trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy.

Study 2 Overview (Modi et al)

Objective: To assess the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with unresectable or metastatic breast cancer with low levels of HER2 expression.

Design: This was a randomized, 2-group, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Setting and participants: The trial was designed with a planned enrollment of 480 patients with hormone receptor–positive disease and 60 patients with hormone receptor–negative disease. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified according to HER2 status (immunohistochemical [IHC] 1+ vs IHC 2+/in situ hybridization [ISH] negative), number of prior lines of therapy, and hormone-receptor status. IHC scores for HER2 expression were determined through central testing. Specimens that had HER2 IHC scores of 2+ were reflexed to ISH. Specimens were considered HER2-low-expressing if they had an IHC score of 1+ or if they had an IHC score of 2+ and were ISH negative.

Eligible patients had to have received chemotherapy for metastatic disease or had disease recurrence during or within 6 months after completing adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with hormone receptor–positive disease must have had at least 1 line of endocrine therapy. Patients were eligible if they had stable brain metastases. Patients with interstitial lung disease were excluded.

Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nab-paclitaxel).

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival among all patients, overall survival in hormone receptor–positive patients, and overall survival in all patients. Additional secondary endpoints included objective response rates, duration of response, and efficacy in hormone receptor–negative patients.

Main results: A total of 373 patients were assigned to the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 184 patients were assigned to the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 88% of patients in each cohort were hormone receptor–positive. In the physician’s choice chemotherapy group, 51% received eribulin, 20% received capecitabine, 10% received nab-paclitaxel, 10% received gemcitabine, and 8% received paclitaxel. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between both cohorts. The median duration of follow-up was 18.4 months.

The median progression-free survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 10.1 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.4 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.4-0.64). Subgroup analyses revealed a benefit across all subgroups. The median progression-free survival among patients with a HER2 IHC score of 1+ and those with a HER2 IHC score of 2+/negative ISH were identical. In patients who received a prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor, the median progression-free survival was also 10 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group. In those who were CDK 4/6- naïve, the progression-free survival was 11.7 months. The progression-free survival in all patients was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.89).

The median overall survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 23.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with 17.5 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.86; P = .003). The median overall survival in the entire population was 23.4 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group vs 16.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. In the hormone receptor–negative cohort, the median overall survival was 18.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 8.3 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Complete responses were seen in 3.6% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 0.6% and the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. The median duration of response was 10.7 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 6.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group.

Incidence of serious adverse events was 27% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 25% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Grade 3 or higher events occurred in 52% of the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 67% of the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 16% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 14 patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5 patients in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group had an adverse event that was associated with death. Death due to pneumonitis in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group occurred in 2 patients. Drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 45 patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan. The majority of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. However, 3 patients had grade 5 interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis.

Conclusion: Treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to physician’s choice chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

Commentary

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is an antibody drug conjugate that consists of a humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor. This antibody drug conjugate is unique compared with prior antibody drug conjugates such as trastuzumab emtansine in that it has a high drug-to-antibody ratio (~8). Furthermore, there appears to be a unique bystander effect resulting in off-target cytotoxicity to neighboring tumor cells, enhancing the efficacy of this novel therapy. Prior studies of trastuzumab deruxtecan have shown durable activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.¹

HER2-positive breast cancer represents approximately 20% of breast cancer cases in women.² Historically, HER2 positivity has been defined by strong HER2 expression with IHC staining (ie, score 3+) or HER2 amplification through ISH. Conversely, HER2-negative disease has historically been defined as those with IHC scores of 0 or 1+. This group represents approximately 60% of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients.³ These patients have limited targeted treatment options after progressing on primary therapy. Prior data has shown that patients with low HER2 expression represent a heterogeneous population and thus, the historic categorization of HER2 status as positive or negative may in fact not adequately characterize the proportion of patients who may derive clinical benefit from HER2-directed therapies. Nevertheless, there have been no data to date that have shown improved outcomes in low HER2 expressers with anti-HER2 therapies.

The current studies add to the rapidly growing body of literature outlining the efficacy of the novel antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The implications of the data presented in these 2 studies are immediately practice changing.

In the DESTINY-Breast03 trial, Cortéz and colleagues show that trastuzumab deruxtecan therapy significantly prolongs progression-free survival compared with trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on first-line trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy. With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in this trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. The overall survival in this trial was immature at the time of this analysis, and thus continued follow-up to validate the results noted here are warranted.

The DESTINY-Breast04 trial by Modi et al expands the cohort of patients who benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan profoundly. This study defines a population of patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who will now be eligible for HER2-directed therapies. These data show that therapy with trastuzumab deruxtecan leads to a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2. This benefit was seen in both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including pre-treated triple-negative disease. Furthermore, this study does not define a threshold of HER2 expression by IHC that predicts benefit with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Patients with an IHC score of 1+ as well as those with a score of 2+/ISH negative both benefit to a similar extent from trastuzumab deruxtecan. Interestingly, in the DAISY trial, antitumor activity was noted with trastuzumab deruxtecan even in those without any detectable HER2 expression on IHC.⁴ Given the inconsistency and potential false negatives of IHC along with heterogeneous HER2 expression, further work is needed to better identify patients with low levels of HER2 expression who may benefit from this novel antibody drug conjugate. Thus, a reliable test to quantitatively assess the level of HER2 expression is needed in order to determine more accurately which patients will benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan.

Last, trastuzumab deruxtecan has been associated with interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis. Interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis occurred in approximately 10% of patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial and about 12% of patients in the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. Most of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. Nevertheless, clinicians must be aware of this risk and monitor patients frequently for the development of pneumonitis or interstitial lung disease.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The results of the current studies show a longer progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan in both HER2-low expressing metastatic breast cancer and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer following taxane and trastuzumab-based therapy. These results are clearly practice changing and represent a new standard of care in these patient populations. It is incumbent upon treating oncologists to work with our pathology colleagues to assess HER2 IHC thoroughly in order to identify all potential patients who may benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan in the metastatic setting. The continued advancement of anti-HER2 therapy will undoubtedly have a significant impact on patient outcomes going forward.

Practice Points

• With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.
• In the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy was seen in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2, including both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including those with pre-treated triple-negative disease.

­—Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study 1 Overview (Cortés et al)

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan with those of trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and taxane.

Design: Phase 3, multicenter, open-label randomized trial conducted at 169 centers and 15 countries.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients had to have unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer that had progressed during or after treatment with trastuzumab and a taxane or had disease that progressed within 6 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment involving trastuzumab or taxane. Patients with stable or previously treated brain metastases were eligible. Patients were not eligible for the study if they had symptomatic brain metastases, prior exposure to trastuzumab emtansine, or a history of interstitial lung disease.

Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1-to-1 fashion to receive either trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab emtansine 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified according to hormone-receptor status, prior treatment with epratuzumab, and the presence or absence of visceral disease.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival as determined by an independent central review. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, overall response, and safety.

Main results: A total of 524 patients were enrolled in the study, with 261 patients randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan and 263 patients randomized to trastuzumab emtansine. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, and 60% of patients in both groups received prior epratuzumab therapy. Stable brain metastases were present in around 20% of patients in each group, and 70% of patients in each group had visceral disease. The median duration of follow-up was 16.2 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 15.3 months with trastuzumab emtansine.

The median progression-free survival was not reached in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and was 6.8 months in the trastuzumab emtansine group (95% CI, 5.6-8.2). At 12 months the percentage of patients alive without disease progression was significantly larger in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death from any cause was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.22-0.37; P < .001). Subgroup analyses showed a benefit in progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan across all subgroups.

At the time of this analysis, the percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 94% with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 85.9% with trastuzumab emtansine. The response rates were significantly higher with trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine (79.7% vs 34.2%). A complete response was seen in 16% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm, compared with 8.7% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. The disease control rate (complete response, partial response, or stable disease) was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group (96.6% vs 76.8%).

Serious adverse events were reported in 19% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. Discontinuation due to adverse events was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, with 13.6% of patients discontinuing trastuzumab deruxtecan. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were seen in 52% of patients treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 48% of patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine. The most commonly reported adverse event with trastuzumab deruxtecan was nausea/vomiting and fatigue. These adverse events were seen more in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. No drug-related grade 5 adverse events were reported.

In the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, 10.5% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan developed interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis. Seven patients had grade 1 events, 18 patients had grade 2 events, and 2 patients had grade 3 events. No grade 4 or 5 events were noted in either treatment group. The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis in those receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan was 168 days (range, 33-507). Discontinuation of therapy due to interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 8% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan and 1% of patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine.

Conclusion: Trastuzumab deruxtecan significantly decreases the risk of disease progression or death compared to trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on prior trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy.

Study 2 Overview (Modi et al)

Objective: To assess the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with unresectable or metastatic breast cancer with low levels of HER2 expression.

Design: This was a randomized, 2-group, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Setting and participants: The trial was designed with a planned enrollment of 480 patients with hormone receptor–positive disease and 60 patients with hormone receptor–negative disease. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified according to HER2 status (immunohistochemical [IHC] 1+ vs IHC 2+/in situ hybridization [ISH] negative), number of prior lines of therapy, and hormone-receptor status. IHC scores for HER2 expression were determined through central testing. Specimens that had HER2 IHC scores of 2+ were reflexed to ISH. Specimens were considered HER2-low-expressing if they had an IHC score of 1+ or if they had an IHC score of 2+ and were ISH negative.

Eligible patients had to have received chemotherapy for metastatic disease or had disease recurrence during or within 6 months after completing adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with hormone receptor–positive disease must have had at least 1 line of endocrine therapy. Patients were eligible if they had stable brain metastases. Patients with interstitial lung disease were excluded.

Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nab-paclitaxel).

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival among all patients, overall survival in hormone receptor–positive patients, and overall survival in all patients. Additional secondary endpoints included objective response rates, duration of response, and efficacy in hormone receptor–negative patients.

Main results: A total of 373 patients were assigned to the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 184 patients were assigned to the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 88% of patients in each cohort were hormone receptor–positive. In the physician’s choice chemotherapy group, 51% received eribulin, 20% received capecitabine, 10% received nab-paclitaxel, 10% received gemcitabine, and 8% received paclitaxel. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between both cohorts. The median duration of follow-up was 18.4 months.

The median progression-free survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 10.1 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.4 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.4-0.64). Subgroup analyses revealed a benefit across all subgroups. The median progression-free survival among patients with a HER2 IHC score of 1+ and those with a HER2 IHC score of 2+/negative ISH were identical. In patients who received a prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor, the median progression-free survival was also 10 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group. In those who were CDK 4/6- naïve, the progression-free survival was 11.7 months. The progression-free survival in all patients was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.89).

The median overall survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 23.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with 17.5 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.86; P = .003). The median overall survival in the entire population was 23.4 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group vs 16.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. In the hormone receptor–negative cohort, the median overall survival was 18.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 8.3 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Complete responses were seen in 3.6% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 0.6% and the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. The median duration of response was 10.7 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 6.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group.

Incidence of serious adverse events was 27% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 25% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Grade 3 or higher events occurred in 52% of the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 67% of the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 16% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 14 patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5 patients in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group had an adverse event that was associated with death. Death due to pneumonitis in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group occurred in 2 patients. Drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 45 patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan. The majority of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. However, 3 patients had grade 5 interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis.

Conclusion: Treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to physician’s choice chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

Commentary

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is an antibody drug conjugate that consists of a humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor. This antibody drug conjugate is unique compared with prior antibody drug conjugates such as trastuzumab emtansine in that it has a high drug-to-antibody ratio (~8). Furthermore, there appears to be a unique bystander effect resulting in off-target cytotoxicity to neighboring tumor cells, enhancing the efficacy of this novel therapy. Prior studies of trastuzumab deruxtecan have shown durable activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.¹

HER2-positive breast cancer represents approximately 20% of breast cancer cases in women.² Historically, HER2 positivity has been defined by strong HER2 expression with IHC staining (ie, score 3+) or HER2 amplification through ISH. Conversely, HER2-negative disease has historically been defined as those with IHC scores of 0 or 1+. This group represents approximately 60% of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients.³ These patients have limited targeted treatment options after progressing on primary therapy. Prior data has shown that patients with low HER2 expression represent a heterogeneous population and thus, the historic categorization of HER2 status as positive or negative may in fact not adequately characterize the proportion of patients who may derive clinical benefit from HER2-directed therapies. Nevertheless, there have been no data to date that have shown improved outcomes in low HER2 expressers with anti-HER2 therapies.

The current studies add to the rapidly growing body of literature outlining the efficacy of the novel antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The implications of the data presented in these 2 studies are immediately practice changing.

In the DESTINY-Breast03 trial, Cortéz and colleagues show that trastuzumab deruxtecan therapy significantly prolongs progression-free survival compared with trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on first-line trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy. With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in this trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. The overall survival in this trial was immature at the time of this analysis, and thus continued follow-up to validate the results noted here are warranted.

The DESTINY-Breast04 trial by Modi et al expands the cohort of patients who benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan profoundly. This study defines a population of patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who will now be eligible for HER2-directed therapies. These data show that therapy with trastuzumab deruxtecan leads to a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2. This benefit was seen in both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including pre-treated triple-negative disease. Furthermore, this study does not define a threshold of HER2 expression by IHC that predicts benefit with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Patients with an IHC score of 1+ as well as those with a score of 2+/ISH negative both benefit to a similar extent from trastuzumab deruxtecan. Interestingly, in the DAISY trial, antitumor activity was noted with trastuzumab deruxtecan even in those without any detectable HER2 expression on IHC.⁴ Given the inconsistency and potential false negatives of IHC along with heterogeneous HER2 expression, further work is needed to better identify patients with low levels of HER2 expression who may benefit from this novel antibody drug conjugate. Thus, a reliable test to quantitatively assess the level of HER2 expression is needed in order to determine more accurately which patients will benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan.

Last, trastuzumab deruxtecan has been associated with interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis. Interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis occurred in approximately 10% of patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial and about 12% of patients in the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. Most of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. Nevertheless, clinicians must be aware of this risk and monitor patients frequently for the development of pneumonitis or interstitial lung disease.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The results of the current studies show a longer progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan in both HER2-low expressing metastatic breast cancer and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer following taxane and trastuzumab-based therapy. These results are clearly practice changing and represent a new standard of care in these patient populations. It is incumbent upon treating oncologists to work with our pathology colleagues to assess HER2 IHC thoroughly in order to identify all potential patients who may benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan in the metastatic setting. The continued advancement of anti-HER2 therapy will undoubtedly have a significant impact on patient outcomes going forward.

Practice Points

• With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.
• In the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy was seen in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2, including both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including those with pre-treated triple-negative disease.

­—Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Midlife women who are of normal weight or are overweight should routinely receive counseling aimed at limiting weight gain and preventing obesity and its associated health risks, a new clinical guideline states.

The recommendation, issued by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), supports regular lifestyle counseling for women aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index of 18.5-29.9 kg/m². Counseling could include individualized discussion of healthy eating and physical activity initiated by health professionals involved in preventive care.

Published online in Annals of Internal Medicine, the guideline addresses the prevalence and health burdens of obesity in U.S. women of middle age and seeks to reduce the known harms of obesity with an intervention of minimal anticipated harms. High BMI increases the risk for many chronic conditions including hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

The best way to counsel, however, remains unclear. “Although the optimal approach could not be discerned from existing trials, a range of interventions of varying duration, frequency, and intensity showed benefit with potential clinical significance,” wrote the WPSI guideline panel, led by David P. Chelmow, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

The guideline rests on a systematic literature review led by family doctor Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, suggesting moderate reductions in weight could be achieved by offering advice to this age group.

The federally supported WPSI was launched by ACOG in 2016. The guideline fills a gap in current recommendations in that it targets a specific risk group and specifies individual counseling based on its effectiveness and applicability in primary care settings.

In another benefit of routine counseling, the panel stated, “Normalizing counseling about healthy diet and physical activity by providing it to all midlife women may also mitigate concerns about weight stigma resulting from only counseling women with obesity.”

The panelists noted that during 2017-2018, the prevalence of obesity (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m²) was 43.3% among U.S. women aged 40-59 years, while the prevalence of severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m²) was highest in this age group at 11.5%. “Midlife women gain weight at an average of approximately 1.5 pounds per year, which increases their risk for transitioning from normal or overweight to obese BMI,” the panelists wrote.

The review

Dr. Cantor’s group analyzed seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to October 2021 from 12 publications involving 51,638 participants. Although the trials were largely small and heterogeneous, they suggested that counseling may result in modest differences in weight change without causing important harms.

Four RCTs showed significant favorable weight changes for counseling over no-counseling control groups, with a mean difference of 0.87 to 2.5 kg, whereas one trial of counseling and two trials of exercise showed no differences. One of two RCTs reported improved quality-of-life measures.

As for harms, while interventions did not increase measures of depression or stress in one trial, self-reported falls (37% vs. 29%, P < .001) and injuries (19% vs. 14%, P = .03) were more frequent with exercise counseling in one trial.

“More research is needed to determine optimal content, frequency, length, and number of sessions required and should include additional patient populations,” Dr. Cantor and associates wrote.

In terms of limitations, the authors acknowledged that trials of behavioral interventions in maintaining or reducing weight in midlife women demonstrate small magnitudes of effect.

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the WPSI guideline for this news organization, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, MACP, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said its message is of prime importance for women of middle age and it goes beyond concern about pounds lost or gained.

“Midlife and the transition to menopause are high-risk periods for women in terms of typical changes in body composition that increase the risk of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes,” said Dr. Manson, professor of women’s health at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Counseling women should be a priority for physicians in clinical practice. And it’s not just whether weight gain is reflected on the scales or not but whether there’s an increase in central abdominal fat, a decrease in lean muscle mass, and an increase in adverse glucose tolerance.”

It is essential for women to be vigilant at this time, she added, and their exercise regimens should include strength and resistance training to preserve lean muscle mass and boost metabolic rate. Dr. Manson’s group has issued several statements stressing how important it is for clinicians to take decisive action on the counseling front and how they can do this in very little time during routine practice.

Also in full support of the guideline is Mary L. Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health in obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “Midlife is a wonderful opportunity to encourage patients to assess their overall health status and make changes to impact their future health. Women in middle age tend to experience weight gain due to a variety of factors including aging and lifestyle,” said Dr. Rosser, who was not involved in the writing of the review or guideline.

While aging and genetics cannot be altered, behaviors can, and in her view, favorable behaviors would also include stress reduction and adequate sleep.

“The importance of reducing obesity with early intervention and prevention must focus on all women,” Dr. Rosser said. “We must narrow the inequities gap in care especially for high-risk minority groups and underserved populations. This will reduce disease and death and provide women the gift of active living and feeling better.”

The WPSI authors have made available a summary of the review and guideline for patients.

The systematic review and clinical guideline were funded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration through ACOG. The authors of the guideline and the review authors disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Manson and Dr. Rosser disclosed no relevant competing interests with regard to their comments.

Midlife women who are of normal weight or are overweight should routinely receive counseling aimed at limiting weight gain and preventing obesity and its associated health risks, a new clinical guideline states.

The recommendation, issued by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), supports regular lifestyle counseling for women aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index of 18.5-29.9 kg/m². Counseling could include individualized discussion of healthy eating and physical activity initiated by health professionals involved in preventive care.

Published online in Annals of Internal Medicine, the guideline addresses the prevalence and health burdens of obesity in U.S. women of middle age and seeks to reduce the known harms of obesity with an intervention of minimal anticipated harms. High BMI increases the risk for many chronic conditions including hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

The best way to counsel, however, remains unclear. “Although the optimal approach could not be discerned from existing trials, a range of interventions of varying duration, frequency, and intensity showed benefit with potential clinical significance,” wrote the WPSI guideline panel, led by David P. Chelmow, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

The guideline rests on a systematic literature review led by family doctor Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, suggesting moderate reductions in weight could be achieved by offering advice to this age group.

The federally supported WPSI was launched by ACOG in 2016. The guideline fills a gap in current recommendations in that it targets a specific risk group and specifies individual counseling based on its effectiveness and applicability in primary care settings.

In another benefit of routine counseling, the panel stated, “Normalizing counseling about healthy diet and physical activity by providing it to all midlife women may also mitigate concerns about weight stigma resulting from only counseling women with obesity.”

The panelists noted that during 2017-2018, the prevalence of obesity (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m²) was 43.3% among U.S. women aged 40-59 years, while the prevalence of severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m²) was highest in this age group at 11.5%. “Midlife women gain weight at an average of approximately 1.5 pounds per year, which increases their risk for transitioning from normal or overweight to obese BMI,” the panelists wrote.

The review

Dr. Cantor’s group analyzed seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to October 2021 from 12 publications involving 51,638 participants. Although the trials were largely small and heterogeneous, they suggested that counseling may result in modest differences in weight change without causing important harms.

Four RCTs showed significant favorable weight changes for counseling over no-counseling control groups, with a mean difference of 0.87 to 2.5 kg, whereas one trial of counseling and two trials of exercise showed no differences. One of two RCTs reported improved quality-of-life measures.

As for harms, while interventions did not increase measures of depression or stress in one trial, self-reported falls (37% vs. 29%, P < .001) and injuries (19% vs. 14%, P = .03) were more frequent with exercise counseling in one trial.

“More research is needed to determine optimal content, frequency, length, and number of sessions required and should include additional patient populations,” Dr. Cantor and associates wrote.

In terms of limitations, the authors acknowledged that trials of behavioral interventions in maintaining or reducing weight in midlife women demonstrate small magnitudes of effect.

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the WPSI guideline for this news organization, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, MACP, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said its message is of prime importance for women of middle age and it goes beyond concern about pounds lost or gained.

“Midlife and the transition to menopause are high-risk periods for women in terms of typical changes in body composition that increase the risk of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes,” said Dr. Manson, professor of women’s health at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Counseling women should be a priority for physicians in clinical practice. And it’s not just whether weight gain is reflected on the scales or not but whether there’s an increase in central abdominal fat, a decrease in lean muscle mass, and an increase in adverse glucose tolerance.”

It is essential for women to be vigilant at this time, she added, and their exercise regimens should include strength and resistance training to preserve lean muscle mass and boost metabolic rate. Dr. Manson’s group has issued several statements stressing how important it is for clinicians to take decisive action on the counseling front and how they can do this in very little time during routine practice.

Also in full support of the guideline is Mary L. Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health in obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “Midlife is a wonderful opportunity to encourage patients to assess their overall health status and make changes to impact their future health. Women in middle age tend to experience weight gain due to a variety of factors including aging and lifestyle,” said Dr. Rosser, who was not involved in the writing of the review or guideline.

While aging and genetics cannot be altered, behaviors can, and in her view, favorable behaviors would also include stress reduction and adequate sleep.

“The importance of reducing obesity with early intervention and prevention must focus on all women,” Dr. Rosser said. “We must narrow the inequities gap in care especially for high-risk minority groups and underserved populations. This will reduce disease and death and provide women the gift of active living and feeling better.”

The WPSI authors have made available a summary of the review and guideline for patients.

The systematic review and clinical guideline were funded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration through ACOG. The authors of the guideline and the review authors disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Manson and Dr. Rosser disclosed no relevant competing interests with regard to their comments.

Midlife women who are of normal weight or are overweight should routinely receive counseling aimed at limiting weight gain and preventing obesity and its associated health risks, a new clinical guideline states.

The recommendation, issued by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), supports regular lifestyle counseling for women aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index of 18.5-29.9 kg/m². Counseling could include individualized discussion of healthy eating and physical activity initiated by health professionals involved in preventive care.

Published online in Annals of Internal Medicine, the guideline addresses the prevalence and health burdens of obesity in U.S. women of middle age and seeks to reduce the known harms of obesity with an intervention of minimal anticipated harms. High BMI increases the risk for many chronic conditions including hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

The best way to counsel, however, remains unclear. “Although the optimal approach could not be discerned from existing trials, a range of interventions of varying duration, frequency, and intensity showed benefit with potential clinical significance,” wrote the WPSI guideline panel, led by David P. Chelmow, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

The guideline rests on a systematic literature review led by family doctor Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, suggesting moderate reductions in weight could be achieved by offering advice to this age group.

The federally supported WPSI was launched by ACOG in 2016. The guideline fills a gap in current recommendations in that it targets a specific risk group and specifies individual counseling based on its effectiveness and applicability in primary care settings.

In another benefit of routine counseling, the panel stated, “Normalizing counseling about healthy diet and physical activity by providing it to all midlife women may also mitigate concerns about weight stigma resulting from only counseling women with obesity.”

The panelists noted that during 2017-2018, the prevalence of obesity (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m²) was 43.3% among U.S. women aged 40-59 years, while the prevalence of severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m²) was highest in this age group at 11.5%. “Midlife women gain weight at an average of approximately 1.5 pounds per year, which increases their risk for transitioning from normal or overweight to obese BMI,” the panelists wrote.

The review

Dr. Cantor’s group analyzed seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to October 2021 from 12 publications involving 51,638 participants. Although the trials were largely small and heterogeneous, they suggested that counseling may result in modest differences in weight change without causing important harms.

Four RCTs showed significant favorable weight changes for counseling over no-counseling control groups, with a mean difference of 0.87 to 2.5 kg, whereas one trial of counseling and two trials of exercise showed no differences. One of two RCTs reported improved quality-of-life measures.

As for harms, while interventions did not increase measures of depression or stress in one trial, self-reported falls (37% vs. 29%, P < .001) and injuries (19% vs. 14%, P = .03) were more frequent with exercise counseling in one trial.

“More research is needed to determine optimal content, frequency, length, and number of sessions required and should include additional patient populations,” Dr. Cantor and associates wrote.

In terms of limitations, the authors acknowledged that trials of behavioral interventions in maintaining or reducing weight in midlife women demonstrate small magnitudes of effect.

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the WPSI guideline for this news organization, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, MACP, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said its message is of prime importance for women of middle age and it goes beyond concern about pounds lost or gained.

“Midlife and the transition to menopause are high-risk periods for women in terms of typical changes in body composition that increase the risk of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes,” said Dr. Manson, professor of women’s health at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Counseling women should be a priority for physicians in clinical practice. And it’s not just whether weight gain is reflected on the scales or not but whether there’s an increase in central abdominal fat, a decrease in lean muscle mass, and an increase in adverse glucose tolerance.”

It is essential for women to be vigilant at this time, she added, and their exercise regimens should include strength and resistance training to preserve lean muscle mass and boost metabolic rate. Dr. Manson’s group has issued several statements stressing how important it is for clinicians to take decisive action on the counseling front and how they can do this in very little time during routine practice.

Also in full support of the guideline is Mary L. Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health in obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “Midlife is a wonderful opportunity to encourage patients to assess their overall health status and make changes to impact their future health. Women in middle age tend to experience weight gain due to a variety of factors including aging and lifestyle,” said Dr. Rosser, who was not involved in the writing of the review or guideline.

While aging and genetics cannot be altered, behaviors can, and in her view, favorable behaviors would also include stress reduction and adequate sleep.

“The importance of reducing obesity with early intervention and prevention must focus on all women,” Dr. Rosser said. “We must narrow the inequities gap in care especially for high-risk minority groups and underserved populations. This will reduce disease and death and provide women the gift of active living and feeling better.”

The WPSI authors have made available a summary of the review and guideline for patients.

The systematic review and clinical guideline were funded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration through ACOG. The authors of the guideline and the review authors disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Manson and Dr. Rosser disclosed no relevant competing interests with regard to their comments.

Evusheld (AstraZeneca), a medication used to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients at high risk, has problems: Namely, that supplies of the potentially lifesaving drug outweigh demand.

At least 7 million people who are immunocompromised could benefit from it, as could many others who are undergoing cancer treatment, have received a transplant, or who are allergic to the COVID-19 vaccines. The medication has laboratory-produced antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and helps the body protect itself. It can slash the chances of becoming infected by 77%, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

And it’s free to eligible patients (although there may be an out-of-pocket administrative fee in some cases).

Despite all those lifesaving benefits, fewer than 25% of available doses have been used.

To meet demand, the Biden administration secured 1.7 million doses of the medicine, which was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA in December 2021. As of July 25, however, 793,348 doses have been ordered by the administration sites, and only 398,181 doses have been reported as used, a spokesperson for the Department of Health & Human Services tells this news organization.

Each week, a certain amount of doses from the 1.7 million dose stockpile is made available to state and territorial health departments. States have not been asking for their full allotment, the spokesperson said July 28.

Now, HHS and AstraZeneca have taken a number of steps to increase awareness of the medication and access to it.

• On July 27, HHS announced that individual providers and smaller sites of care that don’t currently receive Evusheld through the federal distribution process via the HHS Health Partner Order Portal can now order up to three patient courses of the medicine. These can be 
• Health care providers can use the HHS’s COVID-19 Therapeutics Locator to find Evusheld in their area.
• AstraZeneca has launched a new website with educational materials and says it is working closely with patient and professional groups to inform patients and health care providers.
• A direct-to-consumer ad launched on June 22 and will run in the United States online and on TV (Yahoo, Fox, CBS Sports, MSN, ESPN) and be amplified on social and digital channels through year’s end, an AstraZeneca spokesperson said in an interview.
• AstraZeneca set up a toll-free number for providers: 1-833-EVUSHLD.

Evusheld includes two monoclonal antibodies, tixagevimab and cilgavimab. The medication is given as two consecutive intramuscular injections during a single visit to a doctor’s office, infusion center, or other health care facility. The antibodies bind to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and prevent the virus from getting into human cells and infecting them. It’s authorized for use in children and adults aged 12 years and older who weigh at least 88 pounds.

Studies have found that the medication decreases the risk of getting COVID-19 for up to 6 months after it is given. The FDA recommends repeat dosing every 6 months with the doses of 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody. In clinical trials, Evusheld reduced the incidence of COVID-19 symptomatic illness by 77%, compared with placebo.

Physicians monitor patients for an hour after administering Evusheld for allergic reactions. Other possible side effects include cardiac events, but they are not common.
 

Doctors and patients weigh in

Physicians – and patients – from the United States to the United Kingdom and beyond are questioning why the medication is underused while lauding the recent efforts to expand access and increase awareness.

The U.S. federal government may have underestimated the amount of communication needed to increase awareness of the medication and its applications, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“HHS hasn’t made a major educational effort to promote it,” he said in an interview.

Many physicians who need to know about it, such as transplant doctors and rheumatologists, are outside the typical public health communications loop, he said.

Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Transational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, has taken to social media to bemoan the lack of awareness.

Another infectious disease expert agrees. “In my experience, the awareness of Evusheld is low amongst many patients as well as many providers,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore.

“Initially, there were scarce supplies of the drug, and certain hospital systems tiered eligibility based on degrees of immunosuppression, and only the most immunosuppressed were proactively approached for treatment.”

“Also, many community hospitals never initially ordered Evusheld – they may have been crowded out by academic centers who treat many more immunosuppressed patients and may not currently see it as a priority,” Dr. Adalja said in an interview. “As such, many immunosuppressed patients would have to seek treatment at academic medical centers, where the drug is more likely to be available.”

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

Evusheld (AstraZeneca), a medication used to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients at high risk, has problems: Namely, that supplies of the potentially lifesaving drug outweigh demand.

At least 7 million people who are immunocompromised could benefit from it, as could many others who are undergoing cancer treatment, have received a transplant, or who are allergic to the COVID-19 vaccines. The medication has laboratory-produced antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and helps the body protect itself. It can slash the chances of becoming infected by 77%, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

And it’s free to eligible patients (although there may be an out-of-pocket administrative fee in some cases).

Despite all those lifesaving benefits, fewer than 25% of available doses have been used.

To meet demand, the Biden administration secured 1.7 million doses of the medicine, which was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA in December 2021. As of July 25, however, 793,348 doses have been ordered by the administration sites, and only 398,181 doses have been reported as used, a spokesperson for the Department of Health & Human Services tells this news organization.

Each week, a certain amount of doses from the 1.7 million dose stockpile is made available to state and territorial health departments. States have not been asking for their full allotment, the spokesperson said July 28.

Now, HHS and AstraZeneca have taken a number of steps to increase awareness of the medication and access to it.

• On July 27, HHS announced that individual providers and smaller sites of care that don’t currently receive Evusheld through the federal distribution process via the HHS Health Partner Order Portal can now order up to three patient courses of the medicine. These can be 
• Health care providers can use the HHS’s COVID-19 Therapeutics Locator to find Evusheld in their area.
• AstraZeneca has launched a new website with educational materials and says it is working closely with patient and professional groups to inform patients and health care providers.
• A direct-to-consumer ad launched on June 22 and will run in the United States online and on TV (Yahoo, Fox, CBS Sports, MSN, ESPN) and be amplified on social and digital channels through year’s end, an AstraZeneca spokesperson said in an interview.
• AstraZeneca set up a toll-free number for providers: 1-833-EVUSHLD.

Evusheld includes two monoclonal antibodies, tixagevimab and cilgavimab. The medication is given as two consecutive intramuscular injections during a single visit to a doctor’s office, infusion center, or other health care facility. The antibodies bind to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and prevent the virus from getting into human cells and infecting them. It’s authorized for use in children and adults aged 12 years and older who weigh at least 88 pounds.

Studies have found that the medication decreases the risk of getting COVID-19 for up to 6 months after it is given. The FDA recommends repeat dosing every 6 months with the doses of 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody. In clinical trials, Evusheld reduced the incidence of COVID-19 symptomatic illness by 77%, compared with placebo.

Physicians monitor patients for an hour after administering Evusheld for allergic reactions. Other possible side effects include cardiac events, but they are not common.
 

Doctors and patients weigh in

Physicians – and patients – from the United States to the United Kingdom and beyond are questioning why the medication is underused while lauding the recent efforts to expand access and increase awareness.

The U.S. federal government may have underestimated the amount of communication needed to increase awareness of the medication and its applications, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“HHS hasn’t made a major educational effort to promote it,” he said in an interview.

Many physicians who need to know about it, such as transplant doctors and rheumatologists, are outside the typical public health communications loop, he said.

Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Transational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, has taken to social media to bemoan the lack of awareness.

Another infectious disease expert agrees. “In my experience, the awareness of Evusheld is low amongst many patients as well as many providers,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore.

“Initially, there were scarce supplies of the drug, and certain hospital systems tiered eligibility based on degrees of immunosuppression, and only the most immunosuppressed were proactively approached for treatment.”

“Also, many community hospitals never initially ordered Evusheld – they may have been crowded out by academic centers who treat many more immunosuppressed patients and may not currently see it as a priority,” Dr. Adalja said in an interview. “As such, many immunosuppressed patients would have to seek treatment at academic medical centers, where the drug is more likely to be available.”

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

Evusheld (AstraZeneca), a medication used to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients at high risk, has problems: Namely, that supplies of the potentially lifesaving drug outweigh demand.

At least 7 million people who are immunocompromised could benefit from it, as could many others who are undergoing cancer treatment, have received a transplant, or who are allergic to the COVID-19 vaccines. The medication has laboratory-produced antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and helps the body protect itself. It can slash the chances of becoming infected by 77%, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

And it’s free to eligible patients (although there may be an out-of-pocket administrative fee in some cases).

Despite all those lifesaving benefits, fewer than 25% of available doses have been used.

To meet demand, the Biden administration secured 1.7 million doses of the medicine, which was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA in December 2021. As of July 25, however, 793,348 doses have been ordered by the administration sites, and only 398,181 doses have been reported as used, a spokesperson for the Department of Health & Human Services tells this news organization.

Each week, a certain amount of doses from the 1.7 million dose stockpile is made available to state and territorial health departments. States have not been asking for their full allotment, the spokesperson said July 28.

Now, HHS and AstraZeneca have taken a number of steps to increase awareness of the medication and access to it.

• On July 27, HHS announced that individual providers and smaller sites of care that don’t currently receive Evusheld through the federal distribution process via the HHS Health Partner Order Portal can now order up to three patient courses of the medicine. These can be 
• Health care providers can use the HHS’s COVID-19 Therapeutics Locator to find Evusheld in their area.
• AstraZeneca has launched a new website with educational materials and says it is working closely with patient and professional groups to inform patients and health care providers.
• A direct-to-consumer ad launched on June 22 and will run in the United States online and on TV (Yahoo, Fox, CBS Sports, MSN, ESPN) and be amplified on social and digital channels through year’s end, an AstraZeneca spokesperson said in an interview.
• AstraZeneca set up a toll-free number for providers: 1-833-EVUSHLD.

Evusheld includes two monoclonal antibodies, tixagevimab and cilgavimab. The medication is given as two consecutive intramuscular injections during a single visit to a doctor’s office, infusion center, or other health care facility. The antibodies bind to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and prevent the virus from getting into human cells and infecting them. It’s authorized for use in children and adults aged 12 years and older who weigh at least 88 pounds.

Studies have found that the medication decreases the risk of getting COVID-19 for up to 6 months after it is given. The FDA recommends repeat dosing every 6 months with the doses of 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody. In clinical trials, Evusheld reduced the incidence of COVID-19 symptomatic illness by 77%, compared with placebo.

Physicians monitor patients for an hour after administering Evusheld for allergic reactions. Other possible side effects include cardiac events, but they are not common.
 

Doctors and patients weigh in

Physicians – and patients – from the United States to the United Kingdom and beyond are questioning why the medication is underused while lauding the recent efforts to expand access and increase awareness.

The U.S. federal government may have underestimated the amount of communication needed to increase awareness of the medication and its applications, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“HHS hasn’t made a major educational effort to promote it,” he said in an interview.

Many physicians who need to know about it, such as transplant doctors and rheumatologists, are outside the typical public health communications loop, he said.

Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Transational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, has taken to social media to bemoan the lack of awareness.

Another infectious disease expert agrees. “In my experience, the awareness of Evusheld is low amongst many patients as well as many providers,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore.

“Initially, there were scarce supplies of the drug, and certain hospital systems tiered eligibility based on degrees of immunosuppression, and only the most immunosuppressed were proactively approached for treatment.”

“Also, many community hospitals never initially ordered Evusheld – they may have been crowded out by academic centers who treat many more immunosuppressed patients and may not currently see it as a priority,” Dr. Adalja said in an interview. “As such, many immunosuppressed patients would have to seek treatment at academic medical centers, where the drug is more likely to be available.”

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

Contemporary guidelines highly recommend patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) be on all four drug classes that together have shown clinical clout, including improved survival, in major randomized trials.

Although many such patients don’t receive all four drug classes, the more that are prescribed to those with primary-prevention implantable defibrillators (ICD), the better their odds of survival, a new analysis suggests.

The cohort study of almost 5,000 patients with HFrEF and such devices saw their all-cause mortality risk improve stepwise with each additional prescription they were given toward the full quadruple drug combo at the core of modern HFrEF guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). The four classes are sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors.

That inverse relation between risk and number of GDMT medications held whether patients had solo-ICD or defibrillating cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) implants, and were independent of device-implantation year and comorbidities, regardless of HFrEF etiology.

“If anybody had doubts about really pushing forward as much of these guideline-directed medical therapies as the patient tolerates, these data confirm that, by doing so, we definitely do better than with two medications or one medication,” Samir Saba, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said in an interview.

The analysis begs an old and challenging question: Do primary-prevention ICDs confer clinically important survival gains over those provided by increasingly life-preserving recommended HFrEF medical therapy?

Given the study’s incremental survival bumps with each added GDMT med, “one ought to consider whether ICD therapy can still have an impact on overall survival in this population,” proposes a report published online in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology, with Dr. Saba as senior author.

In the adjusted analysis, the 2-year risk for death from any cause in HFrEF patients with primary-prevention devices fell 36% in those with ICDs and 30% in those with CRT-D devices for each added prescribed GDMT drug, from none up to either three or four such agents (P < .001 in both cases).

Only so much can be made of nonrandomized study results, Saba observed in an interview. But they are enough to justify asking whether primary-prevention ICDs are “still valuable” in HFrEF given current GDMT. One interpretation of the study, the published report noted, is that contemporary GDMT improves HFrEF survival so much that it eclipses any such benefit from a primary-prevention ICD.

Both defibrillators and the four core drug therapies boost survival in such cases, “so the fundamental question is, are they additive. Do we save more lives by having a defibrillator on top of the medications, or is it overlapping?” Dr. Saba asked. “We don’t know the answer.”

For now, at least, the findings could reassure clinicians as they consider whether to recommended a primary-prevention ICD when there might be reasons not to, as long there is full GDMT on board, “especially what we today define as quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy.”

Recently announced North American guidelines defining an HFrEF quadruple regimen prefer – beyond a beta-blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor – that the selected RAS inhibitor be sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis), with ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) as a substitute, if needed.  

Nearly identical European guidelines on HFrEF quad therapy, unveiled in 2021, include but do not necessarily prefer sacubitril/valsartan over ACE inhibitors as the RAS inhibitor of choice.
 

GDMT a moving target

Primary-prevention defibrillators entered practice at a time when expected background GDMT consisted of beta-blockers and either ACE inhibitors or ARBs, the current report notes. In practice, many patients receive the devices without both drug classes optimally on board. Moreover, many who otherwise meet guidelines for such ICDs won’t tolerate the kind of maximally tolerated GDMT used in the major primary-prevention device trials.

Yet current guidelines give such devices a class I recommendation, based on the highest level of evidence, in HFrEF patients who remain symptomatic despite quad GDMT, observed Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center.

The current analysis “further reinforces the importance of providing all four foundational GDMTs” to all eligible HFrEF patients without contraindications who can tolerate them, he said in an interview. Such quad therapy “is associated with incremental 1-year survival advantages” in patients with primary-prevention devices. And in the major trials, “there were reductions in sudden deaths, as well as progressive heart failure deaths.”

But the current study also suggests that in practice “very few patients can actually get to all four drugs on GDMT,” Roderick Tung, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. Optimized GDMT in randomized trials probably represents the best-case scenario. “There is a difference between randomized data and real-world data, which is why we need both.”

And it asserts that “the more GDMT you’re on, the better you do,” he said. “But does that obviate the need for an ICD? I think that’s not clear,” in part because of potential confounding in the analysis. For example, patients who can take all four agents tend to be less sick than those who cannot.

“The ones who can get up to four are preselected, because they’re healthier,” Dr. Tung said. “There are real limitations – such as metabolic disturbances, acute kidney injury and cardiorenal syndrome, and hypotension – that actually make it difficult to initiate and titrate these medications.”

Indeed, the major primary-prevention ICD trials usually excluded the sickest patients with the most comorbidities, Dr. Saba observed, which raises issues about their relevance to clinical practice. But his group’s study controlled for many potential confounders by adjusting for, among other things, Elixhauser comorbidity score, ejection fraction, type of cardiomyopathy, and year of device implantation.

“We tried to level the playing field that way, to see if – despite all of this adjustment – the incremental number of heart failure medicines stills make a difference,” Dr. Saba said. “And our results suggest that yes, they still do.”
 

GDMT coverage in the real world

The analysis of patients with HFrEF involved 3,210 with ICD-only implants and 1,762 with CRT-D devices for primary prevention at a major medical center from 2010 to 2021. Of the total, 5% had not been prescribed any of the four GDMT agents, 20% had been prescribed only one, 52% were prescribed two, and 23% were prescribed three or four. Only 113 patients had been prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors, which have only recently been indicated for HFrEF.

Adjusted hazard ratios for death from any cause at 2 years for each added GDMT drug (P < .001 in each case), were 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.74) for ICD recipients, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.58-0.86) for those with a CRT-D device, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.60-0.81) for those with ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.51-0.73) for patients with nonischemic disease.

The results “raise questions rather than answers,” Dr. Saba said. “At some point, someone will need to take patients who are optimized on their heart failure medications and then randomize them to defibrillator versus no defibrillator to see whether there is still an additive impact.”

Current best evidence suggests that primary-prevention ICDs in patients with guideline-based indications confer benefits that far outweigh any risks. But if the major primary-prevention ICD trials were to be repeated in patients on contemporary quad-therapy GDMT, Dr. Tung said, “would the benefit of ICD be attenuated? I think most of us believe it likely would.”

Still, he said, a background of modern GDMT could potentially “optimize” such trials by attenuating mortality from heart failure progression and thereby expanding the proportion of deaths that are arrhythmic, “which the defibrillator can prevent.”

Dr. Saba discloses receiving research support from Boston Scientific and Abbott; and serving on advisory boards for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. The other authors reported no relevant relationships. Dr. Tung has disclosed receiving speaker fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr. Fonarow has reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

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

Contemporary guidelines highly recommend patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) be on all four drug classes that together have shown clinical clout, including improved survival, in major randomized trials.

Although many such patients don’t receive all four drug classes, the more that are prescribed to those with primary-prevention implantable defibrillators (ICD), the better their odds of survival, a new analysis suggests.

The cohort study of almost 5,000 patients with HFrEF and such devices saw their all-cause mortality risk improve stepwise with each additional prescription they were given toward the full quadruple drug combo at the core of modern HFrEF guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). The four classes are sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors.

That inverse relation between risk and number of GDMT medications held whether patients had solo-ICD or defibrillating cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) implants, and were independent of device-implantation year and comorbidities, regardless of HFrEF etiology.

“If anybody had doubts about really pushing forward as much of these guideline-directed medical therapies as the patient tolerates, these data confirm that, by doing so, we definitely do better than with two medications or one medication,” Samir Saba, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said in an interview.

The analysis begs an old and challenging question: Do primary-prevention ICDs confer clinically important survival gains over those provided by increasingly life-preserving recommended HFrEF medical therapy?

Given the study’s incremental survival bumps with each added GDMT med, “one ought to consider whether ICD therapy can still have an impact on overall survival in this population,” proposes a report published online in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology, with Dr. Saba as senior author.

In the adjusted analysis, the 2-year risk for death from any cause in HFrEF patients with primary-prevention devices fell 36% in those with ICDs and 30% in those with CRT-D devices for each added prescribed GDMT drug, from none up to either three or four such agents (P < .001 in both cases).

Only so much can be made of nonrandomized study results, Saba observed in an interview. But they are enough to justify asking whether primary-prevention ICDs are “still valuable” in HFrEF given current GDMT. One interpretation of the study, the published report noted, is that contemporary GDMT improves HFrEF survival so much that it eclipses any such benefit from a primary-prevention ICD.

Both defibrillators and the four core drug therapies boost survival in such cases, “so the fundamental question is, are they additive. Do we save more lives by having a defibrillator on top of the medications, or is it overlapping?” Dr. Saba asked. “We don’t know the answer.”

For now, at least, the findings could reassure clinicians as they consider whether to recommended a primary-prevention ICD when there might be reasons not to, as long there is full GDMT on board, “especially what we today define as quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy.”

Recently announced North American guidelines defining an HFrEF quadruple regimen prefer – beyond a beta-blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor – that the selected RAS inhibitor be sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis), with ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) as a substitute, if needed.  

Nearly identical European guidelines on HFrEF quad therapy, unveiled in 2021, include but do not necessarily prefer sacubitril/valsartan over ACE inhibitors as the RAS inhibitor of choice.
 

GDMT a moving target

Primary-prevention defibrillators entered practice at a time when expected background GDMT consisted of beta-blockers and either ACE inhibitors or ARBs, the current report notes. In practice, many patients receive the devices without both drug classes optimally on board. Moreover, many who otherwise meet guidelines for such ICDs won’t tolerate the kind of maximally tolerated GDMT used in the major primary-prevention device trials.

Yet current guidelines give such devices a class I recommendation, based on the highest level of evidence, in HFrEF patients who remain symptomatic despite quad GDMT, observed Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center.

The current analysis “further reinforces the importance of providing all four foundational GDMTs” to all eligible HFrEF patients without contraindications who can tolerate them, he said in an interview. Such quad therapy “is associated with incremental 1-year survival advantages” in patients with primary-prevention devices. And in the major trials, “there were reductions in sudden deaths, as well as progressive heart failure deaths.”

But the current study also suggests that in practice “very few patients can actually get to all four drugs on GDMT,” Roderick Tung, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. Optimized GDMT in randomized trials probably represents the best-case scenario. “There is a difference between randomized data and real-world data, which is why we need both.”

And it asserts that “the more GDMT you’re on, the better you do,” he said. “But does that obviate the need for an ICD? I think that’s not clear,” in part because of potential confounding in the analysis. For example, patients who can take all four agents tend to be less sick than those who cannot.

“The ones who can get up to four are preselected, because they’re healthier,” Dr. Tung said. “There are real limitations – such as metabolic disturbances, acute kidney injury and cardiorenal syndrome, and hypotension – that actually make it difficult to initiate and titrate these medications.”

Indeed, the major primary-prevention ICD trials usually excluded the sickest patients with the most comorbidities, Dr. Saba observed, which raises issues about their relevance to clinical practice. But his group’s study controlled for many potential confounders by adjusting for, among other things, Elixhauser comorbidity score, ejection fraction, type of cardiomyopathy, and year of device implantation.

“We tried to level the playing field that way, to see if – despite all of this adjustment – the incremental number of heart failure medicines stills make a difference,” Dr. Saba said. “And our results suggest that yes, they still do.”
 

GDMT coverage in the real world

The analysis of patients with HFrEF involved 3,210 with ICD-only implants and 1,762 with CRT-D devices for primary prevention at a major medical center from 2010 to 2021. Of the total, 5% had not been prescribed any of the four GDMT agents, 20% had been prescribed only one, 52% were prescribed two, and 23% were prescribed three or four. Only 113 patients had been prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors, which have only recently been indicated for HFrEF.

Adjusted hazard ratios for death from any cause at 2 years for each added GDMT drug (P < .001 in each case), were 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.74) for ICD recipients, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.58-0.86) for those with a CRT-D device, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.60-0.81) for those with ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.51-0.73) for patients with nonischemic disease.

The results “raise questions rather than answers,” Dr. Saba said. “At some point, someone will need to take patients who are optimized on their heart failure medications and then randomize them to defibrillator versus no defibrillator to see whether there is still an additive impact.”

Current best evidence suggests that primary-prevention ICDs in patients with guideline-based indications confer benefits that far outweigh any risks. But if the major primary-prevention ICD trials were to be repeated in patients on contemporary quad-therapy GDMT, Dr. Tung said, “would the benefit of ICD be attenuated? I think most of us believe it likely would.”

Still, he said, a background of modern GDMT could potentially “optimize” such trials by attenuating mortality from heart failure progression and thereby expanding the proportion of deaths that are arrhythmic, “which the defibrillator can prevent.”

Dr. Saba discloses receiving research support from Boston Scientific and Abbott; and serving on advisory boards for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. The other authors reported no relevant relationships. Dr. Tung has disclosed receiving speaker fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr. Fonarow has reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

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

Contemporary guidelines highly recommend patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) be on all four drug classes that together have shown clinical clout, including improved survival, in major randomized trials.

Although many such patients don’t receive all four drug classes, the more that are prescribed to those with primary-prevention implantable defibrillators (ICD), the better their odds of survival, a new analysis suggests.

The cohort study of almost 5,000 patients with HFrEF and such devices saw their all-cause mortality risk improve stepwise with each additional prescription they were given toward the full quadruple drug combo at the core of modern HFrEF guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). The four classes are sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors.

That inverse relation between risk and number of GDMT medications held whether patients had solo-ICD or defibrillating cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) implants, and were independent of device-implantation year and comorbidities, regardless of HFrEF etiology.

“If anybody had doubts about really pushing forward as much of these guideline-directed medical therapies as the patient tolerates, these data confirm that, by doing so, we definitely do better than with two medications or one medication,” Samir Saba, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said in an interview.

The analysis begs an old and challenging question: Do primary-prevention ICDs confer clinically important survival gains over those provided by increasingly life-preserving recommended HFrEF medical therapy?

Given the study’s incremental survival bumps with each added GDMT med, “one ought to consider whether ICD therapy can still have an impact on overall survival in this population,” proposes a report published online in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology, with Dr. Saba as senior author.

In the adjusted analysis, the 2-year risk for death from any cause in HFrEF patients with primary-prevention devices fell 36% in those with ICDs and 30% in those with CRT-D devices for each added prescribed GDMT drug, from none up to either three or four such agents (P < .001 in both cases).

Only so much can be made of nonrandomized study results, Saba observed in an interview. But they are enough to justify asking whether primary-prevention ICDs are “still valuable” in HFrEF given current GDMT. One interpretation of the study, the published report noted, is that contemporary GDMT improves HFrEF survival so much that it eclipses any such benefit from a primary-prevention ICD.

Both defibrillators and the four core drug therapies boost survival in such cases, “so the fundamental question is, are they additive. Do we save more lives by having a defibrillator on top of the medications, or is it overlapping?” Dr. Saba asked. “We don’t know the answer.”

For now, at least, the findings could reassure clinicians as they consider whether to recommended a primary-prevention ICD when there might be reasons not to, as long there is full GDMT on board, “especially what we today define as quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy.”

Recently announced North American guidelines defining an HFrEF quadruple regimen prefer – beyond a beta-blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor – that the selected RAS inhibitor be sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis), with ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) as a substitute, if needed.  

Nearly identical European guidelines on HFrEF quad therapy, unveiled in 2021, include but do not necessarily prefer sacubitril/valsartan over ACE inhibitors as the RAS inhibitor of choice.
 

GDMT a moving target

Primary-prevention defibrillators entered practice at a time when expected background GDMT consisted of beta-blockers and either ACE inhibitors or ARBs, the current report notes. In practice, many patients receive the devices without both drug classes optimally on board. Moreover, many who otherwise meet guidelines for such ICDs won’t tolerate the kind of maximally tolerated GDMT used in the major primary-prevention device trials.

Yet current guidelines give such devices a class I recommendation, based on the highest level of evidence, in HFrEF patients who remain symptomatic despite quad GDMT, observed Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center.

The current analysis “further reinforces the importance of providing all four foundational GDMTs” to all eligible HFrEF patients without contraindications who can tolerate them, he said in an interview. Such quad therapy “is associated with incremental 1-year survival advantages” in patients with primary-prevention devices. And in the major trials, “there were reductions in sudden deaths, as well as progressive heart failure deaths.”

But the current study also suggests that in practice “very few patients can actually get to all four drugs on GDMT,” Roderick Tung, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. Optimized GDMT in randomized trials probably represents the best-case scenario. “There is a difference between randomized data and real-world data, which is why we need both.”

And it asserts that “the more GDMT you’re on, the better you do,” he said. “But does that obviate the need for an ICD? I think that’s not clear,” in part because of potential confounding in the analysis. For example, patients who can take all four agents tend to be less sick than those who cannot.

“The ones who can get up to four are preselected, because they’re healthier,” Dr. Tung said. “There are real limitations – such as metabolic disturbances, acute kidney injury and cardiorenal syndrome, and hypotension – that actually make it difficult to initiate and titrate these medications.”

Indeed, the major primary-prevention ICD trials usually excluded the sickest patients with the most comorbidities, Dr. Saba observed, which raises issues about their relevance to clinical practice. But his group’s study controlled for many potential confounders by adjusting for, among other things, Elixhauser comorbidity score, ejection fraction, type of cardiomyopathy, and year of device implantation.

“We tried to level the playing field that way, to see if – despite all of this adjustment – the incremental number of heart failure medicines stills make a difference,” Dr. Saba said. “And our results suggest that yes, they still do.”
 

GDMT coverage in the real world

The analysis of patients with HFrEF involved 3,210 with ICD-only implants and 1,762 with CRT-D devices for primary prevention at a major medical center from 2010 to 2021. Of the total, 5% had not been prescribed any of the four GDMT agents, 20% had been prescribed only one, 52% were prescribed two, and 23% were prescribed three or four. Only 113 patients had been prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors, which have only recently been indicated for HFrEF.

Adjusted hazard ratios for death from any cause at 2 years for each added GDMT drug (P < .001 in each case), were 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.74) for ICD recipients, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.58-0.86) for those with a CRT-D device, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.60-0.81) for those with ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.51-0.73) for patients with nonischemic disease.

The results “raise questions rather than answers,” Dr. Saba said. “At some point, someone will need to take patients who are optimized on their heart failure medications and then randomize them to defibrillator versus no defibrillator to see whether there is still an additive impact.”

Current best evidence suggests that primary-prevention ICDs in patients with guideline-based indications confer benefits that far outweigh any risks. But if the major primary-prevention ICD trials were to be repeated in patients on contemporary quad-therapy GDMT, Dr. Tung said, “would the benefit of ICD be attenuated? I think most of us believe it likely would.”

Still, he said, a background of modern GDMT could potentially “optimize” such trials by attenuating mortality from heart failure progression and thereby expanding the proportion of deaths that are arrhythmic, “which the defibrillator can prevent.”

Dr. Saba discloses receiving research support from Boston Scientific and Abbott; and serving on advisory boards for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. The other authors reported no relevant relationships. Dr. Tung has disclosed receiving speaker fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr. Fonarow has reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

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

For people with peripheral artery disease (PAD), even short walks can be exercises in excruciation.

But a new study published  in the Journal of the American Heart Association has found that patients who can push through the pain appear to reap significant benefits in ambulation, balance, and leg strength, which have been linked to increased longevity.

“You have to push yourself and get those uncomfortable symptoms, or else you probably won’t get gains,” said Mary McDermott, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, and the senior author of the study.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Walking for exercise is critical for people with lower-extremity PAD, Dr. McDermott said, but leg pain dissuades many people with the condition from doing so. She said her group hopes that showing the payoff of the “no pain, no gain” approach gives people with PAD the resolve to walk regularly, even when it’s hard.

The new study, a post hoc analysis of the LITE (Low-Intensity Exercise Intervention in PAD) trial, found that low-intensity exercise did not improve the symptoms of PAD but high-intensity exercise did.

Dr. McDermott and her colleagues compared 109 people with PAD who walked fast enough to cause discomfort versus 101 people who walked at a comfortable pace and 54 people who did not exercise at all. The average age was 69 years, 48% of participants were women, and 61% were Black.

Everyone in the exercise groups walked at home, with visits to a medical center early in the study to get exercise tips and then phone support from exercise coaches throughout the remainder of the study. Researchers encouraged those in the discomfort group to walk fast enough to cause significant pain in their legs, for up to 10 minutes or as long as they could. They then rested before walking again, ideally up to five times per day for 5 days per week.

At 6 months, people in the discomfort group were walking 0.056 m/sec faster than those in the comfort group during a 4-meter walking test (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.094 m/sec; P < .01), a gap that had grown by 12 months to 0.084 m/sec (95% CI, 0.049-0.120 m/sec; P <.01), according to the researchers. A statistically significant gap also emerged between the discomfort and nonexercising group at 6 months, but it eventually closed.

“It’s a question that people have asked for some time: Is it necessary to get that ischemic pain when you walk?” Dr. McDermott said. “This is the first well-powered clinical trial to provide a definitive answer on that, and the answer is that you do need that discomfort. It wasn’t even close.” Indeed, Dr. McDermott said, it’s possible that walking merely to the point of comfort and never pushing beyond it may harm people with PAD.

At the 6-month mark, the researchers found no statistical difference between the discomfort and comfort groups on a cumulative scale of usual walking speed, ability to rise from a chair, and ability to maintain balance in several positions. By 12 months, the two groups had diverged, with the discomfort group improving by almost 1 point on the scale, whereas the performance of the comfort group declined. No significant differences emerged between the discomfort and nonexercising groups, the researchers reported.

The investigators found, counterintuitively, that some people in the study who did not record exercising did as well as those in the discomfort group,

Dr. McDermott noted that the nonexercise group was smaller than the discomfort group, making firm comparisons between the two challenging to draw. In addition, people whose exercise was not recorded were not asked to take it easy whenever they walked, unlike those in the comfort group. As a result, she said, some people in this group may have walked vigorously.

Dr. McDermott emphasized that these benefits occurred at home rather than at medical centers that can be difficult for some people to visit regularly.

“It’s always good to have this kind of information for patients, to show them that it’s possible for them to continue to improve,” said Jonathan Ehrman, PhD, associate director of preventive cardiology at Henry Ford Medical Center, Detroit. Dr. Ehrman was not involved in this study but said that he is contemplating running a similar home-based study that would use video rather than telephone support for patients.

“There’s emerging data about walking speed being related to longevity and predicting better outcomes in cardiac surgeries,” Dr. Ehrman said. “It seems to be, if you can get people walking faster or they have a better walking pace, related to better health outcomes.”

Dr. McDermott reported relationships with Regeneron, Helixmith, Mars, ArtAssist, ReserveAge, and Hershey. Dr. Ehrman reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

For people with peripheral artery disease (PAD), even short walks can be exercises in excruciation.

But a new study published  in the Journal of the American Heart Association has found that patients who can push through the pain appear to reap significant benefits in ambulation, balance, and leg strength, which have been linked to increased longevity.

“You have to push yourself and get those uncomfortable symptoms, or else you probably won’t get gains,” said Mary McDermott, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, and the senior author of the study.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Walking for exercise is critical for people with lower-extremity PAD, Dr. McDermott said, but leg pain dissuades many people with the condition from doing so. She said her group hopes that showing the payoff of the “no pain, no gain” approach gives people with PAD the resolve to walk regularly, even when it’s hard.

The new study, a post hoc analysis of the LITE (Low-Intensity Exercise Intervention in PAD) trial, found that low-intensity exercise did not improve the symptoms of PAD but high-intensity exercise did.

Dr. McDermott and her colleagues compared 109 people with PAD who walked fast enough to cause discomfort versus 101 people who walked at a comfortable pace and 54 people who did not exercise at all. The average age was 69 years, 48% of participants were women, and 61% were Black.

Everyone in the exercise groups walked at home, with visits to a medical center early in the study to get exercise tips and then phone support from exercise coaches throughout the remainder of the study. Researchers encouraged those in the discomfort group to walk fast enough to cause significant pain in their legs, for up to 10 minutes or as long as they could. They then rested before walking again, ideally up to five times per day for 5 days per week.

At 6 months, people in the discomfort group were walking 0.056 m/sec faster than those in the comfort group during a 4-meter walking test (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.094 m/sec; P < .01), a gap that had grown by 12 months to 0.084 m/sec (95% CI, 0.049-0.120 m/sec; P <.01), according to the researchers. A statistically significant gap also emerged between the discomfort and nonexercising group at 6 months, but it eventually closed.

“It’s a question that people have asked for some time: Is it necessary to get that ischemic pain when you walk?” Dr. McDermott said. “This is the first well-powered clinical trial to provide a definitive answer on that, and the answer is that you do need that discomfort. It wasn’t even close.” Indeed, Dr. McDermott said, it’s possible that walking merely to the point of comfort and never pushing beyond it may harm people with PAD.

At the 6-month mark, the researchers found no statistical difference between the discomfort and comfort groups on a cumulative scale of usual walking speed, ability to rise from a chair, and ability to maintain balance in several positions. By 12 months, the two groups had diverged, with the discomfort group improving by almost 1 point on the scale, whereas the performance of the comfort group declined. No significant differences emerged between the discomfort and nonexercising groups, the researchers reported.

The investigators found, counterintuitively, that some people in the study who did not record exercising did as well as those in the discomfort group,

Dr. McDermott noted that the nonexercise group was smaller than the discomfort group, making firm comparisons between the two challenging to draw. In addition, people whose exercise was not recorded were not asked to take it easy whenever they walked, unlike those in the comfort group. As a result, she said, some people in this group may have walked vigorously.

Dr. McDermott emphasized that these benefits occurred at home rather than at medical centers that can be difficult for some people to visit regularly.

“It’s always good to have this kind of information for patients, to show them that it’s possible for them to continue to improve,” said Jonathan Ehrman, PhD, associate director of preventive cardiology at Henry Ford Medical Center, Detroit. Dr. Ehrman was not involved in this study but said that he is contemplating running a similar home-based study that would use video rather than telephone support for patients.

“There’s emerging data about walking speed being related to longevity and predicting better outcomes in cardiac surgeries,” Dr. Ehrman said. “It seems to be, if you can get people walking faster or they have a better walking pace, related to better health outcomes.”

Dr. McDermott reported relationships with Regeneron, Helixmith, Mars, ArtAssist, ReserveAge, and Hershey. Dr. Ehrman reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

For people with peripheral artery disease (PAD), even short walks can be exercises in excruciation.

But a new study published  in the Journal of the American Heart Association has found that patients who can push through the pain appear to reap significant benefits in ambulation, balance, and leg strength, which have been linked to increased longevity.

“You have to push yourself and get those uncomfortable symptoms, or else you probably won’t get gains,” said Mary McDermott, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, and the senior author of the study.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Walking for exercise is critical for people with lower-extremity PAD, Dr. McDermott said, but leg pain dissuades many people with the condition from doing so. She said her group hopes that showing the payoff of the “no pain, no gain” approach gives people with PAD the resolve to walk regularly, even when it’s hard.

The new study, a post hoc analysis of the LITE (Low-Intensity Exercise Intervention in PAD) trial, found that low-intensity exercise did not improve the symptoms of PAD but high-intensity exercise did.

Dr. McDermott and her colleagues compared 109 people with PAD who walked fast enough to cause discomfort versus 101 people who walked at a comfortable pace and 54 people who did not exercise at all. The average age was 69 years, 48% of participants were women, and 61% were Black.

Everyone in the exercise groups walked at home, with visits to a medical center early in the study to get exercise tips and then phone support from exercise coaches throughout the remainder of the study. Researchers encouraged those in the discomfort group to walk fast enough to cause significant pain in their legs, for up to 10 minutes or as long as they could. They then rested before walking again, ideally up to five times per day for 5 days per week.

At 6 months, people in the discomfort group were walking 0.056 m/sec faster than those in the comfort group during a 4-meter walking test (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.094 m/sec; P < .01), a gap that had grown by 12 months to 0.084 m/sec (95% CI, 0.049-0.120 m/sec; P <.01), according to the researchers. A statistically significant gap also emerged between the discomfort and nonexercising group at 6 months, but it eventually closed.

“It’s a question that people have asked for some time: Is it necessary to get that ischemic pain when you walk?” Dr. McDermott said. “This is the first well-powered clinical trial to provide a definitive answer on that, and the answer is that you do need that discomfort. It wasn’t even close.” Indeed, Dr. McDermott said, it’s possible that walking merely to the point of comfort and never pushing beyond it may harm people with PAD.

At the 6-month mark, the researchers found no statistical difference between the discomfort and comfort groups on a cumulative scale of usual walking speed, ability to rise from a chair, and ability to maintain balance in several positions. By 12 months, the two groups had diverged, with the discomfort group improving by almost 1 point on the scale, whereas the performance of the comfort group declined. No significant differences emerged between the discomfort and nonexercising groups, the researchers reported.

The investigators found, counterintuitively, that some people in the study who did not record exercising did as well as those in the discomfort group,

Dr. McDermott noted that the nonexercise group was smaller than the discomfort group, making firm comparisons between the two challenging to draw. In addition, people whose exercise was not recorded were not asked to take it easy whenever they walked, unlike those in the comfort group. As a result, she said, some people in this group may have walked vigorously.

Dr. McDermott emphasized that these benefits occurred at home rather than at medical centers that can be difficult for some people to visit regularly.

“It’s always good to have this kind of information for patients, to show them that it’s possible for them to continue to improve,” said Jonathan Ehrman, PhD, associate director of preventive cardiology at Henry Ford Medical Center, Detroit. Dr. Ehrman was not involved in this study but said that he is contemplating running a similar home-based study that would use video rather than telephone support for patients.

“There’s emerging data about walking speed being related to longevity and predicting better outcomes in cardiac surgeries,” Dr. Ehrman said. “It seems to be, if you can get people walking faster or they have a better walking pace, related to better health outcomes.”

Dr. McDermott reported relationships with Regeneron, Helixmith, Mars, ArtAssist, ReserveAge, and Hershey. Dr. Ehrman reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic and persists more than 2 years on and, once again, Blacks and African Americans have been disproportionately affected, an analysis of death certificates shows.

The findings “suggest that the pandemic may reverse years or decades of work aimed at reducing gaps in cardiovascular outcomes,” Sadeer G. Al-Kindi, MD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

Although the disparities are in line with previous research, he said, “what was surprising is the persistence of excess cardiovascular mortality approximately 2 years after the pandemic started, even during a period of low COVID-19 mortality.”

“This suggests that the pandemic resulted in a disruption of health care access and, along with disparities in COVID-19 infection and its complications, he said, “may have a long-lasting effect on health care disparities, especially among vulnerable populations.”

The study was published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings with lead author Scott E. Janus, MD, also of Case Western Reserve University.
 

Impact consistently greater for Blacks

Dr. Al-Kindi and colleagues used 3,598,352 U.S. death files to investigate trends in deaths caused specifically by CVD as well as its subtypes myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure (HF) in 2018 and 2019 (prepandemic) and the pandemic years 2020 and 2021. Baseline demographics showed a higher percentage of older, female, and Black individuals among the CVD subtypes of interest.

Overall, there was an excess CVD mortality of 6.7% during the pandemic, compared with prepandemic years, including a 2.5% rise in MI deaths and an 8.5% rise in stroke deaths. HF mortality remained relatively steady, rising only 0.1%.

Subgroup analyses revealed “striking differences” in excess mortality between Blacks and Whites, the authors noted. Blacks had an overall excess mortality of 13.8% versus 5.1% for Whites, compared with the prepandemic years. The differences were consistent across subtypes: MI (9.6% vs. 1.0%); stroke (14.5% vs. 6.9%); and HF (5.1% vs. –1.2%; P value for all < .001).

When the investigators looked at deaths on a yearly basis with 2018 as the baseline, they found CVD deaths increased by 1.5% in 2019, 15.8% in 2020, and 13.5% in 2021 among Black Americans, compared with 0.5%, 5.1%, and 5.7%, respectively, among White Americans.

Excess deaths from MI rose by 9.5% in 2020 and by 6.7% in 2021 among Blacks but fell by 1.2% in 2020 and by 1.0% in 2021 among Whites.

Disparities in excess HF mortality were similar, rising 9.1% and 4.1% in 2020 and 2021 among Blacks, while dipping 0.1% and 0.8% in 2020 and 2021 among Whites.

The “most striking difference” was in excess stroke mortality, which doubled among Blacks compared with whites in 2020 (14.9% vs. 6.7%) and in 2021 (17.5% vs. 8.1%), according to the authors.
 

Awareness urged

Although the disparities were expected, “there is clear value in documenting and quantifying the magnitude of these disparities,” Amil M. Shah, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

In addition to being observational, the main limitation of the study, he noted, is the quality and resolution of the death certificate data, which may limit the accuracy of the cause of death ascertainment and classification of race or ethnicity. “However, I think these potential inaccuracies are unlikely to materially impact the overall study findings.”

Dr. Shah, who was not involved in the study, said he would like to see additional research into the diversity and heterogeneity in risk among Black communities. “Understanding the environmental, social, and health care factors – both harmful and protective – that influence risk for CVD morbidity and mortality among Black individuals and communities offers the promise to provide actionable insights to mitigate these disparities.”

“Intervention studies testing approaches to mitigate disparities based on race/ethnicity” are also needed, he added. These may be at the policy, community, health system, or individual level, and community involvement in phases will be essential.”

Meanwhile, both Dr. Al-Kindi and Dr. Shah urged clinicians to be aware of the disparities and the need to improve access to care and address social determinants of health in vulnerable populations.

These disparities “are driven by structural factors, and are reinforced by individual behaviors. In this context, implicit bias training is important to help clinicians recognize and mitigate bias in their own practice,” Dr. Shah said. “Supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and advocating for anti-racist policies and practices in their health systems” can also help.

Dr. Al-Kindi and Dr. Shah disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic and persists more than 2 years on and, once again, Blacks and African Americans have been disproportionately affected, an analysis of death certificates shows.

The findings “suggest that the pandemic may reverse years or decades of work aimed at reducing gaps in cardiovascular outcomes,” Sadeer G. Al-Kindi, MD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

Although the disparities are in line with previous research, he said, “what was surprising is the persistence of excess cardiovascular mortality approximately 2 years after the pandemic started, even during a period of low COVID-19 mortality.”

“This suggests that the pandemic resulted in a disruption of health care access and, along with disparities in COVID-19 infection and its complications, he said, “may have a long-lasting effect on health care disparities, especially among vulnerable populations.”

The study was published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings with lead author Scott E. Janus, MD, also of Case Western Reserve University.
 

Impact consistently greater for Blacks

Dr. Al-Kindi and colleagues used 3,598,352 U.S. death files to investigate trends in deaths caused specifically by CVD as well as its subtypes myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure (HF) in 2018 and 2019 (prepandemic) and the pandemic years 2020 and 2021. Baseline demographics showed a higher percentage of older, female, and Black individuals among the CVD subtypes of interest.

Overall, there was an excess CVD mortality of 6.7% during the pandemic, compared with prepandemic years, including a 2.5% rise in MI deaths and an 8.5% rise in stroke deaths. HF mortality remained relatively steady, rising only 0.1%.

Subgroup analyses revealed “striking differences” in excess mortality between Blacks and Whites, the authors noted. Blacks had an overall excess mortality of 13.8% versus 5.1% for Whites, compared with the prepandemic years. The differences were consistent across subtypes: MI (9.6% vs. 1.0%); stroke (14.5% vs. 6.9%); and HF (5.1% vs. –1.2%; P value for all < .001).

When the investigators looked at deaths on a yearly basis with 2018 as the baseline, they found CVD deaths increased by 1.5% in 2019, 15.8% in 2020, and 13.5% in 2021 among Black Americans, compared with 0.5%, 5.1%, and 5.7%, respectively, among White Americans.

Excess deaths from MI rose by 9.5% in 2020 and by 6.7% in 2021 among Blacks but fell by 1.2% in 2020 and by 1.0% in 2021 among Whites.

Disparities in excess HF mortality were similar, rising 9.1% and 4.1% in 2020 and 2021 among Blacks, while dipping 0.1% and 0.8% in 2020 and 2021 among Whites.

The “most striking difference” was in excess stroke mortality, which doubled among Blacks compared with whites in 2020 (14.9% vs. 6.7%) and in 2021 (17.5% vs. 8.1%), according to the authors.
 

Awareness urged

Although the disparities were expected, “there is clear value in documenting and quantifying the magnitude of these disparities,” Amil M. Shah, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

In addition to being observational, the main limitation of the study, he noted, is the quality and resolution of the death certificate data, which may limit the accuracy of the cause of death ascertainment and classification of race or ethnicity. “However, I think these potential inaccuracies are unlikely to materially impact the overall study findings.”

Dr. Shah, who was not involved in the study, said he would like to see additional research into the diversity and heterogeneity in risk among Black communities. “Understanding the environmental, social, and health care factors – both harmful and protective – that influence risk for CVD morbidity and mortality among Black individuals and communities offers the promise to provide actionable insights to mitigate these disparities.”

“Intervention studies testing approaches to mitigate disparities based on race/ethnicity” are also needed, he added. These may be at the policy, community, health system, or individual level, and community involvement in phases will be essential.”

Meanwhile, both Dr. Al-Kindi and Dr. Shah urged clinicians to be aware of the disparities and the need to improve access to care and address social determinants of health in vulnerable populations.

These disparities “are driven by structural factors, and are reinforced by individual behaviors. In this context, implicit bias training is important to help clinicians recognize and mitigate bias in their own practice,” Dr. Shah said. “Supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and advocating for anti-racist policies and practices in their health systems” can also help.

Dr. Al-Kindi and Dr. Shah disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic and persists more than 2 years on and, once again, Blacks and African Americans have been disproportionately affected, an analysis of death certificates shows.

The findings “suggest that the pandemic may reverse years or decades of work aimed at reducing gaps in cardiovascular outcomes,” Sadeer G. Al-Kindi, MD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

Although the disparities are in line with previous research, he said, “what was surprising is the persistence of excess cardiovascular mortality approximately 2 years after the pandemic started, even during a period of low COVID-19 mortality.”

“This suggests that the pandemic resulted in a disruption of health care access and, along with disparities in COVID-19 infection and its complications, he said, “may have a long-lasting effect on health care disparities, especially among vulnerable populations.”

The study was published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings with lead author Scott E. Janus, MD, also of Case Western Reserve University.
 

Impact consistently greater for Blacks

Dr. Al-Kindi and colleagues used 3,598,352 U.S. death files to investigate trends in deaths caused specifically by CVD as well as its subtypes myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure (HF) in 2018 and 2019 (prepandemic) and the pandemic years 2020 and 2021. Baseline demographics showed a higher percentage of older, female, and Black individuals among the CVD subtypes of interest.

Overall, there was an excess CVD mortality of 6.7% during the pandemic, compared with prepandemic years, including a 2.5% rise in MI deaths and an 8.5% rise in stroke deaths. HF mortality remained relatively steady, rising only 0.1%.

Subgroup analyses revealed “striking differences” in excess mortality between Blacks and Whites, the authors noted. Blacks had an overall excess mortality of 13.8% versus 5.1% for Whites, compared with the prepandemic years. The differences were consistent across subtypes: MI (9.6% vs. 1.0%); stroke (14.5% vs. 6.9%); and HF (5.1% vs. –1.2%; P value for all < .001).

When the investigators looked at deaths on a yearly basis with 2018 as the baseline, they found CVD deaths increased by 1.5% in 2019, 15.8% in 2020, and 13.5% in 2021 among Black Americans, compared with 0.5%, 5.1%, and 5.7%, respectively, among White Americans.

Excess deaths from MI rose by 9.5% in 2020 and by 6.7% in 2021 among Blacks but fell by 1.2% in 2020 and by 1.0% in 2021 among Whites.

Disparities in excess HF mortality were similar, rising 9.1% and 4.1% in 2020 and 2021 among Blacks, while dipping 0.1% and 0.8% in 2020 and 2021 among Whites.

The “most striking difference” was in excess stroke mortality, which doubled among Blacks compared with whites in 2020 (14.9% vs. 6.7%) and in 2021 (17.5% vs. 8.1%), according to the authors.
 

Awareness urged

Although the disparities were expected, “there is clear value in documenting and quantifying the magnitude of these disparities,” Amil M. Shah, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

In addition to being observational, the main limitation of the study, he noted, is the quality and resolution of the death certificate data, which may limit the accuracy of the cause of death ascertainment and classification of race or ethnicity. “However, I think these potential inaccuracies are unlikely to materially impact the overall study findings.”

Dr. Shah, who was not involved in the study, said he would like to see additional research into the diversity and heterogeneity in risk among Black communities. “Understanding the environmental, social, and health care factors – both harmful and protective – that influence risk for CVD morbidity and mortality among Black individuals and communities offers the promise to provide actionable insights to mitigate these disparities.”

“Intervention studies testing approaches to mitigate disparities based on race/ethnicity” are also needed, he added. These may be at the policy, community, health system, or individual level, and community involvement in phases will be essential.”

Meanwhile, both Dr. Al-Kindi and Dr. Shah urged clinicians to be aware of the disparities and the need to improve access to care and address social determinants of health in vulnerable populations.

These disparities “are driven by structural factors, and are reinforced by individual behaviors. In this context, implicit bias training is important to help clinicians recognize and mitigate bias in their own practice,” Dr. Shah said. “Supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and advocating for anti-racist policies and practices in their health systems” can also help.

Dr. Al-Kindi and Dr. Shah disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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