User login
COVID-19 in 2020: Deaths and disparities
COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, but that mortality burden did not fall evenly along racial/ethnic lines, according to a provisional report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Only heart disease and cancer caused more deaths than SARS-CoV-2, which took the lives of almost 378,000 Americans last year, Farida B. Ahmad, MPH, and associates at the National Center for Health Statistics noted March 31 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
That represents 11.2% of the almost 3.36 million total deaths recorded in 2020. The racial/ethnics demographics, however, show that 22.4% of all deaths among Hispanic Americans were COVID-19–related, as were 18.6% of deaths in American Indians/Alaska Natives. Deaths among Asian persons, at 14.7%, and African Americans, at 13.5%, were closer but still above the national figure, while Whites (9.3%) were the only major subgroup below it, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.
Age-adjusted death rates tell a somewhat different story: American Indian/Alaska native persons were highest with a rate of 187.8 COVID-19–associated deaths per 100,000 standard population, with Hispanic persons second at 164.3 per 100,000. Blacks were next at 151.1 deaths per 100,000, but Whites had a higher rate (72.5) than did Asian Americans (66.7), the CDC investigators reported.
“During January-December 2020, the estimated 2020 age-adjusted death rate increased for the first time since 2017, with an increase of 15.9% compared with 2019, from 715.2 to 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population,” they wrote, noting that “certain categories of race (i.e., AI/AN and Asian) and Hispanic ethnicity reported on death certificates might have been misclassified, possibly resulting in underestimates of death rates for some groups.”
COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, but that mortality burden did not fall evenly along racial/ethnic lines, according to a provisional report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Only heart disease and cancer caused more deaths than SARS-CoV-2, which took the lives of almost 378,000 Americans last year, Farida B. Ahmad, MPH, and associates at the National Center for Health Statistics noted March 31 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
That represents 11.2% of the almost 3.36 million total deaths recorded in 2020. The racial/ethnics demographics, however, show that 22.4% of all deaths among Hispanic Americans were COVID-19–related, as were 18.6% of deaths in American Indians/Alaska Natives. Deaths among Asian persons, at 14.7%, and African Americans, at 13.5%, were closer but still above the national figure, while Whites (9.3%) were the only major subgroup below it, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.
Age-adjusted death rates tell a somewhat different story: American Indian/Alaska native persons were highest with a rate of 187.8 COVID-19–associated deaths per 100,000 standard population, with Hispanic persons second at 164.3 per 100,000. Blacks were next at 151.1 deaths per 100,000, but Whites had a higher rate (72.5) than did Asian Americans (66.7), the CDC investigators reported.
“During January-December 2020, the estimated 2020 age-adjusted death rate increased for the first time since 2017, with an increase of 15.9% compared with 2019, from 715.2 to 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population,” they wrote, noting that “certain categories of race (i.e., AI/AN and Asian) and Hispanic ethnicity reported on death certificates might have been misclassified, possibly resulting in underestimates of death rates for some groups.”
COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, but that mortality burden did not fall evenly along racial/ethnic lines, according to a provisional report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Only heart disease and cancer caused more deaths than SARS-CoV-2, which took the lives of almost 378,000 Americans last year, Farida B. Ahmad, MPH, and associates at the National Center for Health Statistics noted March 31 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
That represents 11.2% of the almost 3.36 million total deaths recorded in 2020. The racial/ethnics demographics, however, show that 22.4% of all deaths among Hispanic Americans were COVID-19–related, as were 18.6% of deaths in American Indians/Alaska Natives. Deaths among Asian persons, at 14.7%, and African Americans, at 13.5%, were closer but still above the national figure, while Whites (9.3%) were the only major subgroup below it, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.
Age-adjusted death rates tell a somewhat different story: American Indian/Alaska native persons were highest with a rate of 187.8 COVID-19–associated deaths per 100,000 standard population, with Hispanic persons second at 164.3 per 100,000. Blacks were next at 151.1 deaths per 100,000, but Whites had a higher rate (72.5) than did Asian Americans (66.7), the CDC investigators reported.
“During January-December 2020, the estimated 2020 age-adjusted death rate increased for the first time since 2017, with an increase of 15.9% compared with 2019, from 715.2 to 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population,” they wrote, noting that “certain categories of race (i.e., AI/AN and Asian) and Hispanic ethnicity reported on death certificates might have been misclassified, possibly resulting in underestimates of death rates for some groups.”
FROM MMWR
Study: Good overall survival in older patients after liver transplant for HCC
Judicious organ matching for older liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) leads to survival outcomes similar to those in younger recipients, a case review suggests.
Overall survival (OS) rates among transplant recipients included in a prospective institutional database were 85.5% and 84% at 3 years after liver transplant in patients aged 65 years and under and those over 65 years, respectively. The 5-year survival rates were 73.9% and 77%, respectively (P = .26), Ola Ahmed, MD, of the department of abdominal organ transplantation surgery at Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues found.
The investigators looked at 1,629 patients diagnosed with HCC between Jan. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2019 of whom 700 were considered for curative surgery, including transplant in 538, and resection in 162.
The patients had a mean age of 62.8 years. Those older than 65 years were less likely to be considered or listed for transplant (27% vs. 73%, P < .01), although oncologic staging and delisting rates were similar in both groups. “This observation still holds true after controlling for other variables, including viral hepatitis and gender in the multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.365),” the investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.
The findings were also reported at the 2020 virtual Western Surgical Association 128th Scientific Session in November.
The issue of resection
Surgical intervention occurred in 597 patients, including 392 and 205 aged 65 years and younger and over 65 years, respectively.
OS was lower among patients who underwent resection, compared with the liver transplant recipients, but was similar in the older and younger age groups (3-year OS, 59% vs. 64.8% and 5-year OS, 44.8% vs. 49%; P = .13). No differences were noted in the development of local or distant metastatic disease after transplant or resection.
The two age groups had comparable ICU stays (2 days) and total hospital length of stay (6 days). There were no differences in 30- and 90-day hospital readmissions, they noted.
“On additional age analysis, 65% of transplanted patients over 65 years are currently alive and were disease free at the end of the study period, compared to only 18% of their resected counterparts (P < .01),” they wrote.
Justifying transplant
The findings are notable because despite the effectiveness of transplant as an alternative treatment for unresectable HCC, older patients are often excluded from consideration for transplant. Most studies over the past 15 years have focused on patients aged under 60 years and the ability to extrapolate results to older patients has been limited. Further, results have been conflicting in older patients, the authors explained.
“This is particularly apposite at this time with prolonged life expectancy and the growing interest in improving cancer survivorship,” they noted, adding that “there is logic in challenging existing gold standards and traditional norms with real-life medical practice.
Indeed, the current findings suggest – perhaps contrary to common perceptions – that transplant in carefully selected patients “can be justified in older age groups and provide clinically meaningful and longer survival benefits,” they said, adding that “discussions should be guided by the potential for unfair age discriminations and precise terminology of physiologic rather than actual age.
“Such insights highlight the continued need for quality improvement in the surgical management of older patients, raising questions regarding current resource utilization among different age groups and how age can influence patterns of cancer care,” they concluded.
The authors reported having no disclosures.
Judicious organ matching for older liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) leads to survival outcomes similar to those in younger recipients, a case review suggests.
Overall survival (OS) rates among transplant recipients included in a prospective institutional database were 85.5% and 84% at 3 years after liver transplant in patients aged 65 years and under and those over 65 years, respectively. The 5-year survival rates were 73.9% and 77%, respectively (P = .26), Ola Ahmed, MD, of the department of abdominal organ transplantation surgery at Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues found.
The investigators looked at 1,629 patients diagnosed with HCC between Jan. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2019 of whom 700 were considered for curative surgery, including transplant in 538, and resection in 162.
The patients had a mean age of 62.8 years. Those older than 65 years were less likely to be considered or listed for transplant (27% vs. 73%, P < .01), although oncologic staging and delisting rates were similar in both groups. “This observation still holds true after controlling for other variables, including viral hepatitis and gender in the multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.365),” the investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.
The findings were also reported at the 2020 virtual Western Surgical Association 128th Scientific Session in November.
The issue of resection
Surgical intervention occurred in 597 patients, including 392 and 205 aged 65 years and younger and over 65 years, respectively.
OS was lower among patients who underwent resection, compared with the liver transplant recipients, but was similar in the older and younger age groups (3-year OS, 59% vs. 64.8% and 5-year OS, 44.8% vs. 49%; P = .13). No differences were noted in the development of local or distant metastatic disease after transplant or resection.
The two age groups had comparable ICU stays (2 days) and total hospital length of stay (6 days). There were no differences in 30- and 90-day hospital readmissions, they noted.
“On additional age analysis, 65% of transplanted patients over 65 years are currently alive and were disease free at the end of the study period, compared to only 18% of their resected counterparts (P < .01),” they wrote.
Justifying transplant
The findings are notable because despite the effectiveness of transplant as an alternative treatment for unresectable HCC, older patients are often excluded from consideration for transplant. Most studies over the past 15 years have focused on patients aged under 60 years and the ability to extrapolate results to older patients has been limited. Further, results have been conflicting in older patients, the authors explained.
“This is particularly apposite at this time with prolonged life expectancy and the growing interest in improving cancer survivorship,” they noted, adding that “there is logic in challenging existing gold standards and traditional norms with real-life medical practice.
Indeed, the current findings suggest – perhaps contrary to common perceptions – that transplant in carefully selected patients “can be justified in older age groups and provide clinically meaningful and longer survival benefits,” they said, adding that “discussions should be guided by the potential for unfair age discriminations and precise terminology of physiologic rather than actual age.
“Such insights highlight the continued need for quality improvement in the surgical management of older patients, raising questions regarding current resource utilization among different age groups and how age can influence patterns of cancer care,” they concluded.
The authors reported having no disclosures.
Judicious organ matching for older liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) leads to survival outcomes similar to those in younger recipients, a case review suggests.
Overall survival (OS) rates among transplant recipients included in a prospective institutional database were 85.5% and 84% at 3 years after liver transplant in patients aged 65 years and under and those over 65 years, respectively. The 5-year survival rates were 73.9% and 77%, respectively (P = .26), Ola Ahmed, MD, of the department of abdominal organ transplantation surgery at Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues found.
The investigators looked at 1,629 patients diagnosed with HCC between Jan. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2019 of whom 700 were considered for curative surgery, including transplant in 538, and resection in 162.
The patients had a mean age of 62.8 years. Those older than 65 years were less likely to be considered or listed for transplant (27% vs. 73%, P < .01), although oncologic staging and delisting rates were similar in both groups. “This observation still holds true after controlling for other variables, including viral hepatitis and gender in the multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.365),” the investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.
The findings were also reported at the 2020 virtual Western Surgical Association 128th Scientific Session in November.
The issue of resection
Surgical intervention occurred in 597 patients, including 392 and 205 aged 65 years and younger and over 65 years, respectively.
OS was lower among patients who underwent resection, compared with the liver transplant recipients, but was similar in the older and younger age groups (3-year OS, 59% vs. 64.8% and 5-year OS, 44.8% vs. 49%; P = .13). No differences were noted in the development of local or distant metastatic disease after transplant or resection.
The two age groups had comparable ICU stays (2 days) and total hospital length of stay (6 days). There were no differences in 30- and 90-day hospital readmissions, they noted.
“On additional age analysis, 65% of transplanted patients over 65 years are currently alive and were disease free at the end of the study period, compared to only 18% of their resected counterparts (P < .01),” they wrote.
Justifying transplant
The findings are notable because despite the effectiveness of transplant as an alternative treatment for unresectable HCC, older patients are often excluded from consideration for transplant. Most studies over the past 15 years have focused on patients aged under 60 years and the ability to extrapolate results to older patients has been limited. Further, results have been conflicting in older patients, the authors explained.
“This is particularly apposite at this time with prolonged life expectancy and the growing interest in improving cancer survivorship,” they noted, adding that “there is logic in challenging existing gold standards and traditional norms with real-life medical practice.
Indeed, the current findings suggest – perhaps contrary to common perceptions – that transplant in carefully selected patients “can be justified in older age groups and provide clinically meaningful and longer survival benefits,” they said, adding that “discussions should be guided by the potential for unfair age discriminations and precise terminology of physiologic rather than actual age.
“Such insights highlight the continued need for quality improvement in the surgical management of older patients, raising questions regarding current resource utilization among different age groups and how age can influence patterns of cancer care,” they concluded.
The authors reported having no disclosures.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS
Steroids can be stopped in some older multiple myeloma patients
For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.
At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.
The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.
“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.
She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”
This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”
The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
Curtailing steroids
Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.
In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.
The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.
S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”
He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.
“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
Improved event-free survival
In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.
The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.
The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.
With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)
The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).
Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).
Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).
The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.
At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.
The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.
“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.
She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”
This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”
The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
Curtailing steroids
Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.
In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.
The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.
S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”
He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.
“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
Improved event-free survival
In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.
The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.
The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.
With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)
The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).
Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).
Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).
The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.
At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.
The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.
“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.
She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”
This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”
The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
Curtailing steroids
Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.
In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.
The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.
S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”
He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.
“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
Improved event-free survival
In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.
The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.
The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.
With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)
The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).
Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).
Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).
The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mishap ruins millions of J&J COVID vaccine doses
About 15 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine were ruined after workers at a manufacturing plant mixed up ingredients, The New York Times reported.
The Baltimore plant is operated by a company called Emergent BioSolutions, the Times said. The company works with both Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca.
The mistake has stopped shipments of the vaccine until the FDA investigates, the paper said. The mishap, however, does not affect doses of the J&J one-shot vaccine already delivered and being used.
The problem is that tens of millions of doses were supposed to come from the Baltimore plant.
The Associated Press reported that Emergent has had numerous problems with the FDA, with the agency citing the company for poorly trained employees, cracked vials and mold.
The records cover inspections at Emergent facilities, including Bayview, since 2017. Following a December 2017 inspection at an Emergent plant in Canton, Massachusetts, the FDA said the company hadn’t corrected “continued low level mold and yeast isolates” found in the facility. Nearly a year later, agency investigators questioned why Emergent had “an unwritten policy of not conducting routine compliance audits” at a separate plant in Baltimore, known as Camden, where an anthrax vaccine is filled into vials.
Meanwhile, in a statement, Johnson & Johnson said its own quality control process identified the problem in one batch of ingredients. The company said the Emergent plant in Baltimore is “not yet authorized to manufacture drug substance for our COVID-19 vaccine. This batch was never advanced to the filling and finishing stages of our manufacturing process.”
The company said it plans to still seek emergency use authorization for a different Emergent facility and will provide more experts on site at Emergent.
The Times reports that President Joe Biden’s team still believes the administration can meet its commitment to have enough vaccine doses to immunize every adult by the end of May.
Johnson & Johnson said it still plans to deliver an additional 24 million doses through April.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
This article was updated 4/1/21.
About 15 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine were ruined after workers at a manufacturing plant mixed up ingredients, The New York Times reported.
The Baltimore plant is operated by a company called Emergent BioSolutions, the Times said. The company works with both Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca.
The mistake has stopped shipments of the vaccine until the FDA investigates, the paper said. The mishap, however, does not affect doses of the J&J one-shot vaccine already delivered and being used.
The problem is that tens of millions of doses were supposed to come from the Baltimore plant.
The Associated Press reported that Emergent has had numerous problems with the FDA, with the agency citing the company for poorly trained employees, cracked vials and mold.
The records cover inspections at Emergent facilities, including Bayview, since 2017. Following a December 2017 inspection at an Emergent plant in Canton, Massachusetts, the FDA said the company hadn’t corrected “continued low level mold and yeast isolates” found in the facility. Nearly a year later, agency investigators questioned why Emergent had “an unwritten policy of not conducting routine compliance audits” at a separate plant in Baltimore, known as Camden, where an anthrax vaccine is filled into vials.
Meanwhile, in a statement, Johnson & Johnson said its own quality control process identified the problem in one batch of ingredients. The company said the Emergent plant in Baltimore is “not yet authorized to manufacture drug substance for our COVID-19 vaccine. This batch was never advanced to the filling and finishing stages of our manufacturing process.”
The company said it plans to still seek emergency use authorization for a different Emergent facility and will provide more experts on site at Emergent.
The Times reports that President Joe Biden’s team still believes the administration can meet its commitment to have enough vaccine doses to immunize every adult by the end of May.
Johnson & Johnson said it still plans to deliver an additional 24 million doses through April.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
This article was updated 4/1/21.
About 15 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine were ruined after workers at a manufacturing plant mixed up ingredients, The New York Times reported.
The Baltimore plant is operated by a company called Emergent BioSolutions, the Times said. The company works with both Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca.
The mistake has stopped shipments of the vaccine until the FDA investigates, the paper said. The mishap, however, does not affect doses of the J&J one-shot vaccine already delivered and being used.
The problem is that tens of millions of doses were supposed to come from the Baltimore plant.
The Associated Press reported that Emergent has had numerous problems with the FDA, with the agency citing the company for poorly trained employees, cracked vials and mold.
The records cover inspections at Emergent facilities, including Bayview, since 2017. Following a December 2017 inspection at an Emergent plant in Canton, Massachusetts, the FDA said the company hadn’t corrected “continued low level mold and yeast isolates” found in the facility. Nearly a year later, agency investigators questioned why Emergent had “an unwritten policy of not conducting routine compliance audits” at a separate plant in Baltimore, known as Camden, where an anthrax vaccine is filled into vials.
Meanwhile, in a statement, Johnson & Johnson said its own quality control process identified the problem in one batch of ingredients. The company said the Emergent plant in Baltimore is “not yet authorized to manufacture drug substance for our COVID-19 vaccine. This batch was never advanced to the filling and finishing stages of our manufacturing process.”
The company said it plans to still seek emergency use authorization for a different Emergent facility and will provide more experts on site at Emergent.
The Times reports that President Joe Biden’s team still believes the administration can meet its commitment to have enough vaccine doses to immunize every adult by the end of May.
Johnson & Johnson said it still plans to deliver an additional 24 million doses through April.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
This article was updated 4/1/21.
Ob.Gyn. giant Dr. Charles Hammond dies
Ob.Gyn. News acknowledges the passing of Charles B. Hammond, MD, a longtime editorial board member, who died on Feb. 1, 2021.
Dr. Hammond served on the Ob.Gyn. News Advisory Board for 33 years. His service as a board member was one of many leadership roles to which he dedicated his time and expertise. Dr. Hammond served as president of the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ACOG) from 2002 to 2003, and received a Lifetime Achievement Award from ACOG in 2015. He also served as president of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, president of the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society, and president of the North Carolina Obstetrical and Gynecological Society.
Dr. Hammond was honored by Duke University, Durham, N.C., as E.C. Hamblen Professor Emeritus in 2010, after more than 40 years in academia. He held the title of Edwin Crowell Hamblen Distinguished Professor of Reproductive Biology and Family Planning and Chair of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology from 1980 to 2002. During this time, he distinguished himself for his work in pioneering treatments for gestational trophoblastic disease. As an extension of this research, he was a founder of the Southeast Regional Trophoblastic Disease Center. In addition, Dr. Hammond was often consulted for his expertise on issues related to menopause and hormone replacement therapy.
Dr. Hammond began his medical career at Duke University after graduating from The Citadel with a bachelor of science degree in 1958. After earning his medical degree in 1961, he remained at Duke as a resident in obstetrics and gynecology, followed by completion of a fellowship in reproductive endocrinology in 1964. From 1964 to 1966, he served at the National Institutes of Health as a fellow in the National Cancer Institute and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
A few years later, in 1969, Dr. Hammond launched his long and distinguished academic career with an assistant professor position in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at Duke.
Dr. Hammond’s many honors include a National Association for Women’s Health Lifetime Achievement Award and membership in the Institute of Medicine, now the National Academy of Medicine. He also was named a fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and an honorary member of the Canadian Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Dr. Hammond will be remembered not only as a physician, researcher, educator, and mentor, but also an advocate for women’s health.
Ob.Gyn. News acknowledges the passing of Charles B. Hammond, MD, a longtime editorial board member, who died on Feb. 1, 2021.
Dr. Hammond served on the Ob.Gyn. News Advisory Board for 33 years. His service as a board member was one of many leadership roles to which he dedicated his time and expertise. Dr. Hammond served as president of the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ACOG) from 2002 to 2003, and received a Lifetime Achievement Award from ACOG in 2015. He also served as president of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, president of the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society, and president of the North Carolina Obstetrical and Gynecological Society.
Dr. Hammond was honored by Duke University, Durham, N.C., as E.C. Hamblen Professor Emeritus in 2010, after more than 40 years in academia. He held the title of Edwin Crowell Hamblen Distinguished Professor of Reproductive Biology and Family Planning and Chair of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology from 1980 to 2002. During this time, he distinguished himself for his work in pioneering treatments for gestational trophoblastic disease. As an extension of this research, he was a founder of the Southeast Regional Trophoblastic Disease Center. In addition, Dr. Hammond was often consulted for his expertise on issues related to menopause and hormone replacement therapy.
Dr. Hammond began his medical career at Duke University after graduating from The Citadel with a bachelor of science degree in 1958. After earning his medical degree in 1961, he remained at Duke as a resident in obstetrics and gynecology, followed by completion of a fellowship in reproductive endocrinology in 1964. From 1964 to 1966, he served at the National Institutes of Health as a fellow in the National Cancer Institute and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
A few years later, in 1969, Dr. Hammond launched his long and distinguished academic career with an assistant professor position in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at Duke.
Dr. Hammond’s many honors include a National Association for Women’s Health Lifetime Achievement Award and membership in the Institute of Medicine, now the National Academy of Medicine. He also was named a fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and an honorary member of the Canadian Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Dr. Hammond will be remembered not only as a physician, researcher, educator, and mentor, but also an advocate for women’s health.
Ob.Gyn. News acknowledges the passing of Charles B. Hammond, MD, a longtime editorial board member, who died on Feb. 1, 2021.
Dr. Hammond served on the Ob.Gyn. News Advisory Board for 33 years. His service as a board member was one of many leadership roles to which he dedicated his time and expertise. Dr. Hammond served as president of the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ACOG) from 2002 to 2003, and received a Lifetime Achievement Award from ACOG in 2015. He also served as president of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, president of the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society, and president of the North Carolina Obstetrical and Gynecological Society.
Dr. Hammond was honored by Duke University, Durham, N.C., as E.C. Hamblen Professor Emeritus in 2010, after more than 40 years in academia. He held the title of Edwin Crowell Hamblen Distinguished Professor of Reproductive Biology and Family Planning and Chair of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology from 1980 to 2002. During this time, he distinguished himself for his work in pioneering treatments for gestational trophoblastic disease. As an extension of this research, he was a founder of the Southeast Regional Trophoblastic Disease Center. In addition, Dr. Hammond was often consulted for his expertise on issues related to menopause and hormone replacement therapy.
Dr. Hammond began his medical career at Duke University after graduating from The Citadel with a bachelor of science degree in 1958. After earning his medical degree in 1961, he remained at Duke as a resident in obstetrics and gynecology, followed by completion of a fellowship in reproductive endocrinology in 1964. From 1964 to 1966, he served at the National Institutes of Health as a fellow in the National Cancer Institute and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
A few years later, in 1969, Dr. Hammond launched his long and distinguished academic career with an assistant professor position in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at Duke.
Dr. Hammond’s many honors include a National Association for Women’s Health Lifetime Achievement Award and membership in the Institute of Medicine, now the National Academy of Medicine. He also was named a fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and an honorary member of the Canadian Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Dr. Hammond will be remembered not only as a physician, researcher, educator, and mentor, but also an advocate for women’s health.
Children could become eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine by fall, expert predicts
If everything goes as planned,
According to Yvonne Maldonado, MD, Pfizer has fully enrolled adolescent trials and Moderna is currently enrolling 3,000 adolescents in a safety and reactogenicity trial known as TeenCOVE, in which participants will receive an intramuscular injection of 100 mcg mRNA-1273 on day 1 and on day 29. Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca will be starting to enroll older children and adolescents into studies within the next several weeks.
The companies are also planning to enroll younger children, Dr. Maldonado, the Taube professor of global health and infectious diseases at Stanford (Calif.) University, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “At least two of the vaccine companies have indicated that they would like to start enrolling children as young as 2-5 years of age and eventually getting down to infants and toddlers if the vaccines prove to be safe and effective in the older children. Eventually, we hope to get to the level where we can have several vaccine candidates for all children 6 months of age and older.”
In the future, she said, infectious disease experts hope to see antiviral, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and monoclonal therapies for all populations including children, although trials in this population have not begun. “Clinical trials must be flexible and adaptive to deal with children and adolescents,” added Dr. Maldonado, who is also senior associate dean for faculty development and diversity at Stanford.
“We would ideally like to have new correlates of protection, as well as biomarkers to follow for evidence of effectiveness. We also would love to see vaccines in the pediatric population as soon as possible, because herd immunity is the ultimate goal for protection against this disease and prevention of additional transmission over time.” However, she said, the degree and durability of immunity has yet to be determined, and vaccine-associated immune effects are unknown. In the meantime, infectious disease researchers expect nonpharmacologic interventions, such as wearing face masks and social distancing to continue for an undefined period.
(Less than 2 weeks after Dr. Maldonado spoke at the SPD meeting, Pfizer announced in a press release that, in phase 3 clinical trials, the company’s coronavirus vaccine was 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, with a “robust” antibody responses and side effects similar to those experienced by those aged 16-25 years. The company also announced that it plans to seek Food and Drug Administration EUA for this age group. Asked to comment on this update, Dr. Maldonado said the results released by Pfizer “suggest that their COVID-19 vaccine is very safe and highly effective in preventing COVID-19 among children 12-15 years of age.” She added that additional data from the Pfizer trials as well as from Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccine trials “will hopefully lead to FDA EUA review in the coming weeks,” and that COVID-19 vaccinations for children “may be possible by this summer.”)
Children with underlying diseases or on immune suppressants
At the SPD meeting, an attendee asked if there were any pediatric patients for whom she would not recommend receiving a COVID-19 vaccine because of an underlying disease or concurrent therapy with immune suppressants. “We don’t have those data yet,” Dr. Maldonado said. “Based on what we’re seeing with adults, it does appear that those with underlying conditions are at somewhat higher risk of developing severe infection and may therefore most likely to need vaccination. Most of those risks are cardiovascular, obesity, and other factors, but not necessarily immunocompromising conditions. More likely what we’re seeing is that people with underlying immunocompromising conditions may not mount a good response to the vaccines at this time. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give the vaccines, but we need to learn more about that.”
Dr. Maldonado went on to note that, as vaccine manufacturers commence pediatric trials, healthy children will be tested first, followed in due time with children who have immunocompromised conditions. “The question will be whether or not we should give monoclonal antibodies to those particular children to help boost their immunity to SARS-CoV-2, because they might not have a good response to the vaccines,” she said. “Those things need to be sorted out, but there’s no safety signal or concerns at this point for vaccine to be given to immunocompromised individuals.”
Another meeting attendee asked Dr. Maldonado if she thinks there is a practical role for assessing markers of T-cell immunity when evaluating suspected COVID-19 patients who may test negative on serology, Dr. Maldonado said that she and her colleagues are seeking pediatric patients who were treated for COVID-19 at Stanford, in an effort to sort this out.
They are checking peripheral blood mononuclear cells in these patients “to try and tease out what the immune response is in kids who have serious disease, versus those who came in with acute disease, versus those who are asymptomatic,” and comparing them with children who don’t have infection, she explained. “The question is, what is the role of T cells and how much do they contribute? One of the biggest questions we have is, do we have an immune correlate? Can we detect a particular level of neutralizing antibody that seems to be protective? If so, how long is it protective, and can we look for T- and B-cell memory cells and effector vector cells and see how long those effector vector cells can be active in protection? Those are studies that are ongoing now.”
Dr. Maldonado disclosed that she is a member of the data safety monitoring board for a non–COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Pfizer.
If everything goes as planned,
According to Yvonne Maldonado, MD, Pfizer has fully enrolled adolescent trials and Moderna is currently enrolling 3,000 adolescents in a safety and reactogenicity trial known as TeenCOVE, in which participants will receive an intramuscular injection of 100 mcg mRNA-1273 on day 1 and on day 29. Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca will be starting to enroll older children and adolescents into studies within the next several weeks.
The companies are also planning to enroll younger children, Dr. Maldonado, the Taube professor of global health and infectious diseases at Stanford (Calif.) University, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “At least two of the vaccine companies have indicated that they would like to start enrolling children as young as 2-5 years of age and eventually getting down to infants and toddlers if the vaccines prove to be safe and effective in the older children. Eventually, we hope to get to the level where we can have several vaccine candidates for all children 6 months of age and older.”
In the future, she said, infectious disease experts hope to see antiviral, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and monoclonal therapies for all populations including children, although trials in this population have not begun. “Clinical trials must be flexible and adaptive to deal with children and adolescents,” added Dr. Maldonado, who is also senior associate dean for faculty development and diversity at Stanford.
“We would ideally like to have new correlates of protection, as well as biomarkers to follow for evidence of effectiveness. We also would love to see vaccines in the pediatric population as soon as possible, because herd immunity is the ultimate goal for protection against this disease and prevention of additional transmission over time.” However, she said, the degree and durability of immunity has yet to be determined, and vaccine-associated immune effects are unknown. In the meantime, infectious disease researchers expect nonpharmacologic interventions, such as wearing face masks and social distancing to continue for an undefined period.
(Less than 2 weeks after Dr. Maldonado spoke at the SPD meeting, Pfizer announced in a press release that, in phase 3 clinical trials, the company’s coronavirus vaccine was 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, with a “robust” antibody responses and side effects similar to those experienced by those aged 16-25 years. The company also announced that it plans to seek Food and Drug Administration EUA for this age group. Asked to comment on this update, Dr. Maldonado said the results released by Pfizer “suggest that their COVID-19 vaccine is very safe and highly effective in preventing COVID-19 among children 12-15 years of age.” She added that additional data from the Pfizer trials as well as from Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccine trials “will hopefully lead to FDA EUA review in the coming weeks,” and that COVID-19 vaccinations for children “may be possible by this summer.”)
Children with underlying diseases or on immune suppressants
At the SPD meeting, an attendee asked if there were any pediatric patients for whom she would not recommend receiving a COVID-19 vaccine because of an underlying disease or concurrent therapy with immune suppressants. “We don’t have those data yet,” Dr. Maldonado said. “Based on what we’re seeing with adults, it does appear that those with underlying conditions are at somewhat higher risk of developing severe infection and may therefore most likely to need vaccination. Most of those risks are cardiovascular, obesity, and other factors, but not necessarily immunocompromising conditions. More likely what we’re seeing is that people with underlying immunocompromising conditions may not mount a good response to the vaccines at this time. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give the vaccines, but we need to learn more about that.”
Dr. Maldonado went on to note that, as vaccine manufacturers commence pediatric trials, healthy children will be tested first, followed in due time with children who have immunocompromised conditions. “The question will be whether or not we should give monoclonal antibodies to those particular children to help boost their immunity to SARS-CoV-2, because they might not have a good response to the vaccines,” she said. “Those things need to be sorted out, but there’s no safety signal or concerns at this point for vaccine to be given to immunocompromised individuals.”
Another meeting attendee asked Dr. Maldonado if she thinks there is a practical role for assessing markers of T-cell immunity when evaluating suspected COVID-19 patients who may test negative on serology, Dr. Maldonado said that she and her colleagues are seeking pediatric patients who were treated for COVID-19 at Stanford, in an effort to sort this out.
They are checking peripheral blood mononuclear cells in these patients “to try and tease out what the immune response is in kids who have serious disease, versus those who came in with acute disease, versus those who are asymptomatic,” and comparing them with children who don’t have infection, she explained. “The question is, what is the role of T cells and how much do they contribute? One of the biggest questions we have is, do we have an immune correlate? Can we detect a particular level of neutralizing antibody that seems to be protective? If so, how long is it protective, and can we look for T- and B-cell memory cells and effector vector cells and see how long those effector vector cells can be active in protection? Those are studies that are ongoing now.”
Dr. Maldonado disclosed that she is a member of the data safety monitoring board for a non–COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Pfizer.
If everything goes as planned,
According to Yvonne Maldonado, MD, Pfizer has fully enrolled adolescent trials and Moderna is currently enrolling 3,000 adolescents in a safety and reactogenicity trial known as TeenCOVE, in which participants will receive an intramuscular injection of 100 mcg mRNA-1273 on day 1 and on day 29. Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca will be starting to enroll older children and adolescents into studies within the next several weeks.
The companies are also planning to enroll younger children, Dr. Maldonado, the Taube professor of global health and infectious diseases at Stanford (Calif.) University, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “At least two of the vaccine companies have indicated that they would like to start enrolling children as young as 2-5 years of age and eventually getting down to infants and toddlers if the vaccines prove to be safe and effective in the older children. Eventually, we hope to get to the level where we can have several vaccine candidates for all children 6 months of age and older.”
In the future, she said, infectious disease experts hope to see antiviral, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and monoclonal therapies for all populations including children, although trials in this population have not begun. “Clinical trials must be flexible and adaptive to deal with children and adolescents,” added Dr. Maldonado, who is also senior associate dean for faculty development and diversity at Stanford.
“We would ideally like to have new correlates of protection, as well as biomarkers to follow for evidence of effectiveness. We also would love to see vaccines in the pediatric population as soon as possible, because herd immunity is the ultimate goal for protection against this disease and prevention of additional transmission over time.” However, she said, the degree and durability of immunity has yet to be determined, and vaccine-associated immune effects are unknown. In the meantime, infectious disease researchers expect nonpharmacologic interventions, such as wearing face masks and social distancing to continue for an undefined period.
(Less than 2 weeks after Dr. Maldonado spoke at the SPD meeting, Pfizer announced in a press release that, in phase 3 clinical trials, the company’s coronavirus vaccine was 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, with a “robust” antibody responses and side effects similar to those experienced by those aged 16-25 years. The company also announced that it plans to seek Food and Drug Administration EUA for this age group. Asked to comment on this update, Dr. Maldonado said the results released by Pfizer “suggest that their COVID-19 vaccine is very safe and highly effective in preventing COVID-19 among children 12-15 years of age.” She added that additional data from the Pfizer trials as well as from Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccine trials “will hopefully lead to FDA EUA review in the coming weeks,” and that COVID-19 vaccinations for children “may be possible by this summer.”)
Children with underlying diseases or on immune suppressants
At the SPD meeting, an attendee asked if there were any pediatric patients for whom she would not recommend receiving a COVID-19 vaccine because of an underlying disease or concurrent therapy with immune suppressants. “We don’t have those data yet,” Dr. Maldonado said. “Based on what we’re seeing with adults, it does appear that those with underlying conditions are at somewhat higher risk of developing severe infection and may therefore most likely to need vaccination. Most of those risks are cardiovascular, obesity, and other factors, but not necessarily immunocompromising conditions. More likely what we’re seeing is that people with underlying immunocompromising conditions may not mount a good response to the vaccines at this time. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give the vaccines, but we need to learn more about that.”
Dr. Maldonado went on to note that, as vaccine manufacturers commence pediatric trials, healthy children will be tested first, followed in due time with children who have immunocompromised conditions. “The question will be whether or not we should give monoclonal antibodies to those particular children to help boost their immunity to SARS-CoV-2, because they might not have a good response to the vaccines,” she said. “Those things need to be sorted out, but there’s no safety signal or concerns at this point for vaccine to be given to immunocompromised individuals.”
Another meeting attendee asked Dr. Maldonado if she thinks there is a practical role for assessing markers of T-cell immunity when evaluating suspected COVID-19 patients who may test negative on serology, Dr. Maldonado said that she and her colleagues are seeking pediatric patients who were treated for COVID-19 at Stanford, in an effort to sort this out.
They are checking peripheral blood mononuclear cells in these patients “to try and tease out what the immune response is in kids who have serious disease, versus those who came in with acute disease, versus those who are asymptomatic,” and comparing them with children who don’t have infection, she explained. “The question is, what is the role of T cells and how much do they contribute? One of the biggest questions we have is, do we have an immune correlate? Can we detect a particular level of neutralizing antibody that seems to be protective? If so, how long is it protective, and can we look for T- and B-cell memory cells and effector vector cells and see how long those effector vector cells can be active in protection? Those are studies that are ongoing now.”
Dr. Maldonado disclosed that she is a member of the data safety monitoring board for a non–COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Pfizer.
FROM THE SPD PRE-AAD MEETING
Detroit cardiologists prevail in retaliation suit against Tenet
After losing at arbitration, as well as in federal court and partially on appeal, Tenet Healthcare is refusing to comment on whether it will continue to battle two Detroit-area cardiologists whom the hospital corporation fired from leadership positions in 2018.
The cardiologists were awarded $10.6 million from an arbitrator, who found that Detroit Medical Center (DMC) and its parent, Tenet, retaliated against Amir Kaki, MD, and Mahir Elder, MD, when the doctors repeatedly reported concerns about patient safety and potential fraud.
The award was made public when it was upheld in federal court in February 2021 and was partially upheld on appeal days later by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Tenet’s motion to bar Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder from returning to work with full privileges but said it would continue to consider the overall appeal. Tenet argued that it needed to keep the cardiologists out of DMC because of “behavioral issues.”
Those allegations are “complete nonsense,” said the cardiologists’ attorney, Deborah Gordon, of Bloomfield Hills, Mich. The alleged problems regarding Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder were examined by an arbitrator, who “found that all of those complaints were unsubstantiated,” Ms. Gordon said in an interview.
In her final ruling, arbitrator Mary Beth Kelly wrote, “Both Kaki and Elder testified credibly regarding the humiliation, the emotional distress and the reputational damage they have suffered to their national reputations.”
A spokesperson for Tenet and DMC said the organizations had no further comment.
Ms. Gordon said she believes it’s unlikely Tenet will prevail in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, noting that the court already had examined the merits of the case to determine whether Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder could go back to work. In the court’s opinion, shared in an interview, nothing substantive in Tenet’s appeal prevented the doctors from returning to the hospital, she said.
As of now, both cardiologists have 1 year of privileges at the DMC-affiliated hospitals. Only Dr. Kaki has returned to work, said Ms. Gordon. Neither is speaking to the media, she said.
From respected to reviled
Both Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder were respected at DMC, according to court filings.
Dr. Kaki was recruited from Weill Cornell Medical College by a Detroit mayor because of his expertise in interventional cardiology. He had staff privileges at DMC beginning in 2012 and was a clinical associate professor and assistant program director of the interventional cardiology fellowship program at Wayne State University in Detroit. He became director of the cardiac catheterization services unit at the new DMC Heart Hospital at Harper-Hutzel Hospital in Detroit in 2014, and 4 years later was appointed director of the facility’s anticoagulation clinic. Dr. Kaki was nominated for and completed Tenet’s Leadership Academy.
Dr. Elder was a clinical professor and assistant fellowship director at Wayne State and was a clinical professor of medicine at Michigan State University. Beginning in 2008, he held directorships at DMC’s cardiac care unit, ambulatory services program, cardiac CT angiogram program, PERT program, and carotid stenting program. Dr. Elder was voted Teacher of the Year for 10 consecutive years by DMC cardiology fellows.
The two doctors aimed high when it came to quality of care and ethics, according to legal filings. Over the years, Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder repeatedly reported what they considered to be egregious violations of patient safety and of Medicare and Medicaid fraud laws. The clinicians complained about unsterile surgical instruments and the removal of a stat laboratory from the cardiac catheterization unit, noting that the removal would cause delays that would endanger lives.
At peer review meetings, as well as with administrators, they flagged colleagues who they said were performing unnecessary or dangerous procedures solely to generate revenue. At least one doctor falsified records of such a procedure after a patient died, alleged Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder.
Tenet hired outside attorneys in the fall of 2018, telling Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder that the legal team would investigate their complaints. However, the investigation was a sham: Filings allege that the investigation was used instead to build a case against Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder and that Tenet leadership used the inquiry to pressure the cardiologists to resign.
They refused, and in October 2018, they were fired from their leadership positions. DMC and Tenet then held a press conference in which they said that Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder had been dismissed for “violations” of the “Tenet Standards of Conduct.”
Cardiologists push back
Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder, however, were not willing to just walk away. They sought reinstatement through an internal DMC appeals panel of their peers. The clinicians who participated on that panel ruled that neither firing was justified.
But DMC’s governing board voted in April 2020 to deny privileges to both cardiologists.
Tenet continued a campaign of retaliation, according to legal filings, by not paying the clinicians for being on call, by removing them from peer review committees, and by prohibiting them from teaching or giving lectures. DMC refused to give Dr. Kaki his personnel record, stating that he was never an employee when he was in the leadership position. Dr. Kaki sued, and a Wayne County Circuit Court judge granted his motion to get his file. DMC and Tenet appealed that ruling but lost.
Eventually, Ms. Gordon sued DMC and Tenet in federal court, alleging the hospital retaliated against the cardiologists, interfered with their ability to earn a living by disparaging them, refused to renew their privileges in 2019, and committed violations under multiple federal and state statutes, including the False Claims Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Tenet successfully argued that the case should go to arbitration.
Arbitrator Mary Beth Kelly, though, ruled in December 2020 that the vast majority of the complaints compiled against the two physicians in the external investigation were not verified or supported and that Tenet and DMC had retaliated against Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder.
For that harm, Ms. Kelly awarded each clinician $1 million, according to the final ruling shared in an interview.
In addition, she awarded Dr. Kaki $2.3 million in back pay and 2 years of front pay (slightly more than $1 million). She awarded Dr. Elder $2.3 million in back pay and $2.1 million in front pay for 4 years, noting that “his strong association with DMC may make it more difficult for him to successfully transition into the situation he enjoyed prior to termination and nonrenewal.”
The clinicians also were awarded legal fees of $623,816 and court costs of $110,673.
“Wholesale retrial”
To secure the award, Ms. Gordon had to seek a ruling from the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan. Tenet asked that court to overturn the arbitrator’s award and to keep it sealed from public view.
In his February ruling, Judge Arthur J. Tarnow wrote that Tenet and DMC “not only attempt to relitigate the legal issues, but also endeavor to introduce a factual counternarrative unmoored from the findings of the Arbitrator and including evidence which the Arbitrator specifically found inadmissible.
“By seeking a wholesale retrial of their case after forcing plaintiffs to arbitrate in the first place,” Tenet and DMC basically ignored the goal of arbitration, which is to relieve judicial congestion and provide a faster and cheaper alternative to litigation, he wrote.
Judge Tarnow also warned Tenet and DMC against taking too long to reinstate privileges for Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder. If they “continue to delay the restoration of plaintiffs’ privileges in the hopes of a different result on appeal, they will be in violation of this Order,” said the judge.
Tenet, however, tried one more avenue to block the cardiologists from getting privileges, appealing to the Sixth Circuit, which again ordered the company to grant the 1-year privileges.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After losing at arbitration, as well as in federal court and partially on appeal, Tenet Healthcare is refusing to comment on whether it will continue to battle two Detroit-area cardiologists whom the hospital corporation fired from leadership positions in 2018.
The cardiologists were awarded $10.6 million from an arbitrator, who found that Detroit Medical Center (DMC) and its parent, Tenet, retaliated against Amir Kaki, MD, and Mahir Elder, MD, when the doctors repeatedly reported concerns about patient safety and potential fraud.
The award was made public when it was upheld in federal court in February 2021 and was partially upheld on appeal days later by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Tenet’s motion to bar Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder from returning to work with full privileges but said it would continue to consider the overall appeal. Tenet argued that it needed to keep the cardiologists out of DMC because of “behavioral issues.”
Those allegations are “complete nonsense,” said the cardiologists’ attorney, Deborah Gordon, of Bloomfield Hills, Mich. The alleged problems regarding Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder were examined by an arbitrator, who “found that all of those complaints were unsubstantiated,” Ms. Gordon said in an interview.
In her final ruling, arbitrator Mary Beth Kelly wrote, “Both Kaki and Elder testified credibly regarding the humiliation, the emotional distress and the reputational damage they have suffered to their national reputations.”
A spokesperson for Tenet and DMC said the organizations had no further comment.
Ms. Gordon said she believes it’s unlikely Tenet will prevail in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, noting that the court already had examined the merits of the case to determine whether Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder could go back to work. In the court’s opinion, shared in an interview, nothing substantive in Tenet’s appeal prevented the doctors from returning to the hospital, she said.
As of now, both cardiologists have 1 year of privileges at the DMC-affiliated hospitals. Only Dr. Kaki has returned to work, said Ms. Gordon. Neither is speaking to the media, she said.
From respected to reviled
Both Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder were respected at DMC, according to court filings.
Dr. Kaki was recruited from Weill Cornell Medical College by a Detroit mayor because of his expertise in interventional cardiology. He had staff privileges at DMC beginning in 2012 and was a clinical associate professor and assistant program director of the interventional cardiology fellowship program at Wayne State University in Detroit. He became director of the cardiac catheterization services unit at the new DMC Heart Hospital at Harper-Hutzel Hospital in Detroit in 2014, and 4 years later was appointed director of the facility’s anticoagulation clinic. Dr. Kaki was nominated for and completed Tenet’s Leadership Academy.
Dr. Elder was a clinical professor and assistant fellowship director at Wayne State and was a clinical professor of medicine at Michigan State University. Beginning in 2008, he held directorships at DMC’s cardiac care unit, ambulatory services program, cardiac CT angiogram program, PERT program, and carotid stenting program. Dr. Elder was voted Teacher of the Year for 10 consecutive years by DMC cardiology fellows.
The two doctors aimed high when it came to quality of care and ethics, according to legal filings. Over the years, Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder repeatedly reported what they considered to be egregious violations of patient safety and of Medicare and Medicaid fraud laws. The clinicians complained about unsterile surgical instruments and the removal of a stat laboratory from the cardiac catheterization unit, noting that the removal would cause delays that would endanger lives.
At peer review meetings, as well as with administrators, they flagged colleagues who they said were performing unnecessary or dangerous procedures solely to generate revenue. At least one doctor falsified records of such a procedure after a patient died, alleged Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder.
Tenet hired outside attorneys in the fall of 2018, telling Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder that the legal team would investigate their complaints. However, the investigation was a sham: Filings allege that the investigation was used instead to build a case against Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder and that Tenet leadership used the inquiry to pressure the cardiologists to resign.
They refused, and in October 2018, they were fired from their leadership positions. DMC and Tenet then held a press conference in which they said that Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder had been dismissed for “violations” of the “Tenet Standards of Conduct.”
Cardiologists push back
Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder, however, were not willing to just walk away. They sought reinstatement through an internal DMC appeals panel of their peers. The clinicians who participated on that panel ruled that neither firing was justified.
But DMC’s governing board voted in April 2020 to deny privileges to both cardiologists.
Tenet continued a campaign of retaliation, according to legal filings, by not paying the clinicians for being on call, by removing them from peer review committees, and by prohibiting them from teaching or giving lectures. DMC refused to give Dr. Kaki his personnel record, stating that he was never an employee when he was in the leadership position. Dr. Kaki sued, and a Wayne County Circuit Court judge granted his motion to get his file. DMC and Tenet appealed that ruling but lost.
Eventually, Ms. Gordon sued DMC and Tenet in federal court, alleging the hospital retaliated against the cardiologists, interfered with their ability to earn a living by disparaging them, refused to renew their privileges in 2019, and committed violations under multiple federal and state statutes, including the False Claims Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Tenet successfully argued that the case should go to arbitration.
Arbitrator Mary Beth Kelly, though, ruled in December 2020 that the vast majority of the complaints compiled against the two physicians in the external investigation were not verified or supported and that Tenet and DMC had retaliated against Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder.
For that harm, Ms. Kelly awarded each clinician $1 million, according to the final ruling shared in an interview.
In addition, she awarded Dr. Kaki $2.3 million in back pay and 2 years of front pay (slightly more than $1 million). She awarded Dr. Elder $2.3 million in back pay and $2.1 million in front pay for 4 years, noting that “his strong association with DMC may make it more difficult for him to successfully transition into the situation he enjoyed prior to termination and nonrenewal.”
The clinicians also were awarded legal fees of $623,816 and court costs of $110,673.
“Wholesale retrial”
To secure the award, Ms. Gordon had to seek a ruling from the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan. Tenet asked that court to overturn the arbitrator’s award and to keep it sealed from public view.
In his February ruling, Judge Arthur J. Tarnow wrote that Tenet and DMC “not only attempt to relitigate the legal issues, but also endeavor to introduce a factual counternarrative unmoored from the findings of the Arbitrator and including evidence which the Arbitrator specifically found inadmissible.
“By seeking a wholesale retrial of their case after forcing plaintiffs to arbitrate in the first place,” Tenet and DMC basically ignored the goal of arbitration, which is to relieve judicial congestion and provide a faster and cheaper alternative to litigation, he wrote.
Judge Tarnow also warned Tenet and DMC against taking too long to reinstate privileges for Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder. If they “continue to delay the restoration of plaintiffs’ privileges in the hopes of a different result on appeal, they will be in violation of this Order,” said the judge.
Tenet, however, tried one more avenue to block the cardiologists from getting privileges, appealing to the Sixth Circuit, which again ordered the company to grant the 1-year privileges.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After losing at arbitration, as well as in federal court and partially on appeal, Tenet Healthcare is refusing to comment on whether it will continue to battle two Detroit-area cardiologists whom the hospital corporation fired from leadership positions in 2018.
The cardiologists were awarded $10.6 million from an arbitrator, who found that Detroit Medical Center (DMC) and its parent, Tenet, retaliated against Amir Kaki, MD, and Mahir Elder, MD, when the doctors repeatedly reported concerns about patient safety and potential fraud.
The award was made public when it was upheld in federal court in February 2021 and was partially upheld on appeal days later by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Tenet’s motion to bar Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder from returning to work with full privileges but said it would continue to consider the overall appeal. Tenet argued that it needed to keep the cardiologists out of DMC because of “behavioral issues.”
Those allegations are “complete nonsense,” said the cardiologists’ attorney, Deborah Gordon, of Bloomfield Hills, Mich. The alleged problems regarding Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder were examined by an arbitrator, who “found that all of those complaints were unsubstantiated,” Ms. Gordon said in an interview.
In her final ruling, arbitrator Mary Beth Kelly wrote, “Both Kaki and Elder testified credibly regarding the humiliation, the emotional distress and the reputational damage they have suffered to their national reputations.”
A spokesperson for Tenet and DMC said the organizations had no further comment.
Ms. Gordon said she believes it’s unlikely Tenet will prevail in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, noting that the court already had examined the merits of the case to determine whether Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder could go back to work. In the court’s opinion, shared in an interview, nothing substantive in Tenet’s appeal prevented the doctors from returning to the hospital, she said.
As of now, both cardiologists have 1 year of privileges at the DMC-affiliated hospitals. Only Dr. Kaki has returned to work, said Ms. Gordon. Neither is speaking to the media, she said.
From respected to reviled
Both Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder were respected at DMC, according to court filings.
Dr. Kaki was recruited from Weill Cornell Medical College by a Detroit mayor because of his expertise in interventional cardiology. He had staff privileges at DMC beginning in 2012 and was a clinical associate professor and assistant program director of the interventional cardiology fellowship program at Wayne State University in Detroit. He became director of the cardiac catheterization services unit at the new DMC Heart Hospital at Harper-Hutzel Hospital in Detroit in 2014, and 4 years later was appointed director of the facility’s anticoagulation clinic. Dr. Kaki was nominated for and completed Tenet’s Leadership Academy.
Dr. Elder was a clinical professor and assistant fellowship director at Wayne State and was a clinical professor of medicine at Michigan State University. Beginning in 2008, he held directorships at DMC’s cardiac care unit, ambulatory services program, cardiac CT angiogram program, PERT program, and carotid stenting program. Dr. Elder was voted Teacher of the Year for 10 consecutive years by DMC cardiology fellows.
The two doctors aimed high when it came to quality of care and ethics, according to legal filings. Over the years, Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder repeatedly reported what they considered to be egregious violations of patient safety and of Medicare and Medicaid fraud laws. The clinicians complained about unsterile surgical instruments and the removal of a stat laboratory from the cardiac catheterization unit, noting that the removal would cause delays that would endanger lives.
At peer review meetings, as well as with administrators, they flagged colleagues who they said were performing unnecessary or dangerous procedures solely to generate revenue. At least one doctor falsified records of such a procedure after a patient died, alleged Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder.
Tenet hired outside attorneys in the fall of 2018, telling Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder that the legal team would investigate their complaints. However, the investigation was a sham: Filings allege that the investigation was used instead to build a case against Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder and that Tenet leadership used the inquiry to pressure the cardiologists to resign.
They refused, and in October 2018, they were fired from their leadership positions. DMC and Tenet then held a press conference in which they said that Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder had been dismissed for “violations” of the “Tenet Standards of Conduct.”
Cardiologists push back
Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder, however, were not willing to just walk away. They sought reinstatement through an internal DMC appeals panel of their peers. The clinicians who participated on that panel ruled that neither firing was justified.
But DMC’s governing board voted in April 2020 to deny privileges to both cardiologists.
Tenet continued a campaign of retaliation, according to legal filings, by not paying the clinicians for being on call, by removing them from peer review committees, and by prohibiting them from teaching or giving lectures. DMC refused to give Dr. Kaki his personnel record, stating that he was never an employee when he was in the leadership position. Dr. Kaki sued, and a Wayne County Circuit Court judge granted his motion to get his file. DMC and Tenet appealed that ruling but lost.
Eventually, Ms. Gordon sued DMC and Tenet in federal court, alleging the hospital retaliated against the cardiologists, interfered with their ability to earn a living by disparaging them, refused to renew their privileges in 2019, and committed violations under multiple federal and state statutes, including the False Claims Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Tenet successfully argued that the case should go to arbitration.
Arbitrator Mary Beth Kelly, though, ruled in December 2020 that the vast majority of the complaints compiled against the two physicians in the external investigation were not verified or supported and that Tenet and DMC had retaliated against Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder.
For that harm, Ms. Kelly awarded each clinician $1 million, according to the final ruling shared in an interview.
In addition, she awarded Dr. Kaki $2.3 million in back pay and 2 years of front pay (slightly more than $1 million). She awarded Dr. Elder $2.3 million in back pay and $2.1 million in front pay for 4 years, noting that “his strong association with DMC may make it more difficult for him to successfully transition into the situation he enjoyed prior to termination and nonrenewal.”
The clinicians also were awarded legal fees of $623,816 and court costs of $110,673.
“Wholesale retrial”
To secure the award, Ms. Gordon had to seek a ruling from the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan. Tenet asked that court to overturn the arbitrator’s award and to keep it sealed from public view.
In his February ruling, Judge Arthur J. Tarnow wrote that Tenet and DMC “not only attempt to relitigate the legal issues, but also endeavor to introduce a factual counternarrative unmoored from the findings of the Arbitrator and including evidence which the Arbitrator specifically found inadmissible.
“By seeking a wholesale retrial of their case after forcing plaintiffs to arbitrate in the first place,” Tenet and DMC basically ignored the goal of arbitration, which is to relieve judicial congestion and provide a faster and cheaper alternative to litigation, he wrote.
Judge Tarnow also warned Tenet and DMC against taking too long to reinstate privileges for Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder. If they “continue to delay the restoration of plaintiffs’ privileges in the hopes of a different result on appeal, they will be in violation of this Order,” said the judge.
Tenet, however, tried one more avenue to block the cardiologists from getting privileges, appealing to the Sixth Circuit, which again ordered the company to grant the 1-year privileges.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AI system beats endoscopists for detecting early neoplasia in Barrett’s
One of the top publications in gastroenterology in 2020 was a Dutch study demonstrating that a computer-aided system suitable for real-time use in clinical practice detected early neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus with impressively greater accuracy than did a group of general endoscopists, according to Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD.
It’s not just his personal opinion that this was one of the major studies of the past year, either. Analytic tools showed the Dutch report was one of the most frequently downloaded studies in 2020 by both clinical gastroenterologists and researchers, said Dr. Corley, director of delivery science and applied research at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland, and a faculty gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
The deep-learning system developed, evaluated, and externally validated by the Dutch investigators is designed to reduce the rate of failed detection of high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma in patients undergoing surveillance by general practice gastrointestinal endoscopists. The false-negative rate in looking for the sometimes subtle mucosal surface abnormalities indicative of early neoplasia is known to be higher among these general endoscopists than that among expert endoscopists, and yet it’s the general endoscopists who perform the majority of cancer surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.
The Dutch group developed the computer-aided detection system by applying artificial intelligence methods to analyze nearly one half-million endoscopic images of confirmed early neoplasia. Once the system was ready to go, they compared its diagnostic accuracy in 80 patients to that of 53 general, nonexpert endoscopists. The deep-learning system had 93% sensitivity and 83% specificity for identification of early neoplasia, significantly better than the 72% sensitivity and 74% specificity for the general endoscopists. The overall accuracy of the computer-assisted detection system was 88%, compared to 73% for the general endoscopists. Moreover, the deep-learning system achieved greater accuracy than did any single one of the endoscopists.
“I think this will be a really helpful addition, the equivalent of a second endoscopist raising a yellow flag to take a closer look at a particular area. It’ll be complementary,” Dr. Corley said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.
An audience member said he’s aware that other computer-assisted detection systems have also shown outstanding performance for the detection of early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. He asked, why aren’t these being deployed yet in routine clinical practice?
Two reasons, Dr. Corley replied. One is that some of those systems aren’t capable of working during real-time endoscopy. Also, industry seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach. The field of applied artificial intelligence is moving incredibly rapidly, and none of the endoscopic equipment manufacturers wants to incorporate a computer-assisted detection system into their gear when rumor has it that an even better system is going to be announced 6 months later. The manufacturers want to make sure they’re operationalizing the right one.
He suspects the major players in the endoscopic imaging industry are waiting to find a computer-assisted detection system that’s been published and widely accepted as clearly a winner. Then they’ll introduce it into their equipment.
“I do think we’re probably going to be seeing these increasingly. Some computer-assisted detection systems for colon cancer are starting to be put into equipment,” he observed.
Dr. Corley reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
Help your patients better understand the risks, testing, and treatment options for Barrett’s esophagus by sharing education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/BE.
One of the top publications in gastroenterology in 2020 was a Dutch study demonstrating that a computer-aided system suitable for real-time use in clinical practice detected early neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus with impressively greater accuracy than did a group of general endoscopists, according to Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD.
It’s not just his personal opinion that this was one of the major studies of the past year, either. Analytic tools showed the Dutch report was one of the most frequently downloaded studies in 2020 by both clinical gastroenterologists and researchers, said Dr. Corley, director of delivery science and applied research at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland, and a faculty gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
The deep-learning system developed, evaluated, and externally validated by the Dutch investigators is designed to reduce the rate of failed detection of high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma in patients undergoing surveillance by general practice gastrointestinal endoscopists. The false-negative rate in looking for the sometimes subtle mucosal surface abnormalities indicative of early neoplasia is known to be higher among these general endoscopists than that among expert endoscopists, and yet it’s the general endoscopists who perform the majority of cancer surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.
The Dutch group developed the computer-aided detection system by applying artificial intelligence methods to analyze nearly one half-million endoscopic images of confirmed early neoplasia. Once the system was ready to go, they compared its diagnostic accuracy in 80 patients to that of 53 general, nonexpert endoscopists. The deep-learning system had 93% sensitivity and 83% specificity for identification of early neoplasia, significantly better than the 72% sensitivity and 74% specificity for the general endoscopists. The overall accuracy of the computer-assisted detection system was 88%, compared to 73% for the general endoscopists. Moreover, the deep-learning system achieved greater accuracy than did any single one of the endoscopists.
“I think this will be a really helpful addition, the equivalent of a second endoscopist raising a yellow flag to take a closer look at a particular area. It’ll be complementary,” Dr. Corley said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.
An audience member said he’s aware that other computer-assisted detection systems have also shown outstanding performance for the detection of early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. He asked, why aren’t these being deployed yet in routine clinical practice?
Two reasons, Dr. Corley replied. One is that some of those systems aren’t capable of working during real-time endoscopy. Also, industry seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach. The field of applied artificial intelligence is moving incredibly rapidly, and none of the endoscopic equipment manufacturers wants to incorporate a computer-assisted detection system into their gear when rumor has it that an even better system is going to be announced 6 months later. The manufacturers want to make sure they’re operationalizing the right one.
He suspects the major players in the endoscopic imaging industry are waiting to find a computer-assisted detection system that’s been published and widely accepted as clearly a winner. Then they’ll introduce it into their equipment.
“I do think we’re probably going to be seeing these increasingly. Some computer-assisted detection systems for colon cancer are starting to be put into equipment,” he observed.
Dr. Corley reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
Help your patients better understand the risks, testing, and treatment options for Barrett’s esophagus by sharing education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/BE.
One of the top publications in gastroenterology in 2020 was a Dutch study demonstrating that a computer-aided system suitable for real-time use in clinical practice detected early neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus with impressively greater accuracy than did a group of general endoscopists, according to Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD.
It’s not just his personal opinion that this was one of the major studies of the past year, either. Analytic tools showed the Dutch report was one of the most frequently downloaded studies in 2020 by both clinical gastroenterologists and researchers, said Dr. Corley, director of delivery science and applied research at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland, and a faculty gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
The deep-learning system developed, evaluated, and externally validated by the Dutch investigators is designed to reduce the rate of failed detection of high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma in patients undergoing surveillance by general practice gastrointestinal endoscopists. The false-negative rate in looking for the sometimes subtle mucosal surface abnormalities indicative of early neoplasia is known to be higher among these general endoscopists than that among expert endoscopists, and yet it’s the general endoscopists who perform the majority of cancer surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.
The Dutch group developed the computer-aided detection system by applying artificial intelligence methods to analyze nearly one half-million endoscopic images of confirmed early neoplasia. Once the system was ready to go, they compared its diagnostic accuracy in 80 patients to that of 53 general, nonexpert endoscopists. The deep-learning system had 93% sensitivity and 83% specificity for identification of early neoplasia, significantly better than the 72% sensitivity and 74% specificity for the general endoscopists. The overall accuracy of the computer-assisted detection system was 88%, compared to 73% for the general endoscopists. Moreover, the deep-learning system achieved greater accuracy than did any single one of the endoscopists.
“I think this will be a really helpful addition, the equivalent of a second endoscopist raising a yellow flag to take a closer look at a particular area. It’ll be complementary,” Dr. Corley said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.
An audience member said he’s aware that other computer-assisted detection systems have also shown outstanding performance for the detection of early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. He asked, why aren’t these being deployed yet in routine clinical practice?
Two reasons, Dr. Corley replied. One is that some of those systems aren’t capable of working during real-time endoscopy. Also, industry seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach. The field of applied artificial intelligence is moving incredibly rapidly, and none of the endoscopic equipment manufacturers wants to incorporate a computer-assisted detection system into their gear when rumor has it that an even better system is going to be announced 6 months later. The manufacturers want to make sure they’re operationalizing the right one.
He suspects the major players in the endoscopic imaging industry are waiting to find a computer-assisted detection system that’s been published and widely accepted as clearly a winner. Then they’ll introduce it into their equipment.
“I do think we’re probably going to be seeing these increasingly. Some computer-assisted detection systems for colon cancer are starting to be put into equipment,” he observed.
Dr. Corley reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
Help your patients better understand the risks, testing, and treatment options for Barrett’s esophagus by sharing education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/BE.
FROM GUILD 2021
Nonfatal opioid overdose rises in teen girls
More adolescent girls than boys experienced nonfatal opioid overdose and reported baseline levels of anxiety, depression, and self-harm, according to data from a retrospective cohort study of more than 20,000 youth in the United States.
Previous studies have identified sex-based differences in opioid overdose such as a higher prevalence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders in women compared with men, wrote Sarah M. Bagley, MD, of Boston University, and colleagues. “However, few studies have examined whether such sex-based differences in opioid overdose risk extend to the population of adolescents and young adults,” they said.
In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 20,312 commercially insured youth aged 11-24 years who experienced a nonfatal opioid overdose between Jan. 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2017, and reviewed data using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database. The average age of the study population was 20 years and approximately 42% were female.
Females aged 11-16 years had a significantly higher incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose (60%) compared with males, but this trend reversed at age 17 years, after which the incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose became significantly higher in males. “Our finding that females younger than 17 years had a higher incidence of NFOD is consistent with epidemiologic data that have indicated changes in alcohol and drug prevalence among female youths,” the researchers wrote.
Overall, 57.8% of the cohort had mood and anxiety disorders, 12.8% had trauma- or stress-related disorders, and 11.7% had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
When analyzed by sex, females had a significantly higher prevalence than that of males of mood or anxiety disorders (65.5% vs. 51.9%) trauma or stress-related disorders (16.4% vs. 10.1%) and attempts at suicide or self-harm (14.6% vs. 9.9%). Males had significantly higher prevalence than that of females of opioid use disorder (44.7% vs. 29.2%), cannabis use disorder (18.3% vs. 11.3%), and alcohol use disorder (20.3% vs. 14.4%).
“Although in our study, female youths had a lower prevalence of all substance use disorders, including OUD [opioid use disorder], and a higher prevalence of mood and trauma-associated disorders, both male and female youths had a higher prevalence of psychiatric illness and substance use disorder than youths in the general population,” the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inclusion only of youth with commercial insurance, with no uninsured or publicly insured youth, and only those youth who sought health care after a nonfatal opioid overdose, the researchers noted. The prevalence of substance use and mental health disorders may be over- or underdiagnosed, and race was not included as a variable because of unreliable data, they added. The database also did not allow for gender identity beyond sex as listed by the insurance carrier, they said.
However, the results indicate significant differences in the incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose and accompanying mental health and substance use disorders based on age and sex, they said.
“These differences may have important implications for developing effective interventions to prevent first-time NFOD and to engage youths in care after an NFOD,” they concluded.
The study was supported by grants to several researchers from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, and the Charles A. King Trust. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
More adolescent girls than boys experienced nonfatal opioid overdose and reported baseline levels of anxiety, depression, and self-harm, according to data from a retrospective cohort study of more than 20,000 youth in the United States.
Previous studies have identified sex-based differences in opioid overdose such as a higher prevalence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders in women compared with men, wrote Sarah M. Bagley, MD, of Boston University, and colleagues. “However, few studies have examined whether such sex-based differences in opioid overdose risk extend to the population of adolescents and young adults,” they said.
In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 20,312 commercially insured youth aged 11-24 years who experienced a nonfatal opioid overdose between Jan. 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2017, and reviewed data using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database. The average age of the study population was 20 years and approximately 42% were female.
Females aged 11-16 years had a significantly higher incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose (60%) compared with males, but this trend reversed at age 17 years, after which the incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose became significantly higher in males. “Our finding that females younger than 17 years had a higher incidence of NFOD is consistent with epidemiologic data that have indicated changes in alcohol and drug prevalence among female youths,” the researchers wrote.
Overall, 57.8% of the cohort had mood and anxiety disorders, 12.8% had trauma- or stress-related disorders, and 11.7% had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
When analyzed by sex, females had a significantly higher prevalence than that of males of mood or anxiety disorders (65.5% vs. 51.9%) trauma or stress-related disorders (16.4% vs. 10.1%) and attempts at suicide or self-harm (14.6% vs. 9.9%). Males had significantly higher prevalence than that of females of opioid use disorder (44.7% vs. 29.2%), cannabis use disorder (18.3% vs. 11.3%), and alcohol use disorder (20.3% vs. 14.4%).
“Although in our study, female youths had a lower prevalence of all substance use disorders, including OUD [opioid use disorder], and a higher prevalence of mood and trauma-associated disorders, both male and female youths had a higher prevalence of psychiatric illness and substance use disorder than youths in the general population,” the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inclusion only of youth with commercial insurance, with no uninsured or publicly insured youth, and only those youth who sought health care after a nonfatal opioid overdose, the researchers noted. The prevalence of substance use and mental health disorders may be over- or underdiagnosed, and race was not included as a variable because of unreliable data, they added. The database also did not allow for gender identity beyond sex as listed by the insurance carrier, they said.
However, the results indicate significant differences in the incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose and accompanying mental health and substance use disorders based on age and sex, they said.
“These differences may have important implications for developing effective interventions to prevent first-time NFOD and to engage youths in care after an NFOD,” they concluded.
The study was supported by grants to several researchers from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, and the Charles A. King Trust. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
More adolescent girls than boys experienced nonfatal opioid overdose and reported baseline levels of anxiety, depression, and self-harm, according to data from a retrospective cohort study of more than 20,000 youth in the United States.
Previous studies have identified sex-based differences in opioid overdose such as a higher prevalence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders in women compared with men, wrote Sarah M. Bagley, MD, of Boston University, and colleagues. “However, few studies have examined whether such sex-based differences in opioid overdose risk extend to the population of adolescents and young adults,” they said.
In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 20,312 commercially insured youth aged 11-24 years who experienced a nonfatal opioid overdose between Jan. 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2017, and reviewed data using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database. The average age of the study population was 20 years and approximately 42% were female.
Females aged 11-16 years had a significantly higher incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose (60%) compared with males, but this trend reversed at age 17 years, after which the incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose became significantly higher in males. “Our finding that females younger than 17 years had a higher incidence of NFOD is consistent with epidemiologic data that have indicated changes in alcohol and drug prevalence among female youths,” the researchers wrote.
Overall, 57.8% of the cohort had mood and anxiety disorders, 12.8% had trauma- or stress-related disorders, and 11.7% had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
When analyzed by sex, females had a significantly higher prevalence than that of males of mood or anxiety disorders (65.5% vs. 51.9%) trauma or stress-related disorders (16.4% vs. 10.1%) and attempts at suicide or self-harm (14.6% vs. 9.9%). Males had significantly higher prevalence than that of females of opioid use disorder (44.7% vs. 29.2%), cannabis use disorder (18.3% vs. 11.3%), and alcohol use disorder (20.3% vs. 14.4%).
“Although in our study, female youths had a lower prevalence of all substance use disorders, including OUD [opioid use disorder], and a higher prevalence of mood and trauma-associated disorders, both male and female youths had a higher prevalence of psychiatric illness and substance use disorder than youths in the general population,” the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inclusion only of youth with commercial insurance, with no uninsured or publicly insured youth, and only those youth who sought health care after a nonfatal opioid overdose, the researchers noted. The prevalence of substance use and mental health disorders may be over- or underdiagnosed, and race was not included as a variable because of unreliable data, they added. The database also did not allow for gender identity beyond sex as listed by the insurance carrier, they said.
However, the results indicate significant differences in the incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose and accompanying mental health and substance use disorders based on age and sex, they said.
“These differences may have important implications for developing effective interventions to prevent first-time NFOD and to engage youths in care after an NFOD,” they concluded.
The study was supported by grants to several researchers from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, and the Charles A. King Trust. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Autism Acceptance Month: Raising awareness and closing the diagnosis gap
April is National Autism Awareness Month, and April 2 is World Autism Awareness Day. In the United States, there appears to be a heightened level of awareness of this condition over the past 10-15 years that has helped reduced its stigma, improve early identification, and (most importantly) increase access to early interventions for children and families.
The most recent prevalence estimates of autism in children in the United States is 1 in 54. This is a 10% increase since 2014 (1 in 59). Those most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance reports also point to a reduction in the racial gap between Black and White children when it comes to diagnosis.1 Across the globe, there are more than 100 autism societies, and research designed to improve prevalence data in lower- to middle-income countries has also increased.2
Even with these recent encouraging numbers regarding identification of autism in historically underrepresented groups in the United States, there are still differences among those groups, compared with children who are socioeconomically well-off, White, or live in large urban areas.3 Specifically, Latinx children were documented to be identified with autism at lower rates, compared with Whites and Blacks. In addition, Black and Latinx children are still diagnosed at a later age, compared with White children. This is important to note because historically, Black and Latinx children have been diagnosed with severe forms of autism or co-occurring intellectual disability at a higher rate, compared with their White counterparts.4 Thus, it would not be inappropriate to infer that Black and Latinx children with “milder” presenting autism symptoms or without co-occurring ID are not identified at the same rates, compared with their White peers. Furthermore, when peering into the international data, epidemiologic studies regarding prevalence, clinical course, and outcomes is skewed heavily toward a few Western industrialized nations, Japan, and South Korea.5
In all, when observing Autism Awareness Month, we should continue to recognize that these aforementioned epidemiologic disparities still exist – both locally and globally. because both clinical and research work have consequences that are not yet fully known. As long as these trends remain, racial and socioeconomic differences in access to treatment in the United States will remain. From an international perspective, we may never appreciate the true extent of the cultural variability within autism symptoms and so may never appreciate the full spectrum of ways the condition can present.
References
1. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Mar 27;69(4):1-12. Erratum in: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 24;69(16):503.
2. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Oct;6(10):e1100-21.
3. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(3):493-8.
4. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2011 Apr;32(3):179-87 and MMWR Surveill Summ. 2019;68(2):1-19.
5. Brain Sci. 2020;10(5):274. doi: 10.3390/brainsci10050274.
Dr. Emejuru is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) and its Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health in Monterey, Calif. His expertise is specific to conducting evaluations for autism spectrum disorder and evaluating, diagnosing, and treating co-occurring psychiatric disorders after training at the Johns Hopkins Hospital/Kennedy Krieger Institute’s Center for Autism and Related Disorders in Baltimore. He has no conflicts of interest.
April is National Autism Awareness Month, and April 2 is World Autism Awareness Day. In the United States, there appears to be a heightened level of awareness of this condition over the past 10-15 years that has helped reduced its stigma, improve early identification, and (most importantly) increase access to early interventions for children and families.
The most recent prevalence estimates of autism in children in the United States is 1 in 54. This is a 10% increase since 2014 (1 in 59). Those most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance reports also point to a reduction in the racial gap between Black and White children when it comes to diagnosis.1 Across the globe, there are more than 100 autism societies, and research designed to improve prevalence data in lower- to middle-income countries has also increased.2
Even with these recent encouraging numbers regarding identification of autism in historically underrepresented groups in the United States, there are still differences among those groups, compared with children who are socioeconomically well-off, White, or live in large urban areas.3 Specifically, Latinx children were documented to be identified with autism at lower rates, compared with Whites and Blacks. In addition, Black and Latinx children are still diagnosed at a later age, compared with White children. This is important to note because historically, Black and Latinx children have been diagnosed with severe forms of autism or co-occurring intellectual disability at a higher rate, compared with their White counterparts.4 Thus, it would not be inappropriate to infer that Black and Latinx children with “milder” presenting autism symptoms or without co-occurring ID are not identified at the same rates, compared with their White peers. Furthermore, when peering into the international data, epidemiologic studies regarding prevalence, clinical course, and outcomes is skewed heavily toward a few Western industrialized nations, Japan, and South Korea.5
In all, when observing Autism Awareness Month, we should continue to recognize that these aforementioned epidemiologic disparities still exist – both locally and globally. because both clinical and research work have consequences that are not yet fully known. As long as these trends remain, racial and socioeconomic differences in access to treatment in the United States will remain. From an international perspective, we may never appreciate the true extent of the cultural variability within autism symptoms and so may never appreciate the full spectrum of ways the condition can present.
References
1. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Mar 27;69(4):1-12. Erratum in: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 24;69(16):503.
2. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Oct;6(10):e1100-21.
3. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(3):493-8.
4. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2011 Apr;32(3):179-87 and MMWR Surveill Summ. 2019;68(2):1-19.
5. Brain Sci. 2020;10(5):274. doi: 10.3390/brainsci10050274.
Dr. Emejuru is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) and its Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health in Monterey, Calif. His expertise is specific to conducting evaluations for autism spectrum disorder and evaluating, diagnosing, and treating co-occurring psychiatric disorders after training at the Johns Hopkins Hospital/Kennedy Krieger Institute’s Center for Autism and Related Disorders in Baltimore. He has no conflicts of interest.
April is National Autism Awareness Month, and April 2 is World Autism Awareness Day. In the United States, there appears to be a heightened level of awareness of this condition over the past 10-15 years that has helped reduced its stigma, improve early identification, and (most importantly) increase access to early interventions for children and families.
The most recent prevalence estimates of autism in children in the United States is 1 in 54. This is a 10% increase since 2014 (1 in 59). Those most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance reports also point to a reduction in the racial gap between Black and White children when it comes to diagnosis.1 Across the globe, there are more than 100 autism societies, and research designed to improve prevalence data in lower- to middle-income countries has also increased.2
Even with these recent encouraging numbers regarding identification of autism in historically underrepresented groups in the United States, there are still differences among those groups, compared with children who are socioeconomically well-off, White, or live in large urban areas.3 Specifically, Latinx children were documented to be identified with autism at lower rates, compared with Whites and Blacks. In addition, Black and Latinx children are still diagnosed at a later age, compared with White children. This is important to note because historically, Black and Latinx children have been diagnosed with severe forms of autism or co-occurring intellectual disability at a higher rate, compared with their White counterparts.4 Thus, it would not be inappropriate to infer that Black and Latinx children with “milder” presenting autism symptoms or without co-occurring ID are not identified at the same rates, compared with their White peers. Furthermore, when peering into the international data, epidemiologic studies regarding prevalence, clinical course, and outcomes is skewed heavily toward a few Western industrialized nations, Japan, and South Korea.5
In all, when observing Autism Awareness Month, we should continue to recognize that these aforementioned epidemiologic disparities still exist – both locally and globally. because both clinical and research work have consequences that are not yet fully known. As long as these trends remain, racial and socioeconomic differences in access to treatment in the United States will remain. From an international perspective, we may never appreciate the true extent of the cultural variability within autism symptoms and so may never appreciate the full spectrum of ways the condition can present.
References
1. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Mar 27;69(4):1-12. Erratum in: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 24;69(16):503.
2. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Oct;6(10):e1100-21.
3. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(3):493-8.
4. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2011 Apr;32(3):179-87 and MMWR Surveill Summ. 2019;68(2):1-19.
5. Brain Sci. 2020;10(5):274. doi: 10.3390/brainsci10050274.
Dr. Emejuru is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) and its Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health in Monterey, Calif. His expertise is specific to conducting evaluations for autism spectrum disorder and evaluating, diagnosing, and treating co-occurring psychiatric disorders after training at the Johns Hopkins Hospital/Kennedy Krieger Institute’s Center for Autism and Related Disorders in Baltimore. He has no conflicts of interest.