Long-term proactive topical management of plaque psoriasis with twice-weekly calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate foam has been shown in a high-quality randomized trial to be more effective than conventional reactive management – but will patients go for it?

Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, has his doubts, and he shared them with Linda Stein Gold, MD, after she presented updated results from the 52-week PSO-LONG trial at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

In order for the proactive management approach tested in this study to be successful, patients must apply the topical agent as maintenance therapy to cleared areas where they previously had psoriasis. And while they did so in this study with an assist in the form of monthly office visits and nudging from investigators, in real-world clinical practice that’s unlikely to happen, according to Dr. Strober, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“It makes sense to do what’s being done in this study, there’s no doubt, but I’m concerned about adherence and whether patients are really going to do it,” he said.

“Adherence is going to be everything here, and you know patients don’t like to apply topicals to their body. Once they’re clear they’re just going to walk away from the topical,” Dr. Strober predicted.

Dr. Stein Gold countered: “When a study goes on for a full year, it starts to reflect real life.”

Moreover, the PSO-LONG trial provides the first high-quality evidence physicians can share with patients demonstrating that proactive management pays off in terms of fewer relapses and more time in remission over the long haul, added Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

PSO-LONG was a double-blind, international, phase 3 study including 545 adults with plaque psoriasis who had clear or almost-clear skin after 4 weeks of once-daily calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) foam (Enstilar), and were then randomized to twice-weekly proactive management or to a reactive approach involving application of vehicle on the same twice-weekly schedule. Relapses resulted in rescue therapy with 4 weeks of once-daily Cal/BD foam.

The primary endpoint was the median time to first relapse: 56 days with the proactive approach, a significant improvement over the 30 days with the reactive approach. Over the course of 52 weeks, the proactive group spent an additional 41 days in remission, compared with the reactive group. Patients randomized to twice-weekly Cal/BD foam averaged 3.1 relapses per year, compared with 4.8 with reactive management. The side-effect profiles in the two study arms were similar.

Mean Physician Global Assessment scores and Psoriasis Area and Activity Index scores for the proactive group clearly separated from the reactive group by week 4, with those differences maintained throughout the year. The area under the curve for distribution for the Physician Global Assessment score was 15% lower in the proactive group, and 20% lower for the modified PASI score.

“These results suggest that proactive management – a concept that’s been used for atopic dermatitis – could be applied to patients with psoriasis to prolong remission,” Dr. Stein Gold concluded at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

Asked how confident she is that patients in the real world truly will do this, Dr. Stein Gold replied: “You know, I don’t know. We hope so. Now we can tell them we actually have some data that supports treating the cleared areas. And it’s only twice a week, separated on Mondays and Thursdays.”

“I take a much more reactive approach,” Dr. Strober said. “I advise patients to get back in there with their topical steroid as soon as they see any signs of recurrence.

He added that he’s eager to see if a proactive management approach such as the one that was successful in PSO-LONG is also beneficial using some of the promising topical agents with nonsteroidal mechanisms of action, which are advancing through the developmental pipeline.

Late in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an expanded indication for Cal/BD foam, which includes the PSO-LONG data on the efficacy and safety of long-term twice-weekly therapy in adults in product labeling. The combination spray/foam was previously approved by the FDA as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid as daily therapy.

The PSO-LONG trial was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Stein Gold reported serving as a paid investigator and/or consultant to LEO and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Strober, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Long-term proactive topical management of plaque psoriasis with twice-weekly calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate foam has been shown in a high-quality randomized trial to be more effective than conventional reactive management – but will patients go for it?

Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, has his doubts, and he shared them with Linda Stein Gold, MD, after she presented updated results from the 52-week PSO-LONG trial at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

In order for the proactive management approach tested in this study to be successful, patients must apply the topical agent as maintenance therapy to cleared areas where they previously had psoriasis. And while they did so in this study with an assist in the form of monthly office visits and nudging from investigators, in real-world clinical practice that’s unlikely to happen, according to Dr. Strober, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“It makes sense to do what’s being done in this study, there’s no doubt, but I’m concerned about adherence and whether patients are really going to do it,” he said.

“Adherence is going to be everything here, and you know patients don’t like to apply topicals to their body. Once they’re clear they’re just going to walk away from the topical,” Dr. Strober predicted.

Dr. Stein Gold countered: “When a study goes on for a full year, it starts to reflect real life.”

Moreover, the PSO-LONG trial provides the first high-quality evidence physicians can share with patients demonstrating that proactive management pays off in terms of fewer relapses and more time in remission over the long haul, added Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

PSO-LONG was a double-blind, international, phase 3 study including 545 adults with plaque psoriasis who had clear or almost-clear skin after 4 weeks of once-daily calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) foam (Enstilar), and were then randomized to twice-weekly proactive management or to a reactive approach involving application of vehicle on the same twice-weekly schedule. Relapses resulted in rescue therapy with 4 weeks of once-daily Cal/BD foam.

The primary endpoint was the median time to first relapse: 56 days with the proactive approach, a significant improvement over the 30 days with the reactive approach. Over the course of 52 weeks, the proactive group spent an additional 41 days in remission, compared with the reactive group. Patients randomized to twice-weekly Cal/BD foam averaged 3.1 relapses per year, compared with 4.8 with reactive management. The side-effect profiles in the two study arms were similar.

Mean Physician Global Assessment scores and Psoriasis Area and Activity Index scores for the proactive group clearly separated from the reactive group by week 4, with those differences maintained throughout the year. The area under the curve for distribution for the Physician Global Assessment score was 15% lower in the proactive group, and 20% lower for the modified PASI score.

“These results suggest that proactive management – a concept that’s been used for atopic dermatitis – could be applied to patients with psoriasis to prolong remission,” Dr. Stein Gold concluded at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

Asked how confident she is that patients in the real world truly will do this, Dr. Stein Gold replied: “You know, I don’t know. We hope so. Now we can tell them we actually have some data that supports treating the cleared areas. And it’s only twice a week, separated on Mondays and Thursdays.”

“I take a much more reactive approach,” Dr. Strober said. “I advise patients to get back in there with their topical steroid as soon as they see any signs of recurrence.

He added that he’s eager to see if a proactive management approach such as the one that was successful in PSO-LONG is also beneficial using some of the promising topical agents with nonsteroidal mechanisms of action, which are advancing through the developmental pipeline.

Late in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an expanded indication for Cal/BD foam, which includes the PSO-LONG data on the efficacy and safety of long-term twice-weekly therapy in adults in product labeling. The combination spray/foam was previously approved by the FDA as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid as daily therapy.

The PSO-LONG trial was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Stein Gold reported serving as a paid investigator and/or consultant to LEO and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Strober, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Long-term proactive topical management of plaque psoriasis with twice-weekly calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate foam has been shown in a high-quality randomized trial to be more effective than conventional reactive management – but will patients go for it?

Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, has his doubts, and he shared them with Linda Stein Gold, MD, after she presented updated results from the 52-week PSO-LONG trial at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

In order for the proactive management approach tested in this study to be successful, patients must apply the topical agent as maintenance therapy to cleared areas where they previously had psoriasis. And while they did so in this study with an assist in the form of monthly office visits and nudging from investigators, in real-world clinical practice that’s unlikely to happen, according to Dr. Strober, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“It makes sense to do what’s being done in this study, there’s no doubt, but I’m concerned about adherence and whether patients are really going to do it,” he said.

“Adherence is going to be everything here, and you know patients don’t like to apply topicals to their body. Once they’re clear they’re just going to walk away from the topical,” Dr. Strober predicted.

Dr. Stein Gold countered: “When a study goes on for a full year, it starts to reflect real life.”

Moreover, the PSO-LONG trial provides the first high-quality evidence physicians can share with patients demonstrating that proactive management pays off in terms of fewer relapses and more time in remission over the long haul, added Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

PSO-LONG was a double-blind, international, phase 3 study including 545 adults with plaque psoriasis who had clear or almost-clear skin after 4 weeks of once-daily calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) foam (Enstilar), and were then randomized to twice-weekly proactive management or to a reactive approach involving application of vehicle on the same twice-weekly schedule. Relapses resulted in rescue therapy with 4 weeks of once-daily Cal/BD foam.

The primary endpoint was the median time to first relapse: 56 days with the proactive approach, a significant improvement over the 30 days with the reactive approach. Over the course of 52 weeks, the proactive group spent an additional 41 days in remission, compared with the reactive group. Patients randomized to twice-weekly Cal/BD foam averaged 3.1 relapses per year, compared with 4.8 with reactive management. The side-effect profiles in the two study arms were similar.

Mean Physician Global Assessment scores and Psoriasis Area and Activity Index scores for the proactive group clearly separated from the reactive group by week 4, with those differences maintained throughout the year. The area under the curve for distribution for the Physician Global Assessment score was 15% lower in the proactive group, and 20% lower for the modified PASI score.

“These results suggest that proactive management – a concept that’s been used for atopic dermatitis – could be applied to patients with psoriasis to prolong remission,” Dr. Stein Gold concluded at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

Asked how confident she is that patients in the real world truly will do this, Dr. Stein Gold replied: “You know, I don’t know. We hope so. Now we can tell them we actually have some data that supports treating the cleared areas. And it’s only twice a week, separated on Mondays and Thursdays.”

“I take a much more reactive approach,” Dr. Strober said. “I advise patients to get back in there with their topical steroid as soon as they see any signs of recurrence.

He added that he’s eager to see if a proactive management approach such as the one that was successful in PSO-LONG is also beneficial using some of the promising topical agents with nonsteroidal mechanisms of action, which are advancing through the developmental pipeline.

Late in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an expanded indication for Cal/BD foam, which includes the PSO-LONG data on the efficacy and safety of long-term twice-weekly therapy in adults in product labeling. The combination spray/foam was previously approved by the FDA as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid as daily therapy.

The PSO-LONG trial was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Stein Gold reported serving as a paid investigator and/or consultant to LEO and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Strober, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Women with Lynch syndrome are known to carry an approximately 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer. These cancers result from inherited deleterious mutations in genes that code for mismatch repair proteins. However, mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-d) is not exclusively found in the tumors of patients with Lynch syndrome, and much is being learned about this group of endometrial cancers, their behavior, and their vulnerability to targeted therapies.

During the processes of DNA replication, recombination, or chemical and physical damage, mismatches in base pairs frequently occurs. Mismatch repair proteins function to identify and repair such errors, and the loss of their function causes the accumulation of the insertions or deletions of short, repetitive sequences of DNA. This phenomenon can be measured using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening of known microsatellites to look for the accumulation of errors, a phenotype which is called microsatellite instability (MSI). The accumulation of errors in DNA sequences is thought to lead to mutations in cancer-related genes.

The four predominant mismatch repair genes include MLH1, MSH2, MSH 6, and PMS2. These genes may possess loss of function through a germline/inherited mechanism, such as Lynch syndrome, or can be sporadically acquired. Approximately 20%-30% of endometrial cancers exhibit MMR-d with acquired, sporadic losses in function being the majority of cases and only approximately 10% a result of Lynch syndrome. Mutations in PMS2 are the dominant genotype of Lynch syndrome, whereas loss of function in MLH1 is most frequent aberration in sporadic cases of MMR-d endometrial cancer.¹

Endometrial cancers can be tested for MMR-d by performing immunohistochemistry to look for loss of expression in the four most common MMR genes. If there is loss of expression of MLH1, additional triage testing can be performed to determine if this loss is caused by the epigenetic phenomenon of hypermethylation. When present, this excludes Lynch syndrome and suggests a sporadic form origin of the disease. If there is loss of expression of the MMR genes (including loss of MLH1 and subsequent negative testing for promotor methylation), the patient should receive genetic testing for the presence of a germline mutation indicating Lynch syndrome. As an adjunct or alternative to immunohistochemistry, PCR studies or next-generation sequencing can be used to measure the presence of microsatellite instability in a process that identifies the expansion or reduction in repetitive DNA sequences of the tumor, compared with normal tumor.²

It is of the highest importance to identify endometrial cancers caused by Lynch syndrome because this enables providers to offer cascade testing of relatives, and to intensify screening or preventative measures for the many other cancers (such as colon, upper gastrointestinal, breast, and urothelial) for which these patients are at risk. Therefore, routine screening for MMR-d tumors is recommended in all cases of endometrial cancer, not simply those of a young age at diagnosis or for whom a strong family history exists.³ Using family history factors, primary tumor site, and age as a trigger for screening for Lynch syndrome, such as the Bethesda Guidelines, is associated with a 82% sensitivity in identifying Lynch syndrome. In a meta-analysis including testing results from 1,159 women with endometrial cancer, 43% of patients who were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome via molecular analysis would have been missed by clinical screening using Bethesda Guidelines.²

Discovering cases of Lynch syndrome is not the only benefit of routine testing for MMR-d in endometrial cancers. There is also significant value in the characterization of sporadic mismatch repair–deficient tumors because this information provides prognostic information and guides therapy. Tumors with a microsatellite-high phenotype/MMR-d were identified as one of the four distinct molecular subgroups of endometrial cancer by the Cancer Genome Atlas.⁴ Patients with this molecular profile exhibited “intermediate” prognostic outcomes, performing better than the “serous-like” cancers with p53 mutations, yet worse than patients with a POLE ultramutated group who rarely experience recurrences or death, even in the setting of unfavorable histology.

Beyond prognostication, the molecular profile of endometrial cancers also influence their responsiveness to therapeutics, highlighting the importance of splitting, not lumping endometrial cancers into relevant molecular subgroups when designing research and practicing clinical medicine. The PORTEC-3 trial studied 410 women with high-risk endometrial cancer, and randomized participants to receive either adjuvant radiation alone, or radiation with chemotherapy.⁵ There were no differences in progression-free survival between the two therapeutic strategies when analyzed in aggregate. However, when analyzed by Cancer Genome Atlas molecular subgroup, it was noted that there was a clear benefit from chemotherapy for patients with p53 mutations. For patients with MMR-d tumors, no such benefit was observed. Patients assigned this molecular subgroup did no better with the addition of platinum and taxane chemotherapy over radiation alone. Unfortunately, for patients with MMR-d tumors, recurrence rates remained high, suggesting that we can and need to discover more effective therapies for these tumors than what is available with conventional radiation or platinum and taxane chemotherapy. Targeted therapy may be the solution to this problem. Through microsatellite instability, MMR-d tumors create somatic mutations which result in neoantigens, an immunogenic environment. This state up-regulates checkpoint inhibitor proteins, which serve as an actionable target for anti-PD-L1 antibodies, such as the drug pembrolizumab which has been shown to be highly active against MMR-d endometrial cancer. In the landmark, KEYNOTE-158 trial, patients with advanced, recurrent solid tumors that exhibited MMR-d were treated with pembrolizumab.⁶ This included 49 patients with endometrial cancer, among whom there was a 79% response rate. Subsequently, pembrolizumab was granted Food and Drug Administration approval for use in advanced, recurrent MMR-d/MSI-high endometrial cancer. Trials are currently enrolling patients to explore the utility of this drug in the up-front setting in both early- and late-stage disease with a hope that this targeted therapy can do what conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy has failed to do.

Therefore, given the clinical significance of mismatch repair deficiency, all patients with endometrial cancer should be investigated for loss of expression in these proteins, and if present, considered for the possibility of Lynch syndrome. While most will not have an inherited cause, this information regarding their tumor biology remains critically important in both prognostication and decision-making surrounding other therapies and their eligibility for promising clinical trials.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest to declare. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Simpkins SB et al. Hum. Mol. Genet. 1999;8:661-6.

2. Kahn R et al. Cancer. 2019 Sep 15;125(18):2172-3183.

3. SGO Clinical Practice Statement: Screening for Lynch Syndrome in Endometrial Cancer. https://www.sgo.org/clinical-practice/guidelines/screening-for-lynch-syndrome-in-endometrial-cancer/

4. Kandoth et al. Nature. 2013;497(7447):67-73.

5. Leon-Castillo A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 10;38(29):3388-97.

6. Marabelle A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 1;38(1):1-10.

Women with Lynch syndrome are known to carry an approximately 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer. These cancers result from inherited deleterious mutations in genes that code for mismatch repair proteins. However, mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-d) is not exclusively found in the tumors of patients with Lynch syndrome, and much is being learned about this group of endometrial cancers, their behavior, and their vulnerability to targeted therapies.

During the processes of DNA replication, recombination, or chemical and physical damage, mismatches in base pairs frequently occurs. Mismatch repair proteins function to identify and repair such errors, and the loss of their function causes the accumulation of the insertions or deletions of short, repetitive sequences of DNA. This phenomenon can be measured using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening of known microsatellites to look for the accumulation of errors, a phenotype which is called microsatellite instability (MSI). The accumulation of errors in DNA sequences is thought to lead to mutations in cancer-related genes.

The four predominant mismatch repair genes include MLH1, MSH2, MSH 6, and PMS2. These genes may possess loss of function through a germline/inherited mechanism, such as Lynch syndrome, or can be sporadically acquired. Approximately 20%-30% of endometrial cancers exhibit MMR-d with acquired, sporadic losses in function being the majority of cases and only approximately 10% a result of Lynch syndrome. Mutations in PMS2 are the dominant genotype of Lynch syndrome, whereas loss of function in MLH1 is most frequent aberration in sporadic cases of MMR-d endometrial cancer.¹

Endometrial cancers can be tested for MMR-d by performing immunohistochemistry to look for loss of expression in the four most common MMR genes. If there is loss of expression of MLH1, additional triage testing can be performed to determine if this loss is caused by the epigenetic phenomenon of hypermethylation. When present, this excludes Lynch syndrome and suggests a sporadic form origin of the disease. If there is loss of expression of the MMR genes (including loss of MLH1 and subsequent negative testing for promotor methylation), the patient should receive genetic testing for the presence of a germline mutation indicating Lynch syndrome. As an adjunct or alternative to immunohistochemistry, PCR studies or next-generation sequencing can be used to measure the presence of microsatellite instability in a process that identifies the expansion or reduction in repetitive DNA sequences of the tumor, compared with normal tumor.²

It is of the highest importance to identify endometrial cancers caused by Lynch syndrome because this enables providers to offer cascade testing of relatives, and to intensify screening or preventative measures for the many other cancers (such as colon, upper gastrointestinal, breast, and urothelial) for which these patients are at risk. Therefore, routine screening for MMR-d tumors is recommended in all cases of endometrial cancer, not simply those of a young age at diagnosis or for whom a strong family history exists.³ Using family history factors, primary tumor site, and age as a trigger for screening for Lynch syndrome, such as the Bethesda Guidelines, is associated with a 82% sensitivity in identifying Lynch syndrome. In a meta-analysis including testing results from 1,159 women with endometrial cancer, 43% of patients who were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome via molecular analysis would have been missed by clinical screening using Bethesda Guidelines.²

Discovering cases of Lynch syndrome is not the only benefit of routine testing for MMR-d in endometrial cancers. There is also significant value in the characterization of sporadic mismatch repair–deficient tumors because this information provides prognostic information and guides therapy. Tumors with a microsatellite-high phenotype/MMR-d were identified as one of the four distinct molecular subgroups of endometrial cancer by the Cancer Genome Atlas.⁴ Patients with this molecular profile exhibited “intermediate” prognostic outcomes, performing better than the “serous-like” cancers with p53 mutations, yet worse than patients with a POLE ultramutated group who rarely experience recurrences or death, even in the setting of unfavorable histology.

Beyond prognostication, the molecular profile of endometrial cancers also influence their responsiveness to therapeutics, highlighting the importance of splitting, not lumping endometrial cancers into relevant molecular subgroups when designing research and practicing clinical medicine. The PORTEC-3 trial studied 410 women with high-risk endometrial cancer, and randomized participants to receive either adjuvant radiation alone, or radiation with chemotherapy.⁵ There were no differences in progression-free survival between the two therapeutic strategies when analyzed in aggregate. However, when analyzed by Cancer Genome Atlas molecular subgroup, it was noted that there was a clear benefit from chemotherapy for patients with p53 mutations. For patients with MMR-d tumors, no such benefit was observed. Patients assigned this molecular subgroup did no better with the addition of platinum and taxane chemotherapy over radiation alone. Unfortunately, for patients with MMR-d tumors, recurrence rates remained high, suggesting that we can and need to discover more effective therapies for these tumors than what is available with conventional radiation or platinum and taxane chemotherapy. Targeted therapy may be the solution to this problem. Through microsatellite instability, MMR-d tumors create somatic mutations which result in neoantigens, an immunogenic environment. This state up-regulates checkpoint inhibitor proteins, which serve as an actionable target for anti-PD-L1 antibodies, such as the drug pembrolizumab which has been shown to be highly active against MMR-d endometrial cancer. In the landmark, KEYNOTE-158 trial, patients with advanced, recurrent solid tumors that exhibited MMR-d were treated with pembrolizumab.⁶ This included 49 patients with endometrial cancer, among whom there was a 79% response rate. Subsequently, pembrolizumab was granted Food and Drug Administration approval for use in advanced, recurrent MMR-d/MSI-high endometrial cancer. Trials are currently enrolling patients to explore the utility of this drug in the up-front setting in both early- and late-stage disease with a hope that this targeted therapy can do what conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy has failed to do.

Therefore, given the clinical significance of mismatch repair deficiency, all patients with endometrial cancer should be investigated for loss of expression in these proteins, and if present, considered for the possibility of Lynch syndrome. While most will not have an inherited cause, this information regarding their tumor biology remains critically important in both prognostication and decision-making surrounding other therapies and their eligibility for promising clinical trials.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest to declare. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Simpkins SB et al. Hum. Mol. Genet. 1999;8:661-6.

2. Kahn R et al. Cancer. 2019 Sep 15;125(18):2172-3183.

3. SGO Clinical Practice Statement: Screening for Lynch Syndrome in Endometrial Cancer. https://www.sgo.org/clinical-practice/guidelines/screening-for-lynch-syndrome-in-endometrial-cancer/

4. Kandoth et al. Nature. 2013;497(7447):67-73.

5. Leon-Castillo A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 10;38(29):3388-97.

6. Marabelle A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 1;38(1):1-10.

Women with Lynch syndrome are known to carry an approximately 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer. These cancers result from inherited deleterious mutations in genes that code for mismatch repair proteins. However, mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-d) is not exclusively found in the tumors of patients with Lynch syndrome, and much is being learned about this group of endometrial cancers, their behavior, and their vulnerability to targeted therapies.

During the processes of DNA replication, recombination, or chemical and physical damage, mismatches in base pairs frequently occurs. Mismatch repair proteins function to identify and repair such errors, and the loss of their function causes the accumulation of the insertions or deletions of short, repetitive sequences of DNA. This phenomenon can be measured using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening of known microsatellites to look for the accumulation of errors, a phenotype which is called microsatellite instability (MSI). The accumulation of errors in DNA sequences is thought to lead to mutations in cancer-related genes.

The four predominant mismatch repair genes include MLH1, MSH2, MSH 6, and PMS2. These genes may possess loss of function through a germline/inherited mechanism, such as Lynch syndrome, or can be sporadically acquired. Approximately 20%-30% of endometrial cancers exhibit MMR-d with acquired, sporadic losses in function being the majority of cases and only approximately 10% a result of Lynch syndrome. Mutations in PMS2 are the dominant genotype of Lynch syndrome, whereas loss of function in MLH1 is most frequent aberration in sporadic cases of MMR-d endometrial cancer.¹

Endometrial cancers can be tested for MMR-d by performing immunohistochemistry to look for loss of expression in the four most common MMR genes. If there is loss of expression of MLH1, additional triage testing can be performed to determine if this loss is caused by the epigenetic phenomenon of hypermethylation. When present, this excludes Lynch syndrome and suggests a sporadic form origin of the disease. If there is loss of expression of the MMR genes (including loss of MLH1 and subsequent negative testing for promotor methylation), the patient should receive genetic testing for the presence of a germline mutation indicating Lynch syndrome. As an adjunct or alternative to immunohistochemistry, PCR studies or next-generation sequencing can be used to measure the presence of microsatellite instability in a process that identifies the expansion or reduction in repetitive DNA sequences of the tumor, compared with normal tumor.²

It is of the highest importance to identify endometrial cancers caused by Lynch syndrome because this enables providers to offer cascade testing of relatives, and to intensify screening or preventative measures for the many other cancers (such as colon, upper gastrointestinal, breast, and urothelial) for which these patients are at risk. Therefore, routine screening for MMR-d tumors is recommended in all cases of endometrial cancer, not simply those of a young age at diagnosis or for whom a strong family history exists.³ Using family history factors, primary tumor site, and age as a trigger for screening for Lynch syndrome, such as the Bethesda Guidelines, is associated with a 82% sensitivity in identifying Lynch syndrome. In a meta-analysis including testing results from 1,159 women with endometrial cancer, 43% of patients who were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome via molecular analysis would have been missed by clinical screening using Bethesda Guidelines.²

Discovering cases of Lynch syndrome is not the only benefit of routine testing for MMR-d in endometrial cancers. There is also significant value in the characterization of sporadic mismatch repair–deficient tumors because this information provides prognostic information and guides therapy. Tumors with a microsatellite-high phenotype/MMR-d were identified as one of the four distinct molecular subgroups of endometrial cancer by the Cancer Genome Atlas.⁴ Patients with this molecular profile exhibited “intermediate” prognostic outcomes, performing better than the “serous-like” cancers with p53 mutations, yet worse than patients with a POLE ultramutated group who rarely experience recurrences or death, even in the setting of unfavorable histology.

Beyond prognostication, the molecular profile of endometrial cancers also influence their responsiveness to therapeutics, highlighting the importance of splitting, not lumping endometrial cancers into relevant molecular subgroups when designing research and practicing clinical medicine. The PORTEC-3 trial studied 410 women with high-risk endometrial cancer, and randomized participants to receive either adjuvant radiation alone, or radiation with chemotherapy.⁵ There were no differences in progression-free survival between the two therapeutic strategies when analyzed in aggregate. However, when analyzed by Cancer Genome Atlas molecular subgroup, it was noted that there was a clear benefit from chemotherapy for patients with p53 mutations. For patients with MMR-d tumors, no such benefit was observed. Patients assigned this molecular subgroup did no better with the addition of platinum and taxane chemotherapy over radiation alone. Unfortunately, for patients with MMR-d tumors, recurrence rates remained high, suggesting that we can and need to discover more effective therapies for these tumors than what is available with conventional radiation or platinum and taxane chemotherapy. Targeted therapy may be the solution to this problem. Through microsatellite instability, MMR-d tumors create somatic mutations which result in neoantigens, an immunogenic environment. This state up-regulates checkpoint inhibitor proteins, which serve as an actionable target for anti-PD-L1 antibodies, such as the drug pembrolizumab which has been shown to be highly active against MMR-d endometrial cancer. In the landmark, KEYNOTE-158 trial, patients with advanced, recurrent solid tumors that exhibited MMR-d were treated with pembrolizumab.⁶ This included 49 patients with endometrial cancer, among whom there was a 79% response rate. Subsequently, pembrolizumab was granted Food and Drug Administration approval for use in advanced, recurrent MMR-d/MSI-high endometrial cancer. Trials are currently enrolling patients to explore the utility of this drug in the up-front setting in both early- and late-stage disease with a hope that this targeted therapy can do what conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy has failed to do.

Therefore, given the clinical significance of mismatch repair deficiency, all patients with endometrial cancer should be investigated for loss of expression in these proteins, and if present, considered for the possibility of Lynch syndrome. While most will not have an inherited cause, this information regarding their tumor biology remains critically important in both prognostication and decision-making surrounding other therapies and their eligibility for promising clinical trials.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest to declare. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Simpkins SB et al. Hum. Mol. Genet. 1999;8:661-6.

2. Kahn R et al. Cancer. 2019 Sep 15;125(18):2172-3183.

3. SGO Clinical Practice Statement: Screening for Lynch Syndrome in Endometrial Cancer. https://www.sgo.org/clinical-practice/guidelines/screening-for-lynch-syndrome-in-endometrial-cancer/

4. Kandoth et al. Nature. 2013;497(7447):67-73.

5. Leon-Castillo A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 10;38(29):3388-97.

6. Marabelle A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 1;38(1):1-10.

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) announced early closure of its phase 2/3 trial of a 6-month multidrug regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) because an independent data safety and monitoring board (DSMB) determined that the drug combination in the study regimen was superior to current therapy, according to a press release.

The trial, called TB PRACTECAL, compared the current local standard of care with a 6-month regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin. The interim analysis included 242 patients and the randomized, controlled trial was conducted in sites in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan.

The preliminary data will be shared with the World Health Organization soon and will also be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. If it withstands further reviews, as is anticipated, the trial would support the first solely oral regimen for MDR-TB.

In 2019, an estimated 465,000 people developed MDR-TB and 182,000 died. The global burden of TB at that time was about 10 million new cases, many with coexisting HIV.

Current treatment for MDR-TB lasts 9-20 months and is complicated by the need for painful shots and toxic antibiotics. Side effects can include psychiatric problems from quinolones, isoniazid, ethambutol, or cycloserine; deafness from aminoglycosides; and bone marrow suppression from linezolid, among other toxicities.

It’s hoped that the shorter regimen will reduce toxicity and improve patient compliance. Poor adherence to treatment is a major driver of further drug resistance. Current regimens require up to 20 pills per day as well as daily injections.

In a prepared statement from MSF, David Moore, MD, MSc, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a member of the TB-PRACTECAL trial’s steering committee, concluded: “The findings could transform the way we treat patients with drug-resistant forms of TB worldwide, who have been neglected for too long.”

This good news is particularly welcome as, in the time of COVID-19, “an estimated 1.4 million fewer people received care for tuberculosis in 2020 than in 2019,” according to the WHO. The drop, an overall 21% reduction in patients beginning treatment, ranged as high as 42% in Indonesia.

Although awaiting complete data, Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD, associate director of the McGill International TB Centre, McGill University, Montreal, shares Dr. Moore’s enthusiasm. In an interview, Dr. Pai compared MDR-TB with extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB).

“I’m excited about the possibility that these trial results might help shorten MDR-TB treatment to 6 months,” said Dr. Pai. “That will be a huge relief to all patients battling drug-resistant disease. The 6-month BPaL regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid) regimen works well in XDR-TB. So, I would expect the TB PRACTECAL regimen with one added drug (moxifloxacin) to work well in MDR-TB, which is less severe than XDR-TB. Between these two regimens, if we can bring down MDR and XDR treatment to 6 months, all oral, that would be a huge advance.”

The expense of bedaquiline has been a long-standing concern in the global health community. Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, has reduced the price to $340 per 6-month treatment course for more than 135 eligible low- and middle-income countries.

Previously, the tiered pricing structure was different for low-, middle-, and high-income countries (U.S. $900, $3,000, and $30,000, respectively). “The global TB community has asked Janssen to drop the price of bedaquiline to a level no higher than $32 per month – double the price at which researchers estimated bedaquiline could be sold for a profit,” according to the Treatment Action Group A major source of contention over pricing has been that there has been considerable public investment in the drug›s development.

Dr. Pai concluded: “Bedaquiline is likely the most important drug in both 6-month regimens. We need to work harder to make bedaquiline, an excellent drug, more affordable and accessible.”

While the full data is not yet publicly available, TB PRACTECAL was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. The fact that enrollment was discontinued early by the DSMB suggests the efficacy data was compelling and that this completely oral regimen will become the standard of care.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil and of Conducting Clinical Research, the essential guide to the topic. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) announced early closure of its phase 2/3 trial of a 6-month multidrug regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) because an independent data safety and monitoring board (DSMB) determined that the drug combination in the study regimen was superior to current therapy, according to a press release.

The trial, called TB PRACTECAL, compared the current local standard of care with a 6-month regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin. The interim analysis included 242 patients and the randomized, controlled trial was conducted in sites in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan.

The preliminary data will be shared with the World Health Organization soon and will also be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. If it withstands further reviews, as is anticipated, the trial would support the first solely oral regimen for MDR-TB.

In 2019, an estimated 465,000 people developed MDR-TB and 182,000 died. The global burden of TB at that time was about 10 million new cases, many with coexisting HIV.

Current treatment for MDR-TB lasts 9-20 months and is complicated by the need for painful shots and toxic antibiotics. Side effects can include psychiatric problems from quinolones, isoniazid, ethambutol, or cycloserine; deafness from aminoglycosides; and bone marrow suppression from linezolid, among other toxicities.

It’s hoped that the shorter regimen will reduce toxicity and improve patient compliance. Poor adherence to treatment is a major driver of further drug resistance. Current regimens require up to 20 pills per day as well as daily injections.

In a prepared statement from MSF, David Moore, MD, MSc, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a member of the TB-PRACTECAL trial’s steering committee, concluded: “The findings could transform the way we treat patients with drug-resistant forms of TB worldwide, who have been neglected for too long.”

This good news is particularly welcome as, in the time of COVID-19, “an estimated 1.4 million fewer people received care for tuberculosis in 2020 than in 2019,” according to the WHO. The drop, an overall 21% reduction in patients beginning treatment, ranged as high as 42% in Indonesia.

Although awaiting complete data, Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD, associate director of the McGill International TB Centre, McGill University, Montreal, shares Dr. Moore’s enthusiasm. In an interview, Dr. Pai compared MDR-TB with extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB).

“I’m excited about the possibility that these trial results might help shorten MDR-TB treatment to 6 months,” said Dr. Pai. “That will be a huge relief to all patients battling drug-resistant disease. The 6-month BPaL regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid) regimen works well in XDR-TB. So, I would expect the TB PRACTECAL regimen with one added drug (moxifloxacin) to work well in MDR-TB, which is less severe than XDR-TB. Between these two regimens, if we can bring down MDR and XDR treatment to 6 months, all oral, that would be a huge advance.”

The expense of bedaquiline has been a long-standing concern in the global health community. Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, has reduced the price to $340 per 6-month treatment course for more than 135 eligible low- and middle-income countries.

Previously, the tiered pricing structure was different for low-, middle-, and high-income countries (U.S. $900, $3,000, and $30,000, respectively). “The global TB community has asked Janssen to drop the price of bedaquiline to a level no higher than $32 per month – double the price at which researchers estimated bedaquiline could be sold for a profit,” according to the Treatment Action Group A major source of contention over pricing has been that there has been considerable public investment in the drug›s development.

Dr. Pai concluded: “Bedaquiline is likely the most important drug in both 6-month regimens. We need to work harder to make bedaquiline, an excellent drug, more affordable and accessible.”

While the full data is not yet publicly available, TB PRACTECAL was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. The fact that enrollment was discontinued early by the DSMB suggests the efficacy data was compelling and that this completely oral regimen will become the standard of care.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil and of Conducting Clinical Research, the essential guide to the topic. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) announced early closure of its phase 2/3 trial of a 6-month multidrug regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) because an independent data safety and monitoring board (DSMB) determined that the drug combination in the study regimen was superior to current therapy, according to a press release.

The trial, called TB PRACTECAL, compared the current local standard of care with a 6-month regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin. The interim analysis included 242 patients and the randomized, controlled trial was conducted in sites in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan.

The preliminary data will be shared with the World Health Organization soon and will also be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. If it withstands further reviews, as is anticipated, the trial would support the first solely oral regimen for MDR-TB.

In 2019, an estimated 465,000 people developed MDR-TB and 182,000 died. The global burden of TB at that time was about 10 million new cases, many with coexisting HIV.

Current treatment for MDR-TB lasts 9-20 months and is complicated by the need for painful shots and toxic antibiotics. Side effects can include psychiatric problems from quinolones, isoniazid, ethambutol, or cycloserine; deafness from aminoglycosides; and bone marrow suppression from linezolid, among other toxicities.

It’s hoped that the shorter regimen will reduce toxicity and improve patient compliance. Poor adherence to treatment is a major driver of further drug resistance. Current regimens require up to 20 pills per day as well as daily injections.

In a prepared statement from MSF, David Moore, MD, MSc, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a member of the TB-PRACTECAL trial’s steering committee, concluded: “The findings could transform the way we treat patients with drug-resistant forms of TB worldwide, who have been neglected for too long.”

This good news is particularly welcome as, in the time of COVID-19, “an estimated 1.4 million fewer people received care for tuberculosis in 2020 than in 2019,” according to the WHO. The drop, an overall 21% reduction in patients beginning treatment, ranged as high as 42% in Indonesia.

Although awaiting complete data, Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD, associate director of the McGill International TB Centre, McGill University, Montreal, shares Dr. Moore’s enthusiasm. In an interview, Dr. Pai compared MDR-TB with extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB).

“I’m excited about the possibility that these trial results might help shorten MDR-TB treatment to 6 months,” said Dr. Pai. “That will be a huge relief to all patients battling drug-resistant disease. The 6-month BPaL regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid) regimen works well in XDR-TB. So, I would expect the TB PRACTECAL regimen with one added drug (moxifloxacin) to work well in MDR-TB, which is less severe than XDR-TB. Between these two regimens, if we can bring down MDR and XDR treatment to 6 months, all oral, that would be a huge advance.”

The expense of bedaquiline has been a long-standing concern in the global health community. Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, has reduced the price to $340 per 6-month treatment course for more than 135 eligible low- and middle-income countries.

Previously, the tiered pricing structure was different for low-, middle-, and high-income countries (U.S. $900, $3,000, and $30,000, respectively). “The global TB community has asked Janssen to drop the price of bedaquiline to a level no higher than $32 per month – double the price at which researchers estimated bedaquiline could be sold for a profit,” according to the Treatment Action Group A major source of contention over pricing has been that there has been considerable public investment in the drug›s development.

Dr. Pai concluded: “Bedaquiline is likely the most important drug in both 6-month regimens. We need to work harder to make bedaquiline, an excellent drug, more affordable and accessible.”

While the full data is not yet publicly available, TB PRACTECAL was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. The fact that enrollment was discontinued early by the DSMB suggests the efficacy data was compelling and that this completely oral regimen will become the standard of care.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil and of Conducting Clinical Research, the essential guide to the topic. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.

The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.

The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.

Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).

Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.

“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”

The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.

However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.

“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.

“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.

The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.

The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.

The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.

Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).

Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.

“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”

The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.

However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.

“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.

“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.

The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.

The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.

The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.

Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).

Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.

“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”

The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.

However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.

“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.

“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.

The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in combination with everolimus or pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib alone for the treatment of newly diagnosed advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive treatment with 1 of 3 regimens: lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle; lenvatinib 18 mg daily plus everolimus 5 mg once daily for each 21-day cycle; or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off. Patients were stratified according to geographic region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic risk group.

Setting and participants. A total of 1417 patients were screened, and 1069 patients underwent randomization between October 2016 and July 2019: 355 patients were randomized to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 were randomized to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 357 were randomized to the sunitinib alone group. The patients must have had a diagnosis of previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component. All the patients need to have a Karnofsky performance status of at least 70, adequate renal function, and controlled blood pressure with or without antihypertensive medications.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint assessed the progression-free survival (PFS) as evaluated by independent review committee using RECIST, version 1.1. Imaging was performed at the time of screening and every 8 weeks thereafter. Secondary endpoints were safety, overall survival (OS), and objective response rate as well as investigator-assessed PFS. Also, they assessed the duration of response. During the treatment period, the safety and adverse events were assessed up to 30 days from the last dose of the trial drug.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. More than 70% of enrolled participants were male. Approximately 60% of participants were MSKCC intermediate risk, 27% were favorable risk, and 9% were poor risk. Patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1% or more represented 30% of the population. The remainder had a PD-L1 combined positive score of <1% (30%) or such data were not available (38%). Liver metastases were present in 17% of patients at baseline in each group, and 70% of patients had a prior nephrectomy. The data cutoff occurred in August 2020 for PFS and the median follow-up for OS was 26.6 months. Around 40% of the participants in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 18.8% in the sunitinib group, and 31% in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group were still receiving trial treatment at data cutoff. The leading cause for discontinuing therapy was disease progression. Approximately 50% of patients in the lenvatinib/everolimus group and sunitinib group received subsequent checkpoint inhibitor therapy after progression.

The median PFS in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group was significantly longer than in the sunitinib group, 23.9 months vs 9.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.32-0.49; P < 0.001). The median PFS was also significantly longer in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group compared with sunitinib, 14.7 vs 9.2 months (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.80; P < 0.001). The PFS benefit favored the lenvatinib combination groups over sunitinib in all subgroups, including the MSKCC prognostic risk groups. The median OS was not reached with any treatment, with 79% of patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 66% of patients in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 70% in the sunitinib group still alive at 24 months. Survival was significantly longer in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with sunitinib (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88; P = 0.005). The OS favored lenvatinib/pembrolizumab over sunitinib in the PD-L1 positive or negative groups. The median duration of response in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group was 25.8 months compared to 16.6 months and 14.6 months in the lenvatinib plus everolimus and sunitinib groups, respectively. Complete response rates were higher in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (16%) compared with lenvatinib/everolimus (9.8%) or sunitinib (4.2%). The median time to response was around 1.9 months in all 3 groups.

The most frequent adverse events seen in all groups were diarrhea, hypertension, fatigue, and nausea. Hypothyroidism was seen more frequently in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (47%). Grade 3 adverse events were seen in approximately 80% of patients in all groups. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was hypertension in all 3 groups. The median time for discontinuing treatment due to side effects was 8.97 months in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm, 5.49 months in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 4.57 months in the sunitinib group. In the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 15 patients had grade 5 adverse events; 11 participants had fatal events not related to disease progression. In the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, there were 22 patients with grade 5 events, with 10 fatal events not related to disease progression. In the sunitinib group, 11 patients had grade 5 events, and only 2 fatal events were not linked to disease progression.

Conclusion. The combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly prolongs PFS and OS compared with sunitinib in patients with previously untreated and advanced ccRCC. The median OS has not yet been reached.

Commentary

The results of the current phase 3 CLEAR trial highlight the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment in advanced ccRCC. This trial adds to the rapidly growing body of literature supporting the notion that the combination of anti-PD-1 based therapy with either CTLA-4 antibodies or VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) improves outcomes in previously untreated patients with advanced ccRCC. Previously presented data from Keynote-426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib), Checkmate-214 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and Javelin Renal 101 (Avelumab plus axitinib) have also shown improved outcomes with combination therapy in the frontline setting.^1-4 While the landscape of therapeutic options in the frontline setting continues to grow, there remains lack of clarity as to how to tailor our therapeutic decisions for specific patient populations. The exception would be nivolumab and ipilimumab, which are currently indicated for IMDC intermediate- or poor-risk patients.

The combination of VEGFR TKI therapy and PD-1 antibodies provides rapid disease control, with a median time to response in the current study of 1.9 months, and, generally speaking, a low risk of progression in the first 6 months of therapy. While cross-trial comparisons are always problematic, the PFS reported in this study and others with VEGFR TKI and PD-1 antibody combinations is quite impressive and surpasses that noted in Checkmate 214.³ While the median OS survival has not yet been reached, the long duration of PFS and complete response rate of 16% in this study certainly make this an attractive frontline option for newly diagnosed patients with advanced ccRCC. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the survival benefit noted.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The current data support the use VEGFR TKI and anti-PD1 therapy in the frontline setting. How to choose between such combination regimens or combination immunotherapy remains unclear, and further biomarker-based assessments are needed to help guide therapeutic decisions for our patients.

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in combination with everolimus or pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib alone for the treatment of newly diagnosed advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive treatment with 1 of 3 regimens: lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle; lenvatinib 18 mg daily plus everolimus 5 mg once daily for each 21-day cycle; or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off. Patients were stratified according to geographic region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic risk group.

Setting and participants. A total of 1417 patients were screened, and 1069 patients underwent randomization between October 2016 and July 2019: 355 patients were randomized to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 were randomized to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 357 were randomized to the sunitinib alone group. The patients must have had a diagnosis of previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component. All the patients need to have a Karnofsky performance status of at least 70, adequate renal function, and controlled blood pressure with or without antihypertensive medications.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint assessed the progression-free survival (PFS) as evaluated by independent review committee using RECIST, version 1.1. Imaging was performed at the time of screening and every 8 weeks thereafter. Secondary endpoints were safety, overall survival (OS), and objective response rate as well as investigator-assessed PFS. Also, they assessed the duration of response. During the treatment period, the safety and adverse events were assessed up to 30 days from the last dose of the trial drug.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. More than 70% of enrolled participants were male. Approximately 60% of participants were MSKCC intermediate risk, 27% were favorable risk, and 9% were poor risk. Patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1% or more represented 30% of the population. The remainder had a PD-L1 combined positive score of <1% (30%) or such data were not available (38%). Liver metastases were present in 17% of patients at baseline in each group, and 70% of patients had a prior nephrectomy. The data cutoff occurred in August 2020 for PFS and the median follow-up for OS was 26.6 months. Around 40% of the participants in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 18.8% in the sunitinib group, and 31% in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group were still receiving trial treatment at data cutoff. The leading cause for discontinuing therapy was disease progression. Approximately 50% of patients in the lenvatinib/everolimus group and sunitinib group received subsequent checkpoint inhibitor therapy after progression.

The median PFS in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group was significantly longer than in the sunitinib group, 23.9 months vs 9.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.32-0.49; P < 0.001). The median PFS was also significantly longer in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group compared with sunitinib, 14.7 vs 9.2 months (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.80; P < 0.001). The PFS benefit favored the lenvatinib combination groups over sunitinib in all subgroups, including the MSKCC prognostic risk groups. The median OS was not reached with any treatment, with 79% of patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 66% of patients in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 70% in the sunitinib group still alive at 24 months. Survival was significantly longer in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with sunitinib (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88; P = 0.005). The OS favored lenvatinib/pembrolizumab over sunitinib in the PD-L1 positive or negative groups. The median duration of response in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group was 25.8 months compared to 16.6 months and 14.6 months in the lenvatinib plus everolimus and sunitinib groups, respectively. Complete response rates were higher in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (16%) compared with lenvatinib/everolimus (9.8%) or sunitinib (4.2%). The median time to response was around 1.9 months in all 3 groups.

The most frequent adverse events seen in all groups were diarrhea, hypertension, fatigue, and nausea. Hypothyroidism was seen more frequently in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (47%). Grade 3 adverse events were seen in approximately 80% of patients in all groups. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was hypertension in all 3 groups. The median time for discontinuing treatment due to side effects was 8.97 months in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm, 5.49 months in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 4.57 months in the sunitinib group. In the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 15 patients had grade 5 adverse events; 11 participants had fatal events not related to disease progression. In the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, there were 22 patients with grade 5 events, with 10 fatal events not related to disease progression. In the sunitinib group, 11 patients had grade 5 events, and only 2 fatal events were not linked to disease progression.

Conclusion. The combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly prolongs PFS and OS compared with sunitinib in patients with previously untreated and advanced ccRCC. The median OS has not yet been reached.

Commentary

The results of the current phase 3 CLEAR trial highlight the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment in advanced ccRCC. This trial adds to the rapidly growing body of literature supporting the notion that the combination of anti-PD-1 based therapy with either CTLA-4 antibodies or VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) improves outcomes in previously untreated patients with advanced ccRCC. Previously presented data from Keynote-426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib), Checkmate-214 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and Javelin Renal 101 (Avelumab plus axitinib) have also shown improved outcomes with combination therapy in the frontline setting.^1-4 While the landscape of therapeutic options in the frontline setting continues to grow, there remains lack of clarity as to how to tailor our therapeutic decisions for specific patient populations. The exception would be nivolumab and ipilimumab, which are currently indicated for IMDC intermediate- or poor-risk patients.

The combination of VEGFR TKI therapy and PD-1 antibodies provides rapid disease control, with a median time to response in the current study of 1.9 months, and, generally speaking, a low risk of progression in the first 6 months of therapy. While cross-trial comparisons are always problematic, the PFS reported in this study and others with VEGFR TKI and PD-1 antibody combinations is quite impressive and surpasses that noted in Checkmate 214.³ While the median OS survival has not yet been reached, the long duration of PFS and complete response rate of 16% in this study certainly make this an attractive frontline option for newly diagnosed patients with advanced ccRCC. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the survival benefit noted.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The current data support the use VEGFR TKI and anti-PD1 therapy in the frontline setting. How to choose between such combination regimens or combination immunotherapy remains unclear, and further biomarker-based assessments are needed to help guide therapeutic decisions for our patients.

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in combination with everolimus or pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib alone for the treatment of newly diagnosed advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive treatment with 1 of 3 regimens: lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle; lenvatinib 18 mg daily plus everolimus 5 mg once daily for each 21-day cycle; or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off. Patients were stratified according to geographic region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic risk group.

Setting and participants. A total of 1417 patients were screened, and 1069 patients underwent randomization between October 2016 and July 2019: 355 patients were randomized to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 were randomized to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 357 were randomized to the sunitinib alone group. The patients must have had a diagnosis of previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component. All the patients need to have a Karnofsky performance status of at least 70, adequate renal function, and controlled blood pressure with or without antihypertensive medications.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint assessed the progression-free survival (PFS) as evaluated by independent review committee using RECIST, version 1.1. Imaging was performed at the time of screening and every 8 weeks thereafter. Secondary endpoints were safety, overall survival (OS), and objective response rate as well as investigator-assessed PFS. Also, they assessed the duration of response. During the treatment period, the safety and adverse events were assessed up to 30 days from the last dose of the trial drug.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. More than 70% of enrolled participants were male. Approximately 60% of participants were MSKCC intermediate risk, 27% were favorable risk, and 9% were poor risk. Patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1% or more represented 30% of the population. The remainder had a PD-L1 combined positive score of <1% (30%) or such data were not available (38%). Liver metastases were present in 17% of patients at baseline in each group, and 70% of patients had a prior nephrectomy. The data cutoff occurred in August 2020 for PFS and the median follow-up for OS was 26.6 months. Around 40% of the participants in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 18.8% in the sunitinib group, and 31% in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group were still receiving trial treatment at data cutoff. The leading cause for discontinuing therapy was disease progression. Approximately 50% of patients in the lenvatinib/everolimus group and sunitinib group received subsequent checkpoint inhibitor therapy after progression.

The median PFS in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group was significantly longer than in the sunitinib group, 23.9 months vs 9.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.32-0.49; P < 0.001). The median PFS was also significantly longer in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group compared with sunitinib, 14.7 vs 9.2 months (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.80; P < 0.001). The PFS benefit favored the lenvatinib combination groups over sunitinib in all subgroups, including the MSKCC prognostic risk groups. The median OS was not reached with any treatment, with 79% of patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 66% of patients in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 70% in the sunitinib group still alive at 24 months. Survival was significantly longer in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with sunitinib (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88; P = 0.005). The OS favored lenvatinib/pembrolizumab over sunitinib in the PD-L1 positive or negative groups. The median duration of response in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group was 25.8 months compared to 16.6 months and 14.6 months in the lenvatinib plus everolimus and sunitinib groups, respectively. Complete response rates were higher in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (16%) compared with lenvatinib/everolimus (9.8%) or sunitinib (4.2%). The median time to response was around 1.9 months in all 3 groups.

The most frequent adverse events seen in all groups were diarrhea, hypertension, fatigue, and nausea. Hypothyroidism was seen more frequently in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (47%). Grade 3 adverse events were seen in approximately 80% of patients in all groups. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was hypertension in all 3 groups. The median time for discontinuing treatment due to side effects was 8.97 months in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm, 5.49 months in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 4.57 months in the sunitinib group. In the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 15 patients had grade 5 adverse events; 11 participants had fatal events not related to disease progression. In the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, there were 22 patients with grade 5 events, with 10 fatal events not related to disease progression. In the sunitinib group, 11 patients had grade 5 events, and only 2 fatal events were not linked to disease progression.

Conclusion. The combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly prolongs PFS and OS compared with sunitinib in patients with previously untreated and advanced ccRCC. The median OS has not yet been reached.

Commentary

The results of the current phase 3 CLEAR trial highlight the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment in advanced ccRCC. This trial adds to the rapidly growing body of literature supporting the notion that the combination of anti-PD-1 based therapy with either CTLA-4 antibodies or VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) improves outcomes in previously untreated patients with advanced ccRCC. Previously presented data from Keynote-426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib), Checkmate-214 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and Javelin Renal 101 (Avelumab plus axitinib) have also shown improved outcomes with combination therapy in the frontline setting.^1-4 While the landscape of therapeutic options in the frontline setting continues to grow, there remains lack of clarity as to how to tailor our therapeutic decisions for specific patient populations. The exception would be nivolumab and ipilimumab, which are currently indicated for IMDC intermediate- or poor-risk patients.

The combination of VEGFR TKI therapy and PD-1 antibodies provides rapid disease control, with a median time to response in the current study of 1.9 months, and, generally speaking, a low risk of progression in the first 6 months of therapy. While cross-trial comparisons are always problematic, the PFS reported in this study and others with VEGFR TKI and PD-1 antibody combinations is quite impressive and surpasses that noted in Checkmate 214.³ While the median OS survival has not yet been reached, the long duration of PFS and complete response rate of 16% in this study certainly make this an attractive frontline option for newly diagnosed patients with advanced ccRCC. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the survival benefit noted.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The current data support the use VEGFR TKI and anti-PD1 therapy in the frontline setting. How to choose between such combination regimens or combination immunotherapy remains unclear, and further biomarker-based assessments are needed to help guide therapeutic decisions for our patients.

From The Ohio State University College of Medicine Department of Family and Community Medicine, Columbus, OH (Candy Magaña, Jná Báez, Christine Junk, Drs. Ahmad, Conroy, and Olayiwola); The Ohio State University College of Medicine Center for Primary Care Innovation and Transformation (Candy Magaña, Jná Báez, and Dr. Olayiwola); and The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (Christine Harsh, Erica Esposito).

Much has been discussed about the growing crisis of professional dissatisfaction among physicians, with increasing efforts being made to incorporate physician wellness into health system strategies that move from the Triple to the Quadruple Aim.¹ For many years, our health care system has been focused on improving the health of populations, optimizing the patient experience, and reducing the cost of care (Triple Aim). The inclusion of the fourth aim, improving the experience of the teams that deliver care, has become paramount in achieving the other aims.

An area often overlooked in this focus on wellness, however, is the importance of the earliest days of employment to shape and predict long-term career contentment. This is a missed opportunity, as data suggest that organizations with standardized onboarding programs boast a 62% increased productivity rate and a 50% greater retention rate among new hires.^2,3 Moreover, a study by the International Institute for Management Development found that businesses lose an estimated $37 billion annually because employees do not fully understand their jobs.⁴ The report ties losses to “actions taken by employees who have misunderstood or misinterpreted company policies, business processes, job function, or a combination of the three.” Additionally, onboarding programs that focus strictly on technical or functional orientation tasks miss important opportunities for culture integration during the onboarding process.⁵ It is therefore imperative to look to effective models of employee onboarding to develop systems that position physicians and practices for success.

Challenges With Traditional Physician Onboarding

In recent years, the Department of Family and Community Medicine at The Ohio State University College of Medicine has experienced rapid organizational change. Like many primary care systems nationwide responding to disruption in health care and changing demands on the clinical workforce, the department has hired new leadership, revised strategic priorities, and witnessed an influx of faculty and staff. It has also planned an expansion of ambulatory services that will more than double the clinical workforce over the next 3 years. While an exciting time, there has been a growing need to align strategy, culture, and human capital during these changes.

As we entered this phase of transformation, we recognized that our highly individualized, ad hoc orientation system presented shortcomings. During the act of revamping our physician recruitment process, stakeholder workgroup members specifically noted that improvement efforts were needed regarding new physician orientation, as no consistent structures were previously in place. New physician orientation had been a major gap for years, resulting in dissatisfaction in the first few months of physician practice, early physician turnover, and staff frustration. For physicians, we continued to learn about their frustration and unanswered questions regarding expectations, norms, structures, and processes.

Many new hires were left with a kind of “trial by fire” entry into their roles. On the first day of clinic, a new physician would most likely need to simultaneously see patients, learn the nuances of the electronic health record (EHR), figure out where the break room was located, and quickly learn population health issues for the patients they were serving. Opportunities to meet key clinic site leadership would be at random, and new physicians might not have the opportunity to meet leadership or staff until months into their tenure; this did not allow for a sense of belonging or understanding of the many resources available to them. We learned that the quality of these ad hoc orientations also varied based on the experience and priorities of each practice’s clinic and administrative leaders, who themselves felt ill-equipped to provide a consistent, robust, and confidence-building experience. In addition, practice site management was rarely given advance time to prepare for the arrival of new physicians, which resulted in physicians perceiving practices to be unwelcoming and disorganized. Their first days were often spent with patients in clinic with no structured orientation and without understanding workflows or having systems practice knowledge.

Institutionally, the interview process satisfied some transfer of knowledge, but we were unclear of what was being consistently shared and understood in the multiple ambulatory locations where our physicians enter practice. More importantly, we knew we were missing a critical opportunity to use orientation to imbue other values of diversity and inclusion, health equity, and operational excellence into the workforce. Based on anecdotal insights from employees and our own review of successful onboarding approaches from other industries, we also knew a more structured welcoming process would predict greater long-term career satisfaction for physicians and create a foundation for providing optimal care for patients when clinical encounters began.

Reengineering Physician Onboarding

In 2019, our department developed a multipronged approach to physician onboarding, which is already paying dividends in easing acculturation and fostering team cohesion. The department tapped its Center for Primary Care Innovation and Transformation (PCIT) to direct this effort, based on its expertise in practice transformation, clinical transformation and adaptations, and workflow efficiency through process and quality improvement. The PCIT team provides support to the department and the entire health system focused on technology and innovation, health equity, and health care efficiency.⁶ They applied many of the tools used in the Clinical Transformation in Technology approach to lead this initiative.⁷

The PCIT team began identifying key stakeholders (department, clinical and ambulatory leadership, clinicians and clinical staff, community partners, human resources, and resident physicians), and then engaging those individuals in dialogue surrounding orientation needs. During scheduled in-person and virtual work sessions, stakeholders were asked to provide input on pain points for new physicians and clinic leadership and were then empowered to create an onboarding program. Applying health care quality improvement techniques, we leveraged workflow mapping, current and future state planning, and goal setting, led by the skilled process improvement and clinical transformation specialists. We coordinated a multidisciplinary process improvement team that included clinic administrators, medical directors, human resources, administrative staff, ambulatory and resident leadership, clinical leadership, and recruitment liaisons. This diverse group of leadership and staff was brought together to address these critical identified gaps and weaknesses in new physician onboarding.

Through a series of learning sessions, the workgroup provided input that was used to form an itemized physician onboarding schedule, which was then leveraged to develop Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, collecting feedback in real time. Some issues that seem small can cause major distress for new physicians. For example, in our inaugural orientation implementation, a physician provided feedback that they wanted to obtain information on setting up their work email on their personal devices and was having considerable trouble figuring out how to do so. This particular topic was not initially included in the first iteration of the Department’s orientation program. We rapidly sought out different ways to embed that into the onboarding experience. The first PDSA involved integrating the university information technology team (IT) into the process but was not successful because it required extra work for the new physician and reliance on the IT schedule. The next attempt was to have IT train a department staff member, but again, this still required that the physician find time to connect with that staff member. Finally, we decided to obtain a useful tip sheet that clearly outlined the process and could be included in orientation materials. This gave the new physicians control over how and when they would work on this issue. Based on these learnings, this was incorporated as a standing agenda item and resource for incoming physicians.

Essential Elements of Effective Onboarding

The new physician onboarding program consists of 5 key elements: (1) 2-week acclimation period; (2) peer learning and connection; (3) training before beginning patient care; (4) standardization, transparency, and accountability in all processes; (5) ongoing feedback for continued program improvement with individual support (Figure).

The program begins with a 2-week period of intentional investment in individual success, during which time no patients are scheduled. In week 1, we work with new hires to set expectations for performance, understand departmental norms, and introduce culture. Physicians meet formally and informally with department and institutional leadership, as well as attend team meetings and trainings that include a range of administrative and compliance requirements, such as quality standards and expectations, compliance, billing and coding specific to family medicine, EHR management, and institutionally mandated orientations. We are also adding implicit bias and antiracism training during this period, which are essential to creating a culture of unity and belonging.

During week 2, we focus on clinic-level orientation, assigning new hires an orientation buddy and a department sponsor, such as a physician lead or medical director. Physicians spend time with leadership at their clinic as they nurture relationships important for mentorship, sponsorship, and peer support. They also meet care team members, including front desk associates, medical assistants, behavioral health clinicians, nutritionists, social workers, pharmacists, and other key colleagues and care team members. This introduces the physician to the clinical environment and physical space as well as acclimates the physician to workflows and feedback loops for regular interaction.

When physicians ultimately begin patient care, they begin with an expected productivity rate of 50%, followed by an expected productivity rate of 75%, and then an expected productivity rate of 100%. This steady increase occurs over 3 to 4 weeks depending on the physician’s comfort level. They are also provided monthly reports on work relative value unit performance so that they can track and adapt practice patterns as necessary.More details on the program can be found in Appendix 1.

Takeaways From the Implementation of the New Program

Give time for new physicians to focus on acclimating to the role and environment.

The initial 2-week period of transition—without direct patient care—ensures that physicians feel comfortable in their new ecosystem. This also supports personal transitions, as many new hires are managing relocation and acclimating themselves and their families to new settings. Even residents from our training program who returned as attending physicians found this flexibility and slow reentry essential. This also gives the clinic time to orient to an additional provider, nurture them into the team culture, and develop relationships with the care team.

Cultivate spaces for shared learning, problem-solving, and peer connection.

Orientation is delivered primarily through group learning sessions with cohorts of new physicians, thus developing spaces for networking, fostering psychological safety, encouraging personal and professional rapport, emphasizing interactive learning, and reinforcing scheduling blocks at the departmental level. New hires also participate in peer shadowing to develop clinical competencies and are assigned a workplace buddy to foster a sense of belonging and create opportunities for additional knowledge sharing and cross-training.

Strengthen physician knowledge base, confidence, and comfort in the workplace before beginning direct patient care.

Without fluency in the workflows, culture, and operations of a practice, the urgency to have physicians begin clinical care can result in frustration for the physician, patients, and clinical and administrative staff. Therefore, we complete essential training prior to seeing any patients. This includes clinical workflows, referral processes, use of alternate modalities of care (eg, telehealth, eConsults), billing protocols, population health training, patient resources, office resources, and other essential daily processes and tools. This creates efficiency in administrative management, increased productivity, and better understanding of resources available for patients’ medical, social, and behavioral needs when patient care begins.

Embrace standardization, transparency, and accountability in as many processes as possible.

Standardized knowledge-sharing and checklists are mandated at every step of the orientation process, requiring sign off from the physician lead, practice manager, and new physicians upon completion. This offers all parties the opportunity to play a role in the delivery of and accountability for skills transfer and empowers new hires to press pause if they feel unsure about any domain in the training. It is also essential in guaranteeing that all physicians—regardless of which ambulatory location they practice in—receive consistent information and expectations. A sample checklist can be found in Appendix 2.

Commit to collecting and acting on feedback for continued program improvement and individual support.

As physicians complete the program, it is necessary to create structures to measure and enhance its impact, as well as evaluate how physicians are faring following the program. Each physician completes surveys at the end of the orientation program, attends a 90-day post-program check-in with the department chair, and receives follow-up trainings on advanced topics as they become more deeply embedded in the organization.

Lessons Learned

Feedback from surveys and 90-day check-ins with leadership and physicians reflect a high degree of clarity on job roles and duties, a sense of team camaraderie, easier system navigation, and a strong sense of support. We do recognize that sustaining change takes time and our study is limited by data demonstrating the impact of these efforts. We look forward to sharing more robust data from surveys and qualitative interviews with physicians, clinical leadership, and staff in the future. Our team will conduct interviews at 90-day and 180-day checkpoints with new physicians who have gone through this program, followed by a check-in after 1 year. Additionally, new physicians as well as key stakeholders, such as physician leads, practice managers, and members of the recruitment team, have started to participate in short surveys. These are designed to better understand their experiences, what worked well, what can be improved, and the overall satisfaction of the physician and other members of the extended care team.

What follows are some comments made by the initial group of physicians that went through this program and participated in follow-up interviews:

“I really feel like part of a bigger team.”

“I knew exactly what do to when I walked into the exam room on clinic Day 1.”

“It was great to make deep connections during the early process of joining.”

“Having a buddy to direct questions and ideas to is amazing and empowering.”

“Even though the orientation was long, I felt that I learned so much that I would not have otherwise.”

“Thank you for not letting me crash and burn!”

“Great culture! I love understanding our values of health equity, diversity, and inclusion.”

In the months since our endeavor began, we have learned just how essential it is to fully and effectively integrate new hires into the organization for their own satisfaction and success—and ours. Indeed, we cannot expect to achieve the Quadruple Aim without investing in the kind of transparent and intentional orientation process that defines expectations, aligns cultural values, mitigates costly and stressful operational misunderstandings, and communicates to physicians that, not only do they belong, but their sense of belonging is our priority. While we have yet to understand the impact of this program on the fourth aim of the Quadruple Aim, we are hopeful that the benefits will be far-reaching.

It is our ultimate hope that programs like this: (1) give physicians the confidence needed to create impactful patient-centered experiences; (2) enable physicians to become more cost-effective and efficient in care delivery; (3) allow physicians to understand the populations they are serving and access tools available to mitigate health disparities and other barriers; and (4) improve the collective experience of every member of the care team, practice leadership, and clinician-patient partnership.

Corresponding author: J. Nwando Olayiwola, MD, MPH, FAAFP, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 2231 N High St, Ste 250, Columbus, OH 43210; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Keywords: physician onboarding; Quadruple Aim; leadership; clinician satisfaction; care team satisfaction.

From The Ohio State University College of Medicine Department of Family and Community Medicine, Columbus, OH (Candy Magaña, Jná Báez, Christine Junk, Drs. Ahmad, Conroy, and Olayiwola); The Ohio State University College of Medicine Center for Primary Care Innovation and Transformation (Candy Magaña, Jná Báez, and Dr. Olayiwola); and The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (Christine Harsh, Erica Esposito).

Much has been discussed about the growing crisis of professional dissatisfaction among physicians, with increasing efforts being made to incorporate physician wellness into health system strategies that move from the Triple to the Quadruple Aim.¹ For many years, our health care system has been focused on improving the health of populations, optimizing the patient experience, and reducing the cost of care (Triple Aim). The inclusion of the fourth aim, improving the experience of the teams that deliver care, has become paramount in achieving the other aims.

An area often overlooked in this focus on wellness, however, is the importance of the earliest days of employment to shape and predict long-term career contentment. This is a missed opportunity, as data suggest that organizations with standardized onboarding programs boast a 62% increased productivity rate and a 50% greater retention rate among new hires.^2,3 Moreover, a study by the International Institute for Management Development found that businesses lose an estimated $37 billion annually because employees do not fully understand their jobs.⁴ The report ties losses to “actions taken by employees who have misunderstood or misinterpreted company policies, business processes, job function, or a combination of the three.” Additionally, onboarding programs that focus strictly on technical or functional orientation tasks miss important opportunities for culture integration during the onboarding process.⁵ It is therefore imperative to look to effective models of employee onboarding to develop systems that position physicians and practices for success.

Challenges With Traditional Physician Onboarding

In recent years, the Department of Family and Community Medicine at The Ohio State University College of Medicine has experienced rapid organizational change. Like many primary care systems nationwide responding to disruption in health care and changing demands on the clinical workforce, the department has hired new leadership, revised strategic priorities, and witnessed an influx of faculty and staff. It has also planned an expansion of ambulatory services that will more than double the clinical workforce over the next 3 years. While an exciting time, there has been a growing need to align strategy, culture, and human capital during these changes.

As we entered this phase of transformation, we recognized that our highly individualized, ad hoc orientation system presented shortcomings. During the act of revamping our physician recruitment process, stakeholder workgroup members specifically noted that improvement efforts were needed regarding new physician orientation, as no consistent structures were previously in place. New physician orientation had been a major gap for years, resulting in dissatisfaction in the first few months of physician practice, early physician turnover, and staff frustration. For physicians, we continued to learn about their frustration and unanswered questions regarding expectations, norms, structures, and processes.

Many new hires were left with a kind of “trial by fire” entry into their roles. On the first day of clinic, a new physician would most likely need to simultaneously see patients, learn the nuances of the electronic health record (EHR), figure out where the break room was located, and quickly learn population health issues for the patients they were serving. Opportunities to meet key clinic site leadership would be at random, and new physicians might not have the opportunity to meet leadership or staff until months into their tenure; this did not allow for a sense of belonging or understanding of the many resources available to them. We learned that the quality of these ad hoc orientations also varied based on the experience and priorities of each practice’s clinic and administrative leaders, who themselves felt ill-equipped to provide a consistent, robust, and confidence-building experience. In addition, practice site management was rarely given advance time to prepare for the arrival of new physicians, which resulted in physicians perceiving practices to be unwelcoming and disorganized. Their first days were often spent with patients in clinic with no structured orientation and without understanding workflows or having systems practice knowledge.

Institutionally, the interview process satisfied some transfer of knowledge, but we were unclear of what was being consistently shared and understood in the multiple ambulatory locations where our physicians enter practice. More importantly, we knew we were missing a critical opportunity to use orientation to imbue other values of diversity and inclusion, health equity, and operational excellence into the workforce. Based on anecdotal insights from employees and our own review of successful onboarding approaches from other industries, we also knew a more structured welcoming process would predict greater long-term career satisfaction for physicians and create a foundation for providing optimal care for patients when clinical encounters began.

Reengineering Physician Onboarding

In 2019, our department developed a multipronged approach to physician onboarding, which is already paying dividends in easing acculturation and fostering team cohesion. The department tapped its Center for Primary Care Innovation and Transformation (PCIT) to direct this effort, based on its expertise in practice transformation, clinical transformation and adaptations, and workflow efficiency through process and quality improvement. The PCIT team provides support to the department and the entire health system focused on technology and innovation, health equity, and health care efficiency.⁶ They applied many of the tools used in the Clinical Transformation in Technology approach to lead this initiative.⁷

The PCIT team began identifying key stakeholders (department, clinical and ambulatory leadership, clinicians and clinical staff, community partners, human resources, and resident physicians), and then engaging those individuals in dialogue surrounding orientation needs. During scheduled in-person and virtual work sessions, stakeholders were asked to provide input on pain points for new physicians and clinic leadership and were then empowered to create an onboarding program. Applying health care quality improvement techniques, we leveraged workflow mapping, current and future state planning, and goal setting, led by the skilled process improvement and clinical transformation specialists. We coordinated a multidisciplinary process improvement team that included clinic administrators, medical directors, human resources, administrative staff, ambulatory and resident leadership, clinical leadership, and recruitment liaisons. This diverse group of leadership and staff was brought together to address these critical identified gaps and weaknesses in new physician onboarding.

Through a series of learning sessions, the workgroup provided input that was used to form an itemized physician onboarding schedule, which was then leveraged to develop Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, collecting feedback in real time. Some issues that seem small can cause major distress for new physicians. For example, in our inaugural orientation implementation, a physician provided feedback that they wanted to obtain information on setting up their work email on their personal devices and was having considerable trouble figuring out how to do so. This particular topic was not initially included in the first iteration of the Department’s orientation program. We rapidly sought out different ways to embed that into the onboarding experience. The first PDSA involved integrating the university information technology team (IT) into the process but was not successful because it required extra work for the new physician and reliance on the IT schedule. The next attempt was to have IT train a department staff member, but again, this still required that the physician find time to connect with that staff member. Finally, we decided to obtain a useful tip sheet that clearly outlined the process and could be included in orientation materials. This gave the new physicians control over how and when they would work on this issue. Based on these learnings, this was incorporated as a standing agenda item and resource for incoming physicians.

Essential Elements of Effective Onboarding

The new physician onboarding program consists of 5 key elements: (1) 2-week acclimation period; (2) peer learning and connection; (3) training before beginning patient care; (4) standardization, transparency, and accountability in all processes; (5) ongoing feedback for continued program improvement with individual support (Figure).

The program begins with a 2-week period of intentional investment in individual success, during which time no patients are scheduled. In week 1, we work with new hires to set expectations for performance, understand departmental norms, and introduce culture. Physicians meet formally and informally with department and institutional leadership, as well as attend team meetings and trainings that include a range of administrative and compliance requirements, such as quality standards and expectations, compliance, billing and coding specific to family medicine, EHR management, and institutionally mandated orientations. We are also adding implicit bias and antiracism training during this period, which are essential to creating a culture of unity and belonging.

During week 2, we focus on clinic-level orientation, assigning new hires an orientation buddy and a department sponsor, such as a physician lead or medical director. Physicians spend time with leadership at their clinic as they nurture relationships important for mentorship, sponsorship, and peer support. They also meet care team members, including front desk associates, medical assistants, behavioral health clinicians, nutritionists, social workers, pharmacists, and other key colleagues and care team members. This introduces the physician to the clinical environment and physical space as well as acclimates the physician to workflows and feedback loops for regular interaction.

When physicians ultimately begin patient care, they begin with an expected productivity rate of 50%, followed by an expected productivity rate of 75%, and then an expected productivity rate of 100%. This steady increase occurs over 3 to 4 weeks depending on the physician’s comfort level. They are also provided monthly reports on work relative value unit performance so that they can track and adapt practice patterns as necessary.More details on the program can be found in Appendix 1.

Takeaways From the Implementation of the New Program

Give time for new physicians to focus on acclimating to the role and environment.

The initial 2-week period of transition—without direct patient care—ensures that physicians feel comfortable in their new ecosystem. This also supports personal transitions, as many new hires are managing relocation and acclimating themselves and their families to new settings. Even residents from our training program who returned as attending physicians found this flexibility and slow reentry essential. This also gives the clinic time to orient to an additional provider, nurture them into the team culture, and develop relationships with the care team.

Cultivate spaces for shared learning, problem-solving, and peer connection.

Orientation is delivered primarily through group learning sessions with cohorts of new physicians, thus developing spaces for networking, fostering psychological safety, encouraging personal and professional rapport, emphasizing interactive learning, and reinforcing scheduling blocks at the departmental level. New hires also participate in peer shadowing to develop clinical competencies and are assigned a workplace buddy to foster a sense of belonging and create opportunities for additional knowledge sharing and cross-training.

Strengthen physician knowledge base, confidence, and comfort in the workplace before beginning direct patient care.

Without fluency in the workflows, culture, and operations of a practice, the urgency to have physicians begin clinical care can result in frustration for the physician, patients, and clinical and administrative staff. Therefore, we complete essential training prior to seeing any patients. This includes clinical workflows, referral processes, use of alternate modalities of care (eg, telehealth, eConsults), billing protocols, population health training, patient resources, office resources, and other essential daily processes and tools. This creates efficiency in administrative management, increased productivity, and better understanding of resources available for patients’ medical, social, and behavioral needs when patient care begins.

Embrace standardization, transparency, and accountability in as many processes as possible.

Standardized knowledge-sharing and checklists are mandated at every step of the orientation process, requiring sign off from the physician lead, practice manager, and new physicians upon completion. This offers all parties the opportunity to play a role in the delivery of and accountability for skills transfer and empowers new hires to press pause if they feel unsure about any domain in the training. It is also essential in guaranteeing that all physicians—regardless of which ambulatory location they practice in—receive consistent information and expectations. A sample checklist can be found in Appendix 2.

Commit to collecting and acting on feedback for continued program improvement and individual support.

As physicians complete the program, it is necessary to create structures to measure and enhance its impact, as well as evaluate how physicians are faring following the program. Each physician completes surveys at the end of the orientation program, attends a 90-day post-program check-in with the department chair, and receives follow-up trainings on advanced topics as they become more deeply embedded in the organization.

Lessons Learned

Feedback from surveys and 90-day check-ins with leadership and physicians reflect a high degree of clarity on job roles and duties, a sense of team camaraderie, easier system navigation, and a strong sense of support. We do recognize that sustaining change takes time and our study is limited by data demonstrating the impact of these efforts. We look forward to sharing more robust data from surveys and qualitative interviews with physicians, clinical leadership, and staff in the future. Our team will conduct interviews at 90-day and 180-day checkpoints with new physicians who have gone through this program, followed by a check-in after 1 year. Additionally, new physicians as well as key stakeholders, such as physician leads, practice managers, and members of the recruitment team, have started to participate in short surveys. These are designed to better understand their experiences, what worked well, what can be improved, and the overall satisfaction of the physician and other members of the extended care team.

What follows are some comments made by the initial group of physicians that went through this program and participated in follow-up interviews:

“I really feel like part of a bigger team.”

“I knew exactly what do to when I walked into the exam room on clinic Day 1.”

“It was great to make deep connections during the early process of joining.”

“Having a buddy to direct questions and ideas to is amazing and empowering.”

“Even though the orientation was long, I felt that I learned so much that I would not have otherwise.”

“Thank you for not letting me crash and burn!”

“Great culture! I love understanding our values of health equity, diversity, and inclusion.”

In the months since our endeavor began, we have learned just how essential it is to fully and effectively integrate new hires into the organization for their own satisfaction and success—and ours. Indeed, we cannot expect to achieve the Quadruple Aim without investing in the kind of transparent and intentional orientation process that defines expectations, aligns cultural values, mitigates costly and stressful operational misunderstandings, and communicates to physicians that, not only do they belong, but their sense of belonging is our priority. While we have yet to understand the impact of this program on the fourth aim of the Quadruple Aim, we are hopeful that the benefits will be far-reaching.

It is our ultimate hope that programs like this: (1) give physicians the confidence needed to create impactful patient-centered experiences; (2) enable physicians to become more cost-effective and efficient in care delivery; (3) allow physicians to understand the populations they are serving and access tools available to mitigate health disparities and other barriers; and (4) improve the collective experience of every member of the care team, practice leadership, and clinician-patient partnership.

Corresponding author: J. Nwando Olayiwola, MD, MPH, FAAFP, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 2231 N High St, Ste 250, Columbus, OH 43210; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Keywords: physician onboarding; Quadruple Aim; leadership; clinician satisfaction; care team satisfaction.

From The Ohio State University College of Medicine Department of Family and Community Medicine, Columbus, OH (Candy Magaña, Jná Báez, Christine Junk, Drs. Ahmad, Conroy, and Olayiwola); The Ohio State University College of Medicine Center for Primary Care Innovation and Transformation (Candy Magaña, Jná Báez, and Dr. Olayiwola); and The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (Christine Harsh, Erica Esposito).

Much has been discussed about the growing crisis of professional dissatisfaction among physicians, with increasing efforts being made to incorporate physician wellness into health system strategies that move from the Triple to the Quadruple Aim.¹ For many years, our health care system has been focused on improving the health of populations, optimizing the patient experience, and reducing the cost of care (Triple Aim). The inclusion of the fourth aim, improving the experience of the teams that deliver care, has become paramount in achieving the other aims.

An area often overlooked in this focus on wellness, however, is the importance of the earliest days of employment to shape and predict long-term career contentment. This is a missed opportunity, as data suggest that organizations with standardized onboarding programs boast a 62% increased productivity rate and a 50% greater retention rate among new hires.^2,3 Moreover, a study by the International Institute for Management Development found that businesses lose an estimated $37 billion annually because employees do not fully understand their jobs.⁴ The report ties losses to “actions taken by employees who have misunderstood or misinterpreted company policies, business processes, job function, or a combination of the three.” Additionally, onboarding programs that focus strictly on technical or functional orientation tasks miss important opportunities for culture integration during the onboarding process.⁵ It is therefore imperative to look to effective models of employee onboarding to develop systems that position physicians and practices for success.

Challenges With Traditional Physician Onboarding

In recent years, the Department of Family and Community Medicine at The Ohio State University College of Medicine has experienced rapid organizational change. Like many primary care systems nationwide responding to disruption in health care and changing demands on the clinical workforce, the department has hired new leadership, revised strategic priorities, and witnessed an influx of faculty and staff. It has also planned an expansion of ambulatory services that will more than double the clinical workforce over the next 3 years. While an exciting time, there has been a growing need to align strategy, culture, and human capital during these changes.

As we entered this phase of transformation, we recognized that our highly individualized, ad hoc orientation system presented shortcomings. During the act of revamping our physician recruitment process, stakeholder workgroup members specifically noted that improvement efforts were needed regarding new physician orientation, as no consistent structures were previously in place. New physician orientation had been a major gap for years, resulting in dissatisfaction in the first few months of physician practice, early physician turnover, and staff frustration. For physicians, we continued to learn about their frustration and unanswered questions regarding expectations, norms, structures, and processes.

Many new hires were left with a kind of “trial by fire” entry into their roles. On the first day of clinic, a new physician would most likely need to simultaneously see patients, learn the nuances of the electronic health record (EHR), figure out where the break room was located, and quickly learn population health issues for the patients they were serving. Opportunities to meet key clinic site leadership would be at random, and new physicians might not have the opportunity to meet leadership or staff until months into their tenure; this did not allow for a sense of belonging or understanding of the many resources available to them. We learned that the quality of these ad hoc orientations also varied based on the experience and priorities of each practice’s clinic and administrative leaders, who themselves felt ill-equipped to provide a consistent, robust, and confidence-building experience. In addition, practice site management was rarely given advance time to prepare for the arrival of new physicians, which resulted in physicians perceiving practices to be unwelcoming and disorganized. Their first days were often spent with patients in clinic with no structured orientation and without understanding workflows or having systems practice knowledge.

Institutionally, the interview process satisfied some transfer of knowledge, but we were unclear of what was being consistently shared and understood in the multiple ambulatory locations where our physicians enter practice. More importantly, we knew we were missing a critical opportunity to use orientation to imbue other values of diversity and inclusion, health equity, and operational excellence into the workforce. Based on anecdotal insights from employees and our own review of successful onboarding approaches from other industries, we also knew a more structured welcoming process would predict greater long-term career satisfaction for physicians and create a foundation for providing optimal care for patients when clinical encounters began.

Reengineering Physician Onboarding

In 2019, our department developed a multipronged approach to physician onboarding, which is already paying dividends in easing acculturation and fostering team cohesion. The department tapped its Center for Primary Care Innovation and Transformation (PCIT) to direct this effort, based on its expertise in practice transformation, clinical transformation and adaptations, and workflow efficiency through process and quality improvement. The PCIT team provides support to the department and the entire health system focused on technology and innovation, health equity, and health care efficiency.⁶ They applied many of the tools used in the Clinical Transformation in Technology approach to lead this initiative.⁷

The PCIT team began identifying key stakeholders (department, clinical and ambulatory leadership, clinicians and clinical staff, community partners, human resources, and resident physicians), and then engaging those individuals in dialogue surrounding orientation needs. During scheduled in-person and virtual work sessions, stakeholders were asked to provide input on pain points for new physicians and clinic leadership and were then empowered to create an onboarding program. Applying health care quality improvement techniques, we leveraged workflow mapping, current and future state planning, and goal setting, led by the skilled process improvement and clinical transformation specialists. We coordinated a multidisciplinary process improvement team that included clinic administrators, medical directors, human resources, administrative staff, ambulatory and resident leadership, clinical leadership, and recruitment liaisons. This diverse group of leadership and staff was brought together to address these critical identified gaps and weaknesses in new physician onboarding.

Through a series of learning sessions, the workgroup provided input that was used to form an itemized physician onboarding schedule, which was then leveraged to develop Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, collecting feedback in real time. Some issues that seem small can cause major distress for new physicians. For example, in our inaugural orientation implementation, a physician provided feedback that they wanted to obtain information on setting up their work email on their personal devices and was having considerable trouble figuring out how to do so. This particular topic was not initially included in the first iteration of the Department’s orientation program. We rapidly sought out different ways to embed that into the onboarding experience. The first PDSA involved integrating the university information technology team (IT) into the process but was not successful because it required extra work for the new physician and reliance on the IT schedule. The next attempt was to have IT train a department staff member, but again, this still required that the physician find time to connect with that staff member. Finally, we decided to obtain a useful tip sheet that clearly outlined the process and could be included in orientation materials. This gave the new physicians control over how and when they would work on this issue. Based on these learnings, this was incorporated as a standing agenda item and resource for incoming physicians.

Essential Elements of Effective Onboarding

The new physician onboarding program consists of 5 key elements: (1) 2-week acclimation period; (2) peer learning and connection; (3) training before beginning patient care; (4) standardization, transparency, and accountability in all processes; (5) ongoing feedback for continued program improvement with individual support (Figure).

The program begins with a 2-week period of intentional investment in individual success, during which time no patients are scheduled. In week 1, we work with new hires to set expectations for performance, understand departmental norms, and introduce culture. Physicians meet formally and informally with department and institutional leadership, as well as attend team meetings and trainings that include a range of administrative and compliance requirements, such as quality standards and expectations, compliance, billing and coding specific to family medicine, EHR management, and institutionally mandated orientations. We are also adding implicit bias and antiracism training during this period, which are essential to creating a culture of unity and belonging.

During week 2, we focus on clinic-level orientation, assigning new hires an orientation buddy and a department sponsor, such as a physician lead or medical director. Physicians spend time with leadership at their clinic as they nurture relationships important for mentorship, sponsorship, and peer support. They also meet care team members, including front desk associates, medical assistants, behavioral health clinicians, nutritionists, social workers, pharmacists, and other key colleagues and care team members. This introduces the physician to the clinical environment and physical space as well as acclimates the physician to workflows and feedback loops for regular interaction.

When physicians ultimately begin patient care, they begin with an expected productivity rate of 50%, followed by an expected productivity rate of 75%, and then an expected productivity rate of 100%. This steady increase occurs over 3 to 4 weeks depending on the physician’s comfort level. They are also provided monthly reports on work relative value unit performance so that they can track and adapt practice patterns as necessary.More details on the program can be found in Appendix 1.

Takeaways From the Implementation of the New Program

Give time for new physicians to focus on acclimating to the role and environment.

The initial 2-week period of transition—without direct patient care—ensures that physicians feel comfortable in their new ecosystem. This also supports personal transitions, as many new hires are managing relocation and acclimating themselves and their families to new settings. Even residents from our training program who returned as attending physicians found this flexibility and slow reentry essential. This also gives the clinic time to orient to an additional provider, nurture them into the team culture, and develop relationships with the care team.

Cultivate spaces for shared learning, problem-solving, and peer connection.

Orientation is delivered primarily through group learning sessions with cohorts of new physicians, thus developing spaces for networking, fostering psychological safety, encouraging personal and professional rapport, emphasizing interactive learning, and reinforcing scheduling blocks at the departmental level. New hires also participate in peer shadowing to develop clinical competencies and are assigned a workplace buddy to foster a sense of belonging and create opportunities for additional knowledge sharing and cross-training.

Strengthen physician knowledge base, confidence, and comfort in the workplace before beginning direct patient care.

Without fluency in the workflows, culture, and operations of a practice, the urgency to have physicians begin clinical care can result in frustration for the physician, patients, and clinical and administrative staff. Therefore, we complete essential training prior to seeing any patients. This includes clinical workflows, referral processes, use of alternate modalities of care (eg, telehealth, eConsults), billing protocols, population health training, patient resources, office resources, and other essential daily processes and tools. This creates efficiency in administrative management, increased productivity, and better understanding of resources available for patients’ medical, social, and behavioral needs when patient care begins.

Embrace standardization, transparency, and accountability in as many processes as possible.

Standardized knowledge-sharing and checklists are mandated at every step of the orientation process, requiring sign off from the physician lead, practice manager, and new physicians upon completion. This offers all parties the opportunity to play a role in the delivery of and accountability for skills transfer and empowers new hires to press pause if they feel unsure about any domain in the training. It is also essential in guaranteeing that all physicians—regardless of which ambulatory location they practice in—receive consistent information and expectations. A sample checklist can be found in Appendix 2.

Commit to collecting and acting on feedback for continued program improvement and individual support.

As physicians complete the program, it is necessary to create structures to measure and enhance its impact, as well as evaluate how physicians are faring following the program. Each physician completes surveys at the end of the orientation program, attends a 90-day post-program check-in with the department chair, and receives follow-up trainings on advanced topics as they become more deeply embedded in the organization.

Lessons Learned

Feedback from surveys and 90-day check-ins with leadership and physicians reflect a high degree of clarity on job roles and duties, a sense of team camaraderie, easier system navigation, and a strong sense of support. We do recognize that sustaining change takes time and our study is limited by data demonstrating the impact of these efforts. We look forward to sharing more robust data from surveys and qualitative interviews with physicians, clinical leadership, and staff in the future. Our team will conduct interviews at 90-day and 180-day checkpoints with new physicians who have gone through this program, followed by a check-in after 1 year. Additionally, new physicians as well as key stakeholders, such as physician leads, practice managers, and members of the recruitment team, have started to participate in short surveys. These are designed to better understand their experiences, what worked well, what can be improved, and the overall satisfaction of the physician and other members of the extended care team.

What follows are some comments made by the initial group of physicians that went through this program and participated in follow-up interviews:

“I really feel like part of a bigger team.”

“I knew exactly what do to when I walked into the exam room on clinic Day 1.”

“It was great to make deep connections during the early process of joining.”

“Having a buddy to direct questions and ideas to is amazing and empowering.”

“Even though the orientation was long, I felt that I learned so much that I would not have otherwise.”

“Thank you for not letting me crash and burn!”

“Great culture! I love understanding our values of health equity, diversity, and inclusion.”

In the months since our endeavor began, we have learned just how essential it is to fully and effectively integrate new hires into the organization for their own satisfaction and success—and ours. Indeed, we cannot expect to achieve the Quadruple Aim without investing in the kind of transparent and intentional orientation process that defines expectations, aligns cultural values, mitigates costly and stressful operational misunderstandings, and communicates to physicians that, not only do they belong, but their sense of belonging is our priority. While we have yet to understand the impact of this program on the fourth aim of the Quadruple Aim, we are hopeful that the benefits will be far-reaching.

It is our ultimate hope that programs like this: (1) give physicians the confidence needed to create impactful patient-centered experiences; (2) enable physicians to become more cost-effective and efficient in care delivery; (3) allow physicians to understand the populations they are serving and access tools available to mitigate health disparities and other barriers; and (4) improve the collective experience of every member of the care team, practice leadership, and clinician-patient partnership.

Corresponding author: J. Nwando Olayiwola, MD, MPH, FAAFP, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 2231 N High St, Ste 250, Columbus, OH 43210; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Keywords: physician onboarding; Quadruple Aim; leadership; clinician satisfaction; care team satisfaction.

From Adelante Healthcare, Mesa, AZ (Dr. Chin), University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH (Drs. Delozier, Bascug, Levine, Bejanishvili, and Wynbrandt and Janet C. Peachey, Rachel M. Cerminara, and Sharon M. Darkovich), and Houston Methodist Hospitals, Houston, TX (Dr. Bhakta).

Abstract

Background: Resident physicians play an active role in the reporting of errors that occur in patient care. Previous studies indicate that residents significantly underreport errors in patient care.

Methods: Fifty-four of 80 eligible residents enrolled at University Hospitals–Regional Hospitals (UH-RH) during the 2018-2019 academic year completed a survey assessing their knowledge and experience in completing Patient Advocacy and Shared Stories (PASS) reports, which serve as incident reports in the UH health system in reporting errors in patient care. A series of interventions aimed at educating residents about the PASS report system were then conducted. The 54 residents who completed the first survey received it again 4 months later.

Results: Residents demonstrated greater understanding of when filing PASS reports was appropriate after the intervention, as significantly more residents reported having been involved in a situation where they should have filed a PASS report but did not (P = 0.036).

Conclusion: In this study, residents often did not report errors in patient care because they simply did not know the process for doing so. In addition, many residents often felt that the reporting of patient errors could be used as a form of retaliation.

Keywords: resident physicians; quality improvement; high-value care; medical errors; patient safety.

Resident physicians play a critical role in patient care. Residents undergo extensive supervised training in order to one day be able to practice medicine in an unsupervised setting, with the goal of providing the highest quality of care possible. One study reported that primary care provided by residents in a training program is of similar or higher quality than that provided by attending physicians.¹

Besides providing high-quality care, it is important that residents play an active role in the reporting of errors that occur regarding patient care as well as in identifying events that may compromise patient safety and quality.² In fact, increased reporting of patient errors has been shown to decrease liability-related costs for hospitals.³ Unfortunately, physicians, and residents in particular, have historically been poor reporters of errors in patient care.⁴ This is especially true when comparing physicians to other health professionals, such as nurses, in error reporting.⁵

Several studies have examined the involvement of residents in reporting errors in patient care. One recent study showed that a graduate medical education financial incentive program significantly increased the number of patient safety events reported by residents and fellows.⁶ This study, along with several others, supports the concept of using incentives to help improve the reporting of errors in patient care for physicians in training.^7-10 Another study used Quality Improvement Knowledge Assessment Tool (QIKAT) scores to assess quality improvement (QI) knowledge. The study demonstrated that self-assessment scores of QI skills using QIKAT scores improved following a targeted intervention.¹¹ Because further information on the involvement and attitudes of residents in reporting errors in patient care is needed, University Hospitals of Cleveland (UH) designed and implemented a QI study during the 2018-2019 academic year. This prospective study used anonymous surveys to objectively examine the involvement and attitudes of residents in reporting errors in patient care.

Methods

The UH health system uses Patient Advocacy and Shared Stories (PASS) reports as incident reports to not only disclose errors in patient care but also to identify any events that may compromise patient safety and quality. Based on preliminary review, nurses, ancillary staff, and administrators file the majority of PASS reports.

The study group consisted of residents at University Hospitals–Regional Hospitals (UH-RH), which is comprised of 2 hospitals: University Hospitals–Richmond Medical Center (UH-RMC) and University Hospitals –Bedford Medical Center (UH-BMC). UH-RMC and UH-BMC are 2 medium-sized university-affiliated community hospitals located in the Cleveland metropolitan area in Northeast Ohio. Both serve as clinical training sites for Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, the latter of which helped fund this study. The study was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of University Hospitals of Cleveland and granted “not human subjects research” status as a QI study.

Surveys

UH-RH offers residency programs in dermatology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, orthopedic surgery, and physical medicine and rehabilitation, along with a 1-year transitional/preliminary year. A total of 80 residents enrolled at UH-RH during the 2018-2019 academic year. All 80 residents at UH-RH received an email in December 2018 asking them to complete an anonymous survey regarding the PASS report system. The survey was administered using the REDCap software system and consisted of 15 multiple-choice questions. As an incentive for completing the survey, residents were offered a $10 Amazon gift card. The gift cards were funded through a research grant from Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine. Residents were given 1 week to complete the survey. At the end of the week, 54 of 80 residents completed the first survey.

Following the first survey, efforts were undertaken by the study authors, in conjunction with the quality improvement department at UH-RH, to educate residents about the PASS report system. These interventions included giving a lecture on the PASS report system during resident didactic sessions, sending an email to all residents about the PASS report system, and providing residents an opportunity to complete an optional online training course regarding the PASS report system. As an incentive for completing the online training course, residents were offered a $10 Amazon gift card. As before, the gift cards were funded through a research grant from Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine.

A second survey was administered in April 2019, 4 months after the first survey. To determine whether the intervention made an impact on the involvement and attitudes of residents in the reporting errors in patient care, only residents who completed the first survey were sent the second survey. The second survey consisted of the same questions as the first survey and was also administered using the REDCap software system. As an incentive for completing the survey, residents were offered another $10 Amazon gift card, again were funded through a research grant from Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine. Residents were given 1 week to complete the survey.

Analysis

Chi-square analyses were utilized to examine differences between preintervention and postintervention responses across categories. All analyses were conducted using R statistical software, version 3.6.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

A total of 54 of 80 eligible residents responded to the first survey (Table). Twenty-nine of 54 eligible residents responded to the second survey. Postintervention, significantly more residents indicated being involved in a situation where they should have filed a PASS report but did not (58.6% vs 53.7%; P = 0.036). Improvement was seen in PASS knowledge postintervention, where fewer residents reported not knowing how to file a PASS report (31.5% vs 55.2%; P = 0.059). No other improvements were significant, nor were there significant differences in responses between any other categories pre- and postintervention.

Discussion

Errors in patient care are a common occurrence in the hospital setting. Reporting errors when they happen is important for hospitals to gain data and better care for patients, but studies show that patient errors are usually underreported. This is concerning, as data on errors and other aspects of patient care are needed to inform quality improvement programs.

This study measured residents’ attitudes and knowledge regarding the filing of a PASS report. It also aimed to increase both the frequency of and knowledge about filing a PASS report with interventions. The results from each survey indicated a statistically significant increase in knowledge of when to file a PASS report. In the first survey, 53.7% of residents responded they they were involved in an instance where they should have filed a PASS report but did not. In the second survey, 58.5% of residents reported being involved in an instance where they should have filed a PASS report but did not. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.036), sugesting that the intervention was successful at increasing residents’ knowledge regarding PASS reports and the appropriate times to file a PASS report.

The survey results also showed a trend toward increasing aggregate knowledge level of how to file PASS reports on the first survey and second surveys (from 31.5% vs 55.2%. This demonstrates an increase in knowledge of how to file a PASS report among residents at our hospital after the intervention. It should be noted that the intervention that was performed in this study was simple, easy to perform, and can be completed at any hospital system that uses a similar system for reporting patient errors.

Another important trend indicating the effectiveness of the intervention was a 15% increase in knowledge of what the PASS report acronym stands for, along with a 13.1% aggregate increase in the number of residents who filed a PASS report. This indicated that residents may have wanted to file a PASS report previously but simply did not know how to until the intervention. In addition, there was also a decrease in the aggregate percentages of residents who had never filed a PASS report and an increase in how many PASS reports were filed.

While PASS reports are a great way for hospitals to gain data and insight into problems at their sites, there was also a negative view of PASS reports. For example, a large percentage of residents indicated that filing a PASS report would not make any difference and that PASS reports are often used as a form of retaliation, either against themselves as the submitter or the person(s) mentioned in the PASS report. More specifically, more than 50% of residents felt that PASS reports were sometimes or often used as a form of retaliation against others. While many residents correctly identified in the survey that PASS reports are not equivalent to a “write-up,” it is concerning that they still feel there is a strong potential for retaliation when filing a PASS report. This finding is unfortunate but matches the results of a multicenter study that found that 44.6% of residents felt uncomfortable reporting patient errors, possibly secondary to fear of retaliation, along with issues with the reporting system.¹²

It is interesting to note that a minority of residents indicated that they feel that PASS reports are filed as often as they should be (25.9% on first survey and 24.1% on second survey). This is concerning, as the data gathered through PASS reports is used to improve patient care. However, the percentage reported in our study, although low, is higher than that reported in a similar study involving patients with Medicare insurance, which showed that only 14% of patient safety events were reported.¹³ These results demonstrate that further interventions are necessary in order to ensure that a PASS report is filed each time a patient safety event occurs.

Another finding of note is that the majority of residents also feel that the process of filing a PASS report is too time consuming. The majority of residents who have completed a PASS report stated that it took them between 10 and 20 minutes to complete a PASS report, but those same individuals also feel that it should take < 10 minutes to complete a PASS report. This is an important issue for hospital systems to address. Reducing the time it takes to file a PASS report may facilitate an increase in the amount of PASS reports filed.

We administered our surveys using email outreach to residents asking them to complete an anonymous online survey regarding the PASS report system using the REDCap software system. Researchers have various ways of administering surveys, ranging from paper surveys, emails, and even mobile apps. One study showed that online surveys tend to have higher response rates compared to non-online surveys, such as paper surveys and telephone surveys, which is likely due to the ease of use of online surveys.¹⁴ At the same time, unsolicited email surveys have been shown to have a negative influence on response rates. Mobile apps are a new way of administering surveys. However, research has not found any significant difference in the time required to complete the survey using mobile apps compared to other forms of administering surveys. In addition, surveys using mobile apps did not have increased response rates compared to other forms of administering surveys.¹⁵

To increase the response rate of our surveys, we offered gift cards to the study population for completing the survey. Studies have shown that surveys that offer incentives tend to have higher response rates than surveys that do not.¹⁶ Also, in addition to serving as a method for gathering data from our study population, we used our surveys as an intervention to increase awareness of PASS reporting, as reported in other studies. For example, another study used the HABITS questionnaire to not only gather information about children’s diet, but also to promote behavioral change towards healthy eating habits.¹⁷

This study had several limitations. First, the study was conducted using an anonymous online survey, which means we could not clarify questions that residents found confusing or needed further explanation. For example, 17 residents indicated in the first survey that they knew how to PASS report, but 19 residents indicated in the same survey that they have filed a PASS report in the past.

A second limitation of the study was that fewer residents completed the second survey (29 of 54 eligible residents) compared to the first survey (54 of 80 eligible residents). This may have impacted the results of the analysis, as certain findings were not statistically significant, despite trends in the data.

A third limitation of the study is that not all of the residents that completed the first and second surveys completed the entire intervention. For example, some residents did not attend the didactic lecture discussing PASS reports, and as such may not have received the appropriate training prior to completing the second survey.

The findings from this study can be used by the residency programs at UH-RH and by residency programs across the country to improve the involvement and attitudes of residents in reporting errors in patient care. Hospital staff need to be encouraged and educated on how to better report patient errors and the importance of reporting these errors. It would benefit hospital systems to provide continued and targeted training to familiarize physicians with the process of reporting patient errors, and take steps to reduce the time it takes to report patient errors. By increasing the reporting of errors, hospitals will be able to improve patient care through initiatives aimed at preventing errors.

Conclusion

Residents play an important role in providing high-quality care for patients. Part of providing high-quality care is the reporting of errors in patient care when they occur. Physicians, and in particular, residents, have historically underreported errors in patient care. Part of this underreporting results from residents not knowing or understanding the process of filing a report and feeling that the reports could be used as a form of retaliation. For hospital systems to continue to improve patient care, it is important for residents to not only know how to report errors in patient care but to feel comfortable doing so.

Corresponding author: Andrew J. Chin, DO, MS, MPH, Department of Internal Medicine, Adelante Healthcare, 1705 W Main St, Mesa, AZ 85201; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding: This study was funded by a research grant provided by Lake Eric College of Osteopathic Medicine to Andrew J. Chin and Anish Bhakta.

From Adelante Healthcare, Mesa, AZ (Dr. Chin), University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH (Drs. Delozier, Bascug, Levine, Bejanishvili, and Wynbrandt and Janet C. Peachey, Rachel M. Cerminara, and Sharon M. Darkovich), and Houston Methodist Hospitals, Houston, TX (Dr. Bhakta).

Abstract

Background: Resident physicians play an active role in the reporting of errors that occur in patient care. Previous studies indicate that residents significantly underreport errors in patient care.

Methods: Fifty-four of 80 eligible residents enrolled at University Hospitals–Regional Hospitals (UH-RH) during the 2018-2019 academic year completed a survey assessing their knowledge and experience in completing Patient Advocacy and Shared Stories (PASS) reports, which serve as incident reports in the UH health system in reporting errors in patient care. A series of interventions aimed at educating residents about the PASS report system were then conducted. The 54 residents who completed the first survey received it again 4 months later.

Results: Residents demonstrated greater understanding of when filing PASS reports was appropriate after the intervention, as significantly more residents reported having been involved in a situation where they should have filed a PASS report but did not (P = 0.036).

Conclusion: In this study, residents often did not report errors in patient care because they simply did not know the process for doing so. In addition, many residents often felt that the reporting of patient errors could be used as a form of retaliation.

Keywords: resident physicians; quality improvement; high-value care; medical errors; patient safety.

Resident physicians play a critical role in patient care. Residents undergo extensive supervised training in order to one day be able to practice medicine in an unsupervised setting, with the goal of providing the highest quality of care possible. One study reported that primary care provided by residents in a training program is of similar or higher quality than that provided by attending physicians.¹

Besides providing high-quality care, it is important that residents play an active role in the reporting of errors that occur regarding patient care as well as in identifying events that may compromise patient safety and quality.² In fact, increased reporting of patient errors has been shown to decrease liability-related costs for hospitals.³ Unfortunately, physicians, and residents in particular, have historically been poor reporters of errors in patient care.⁴ This is especially true when comparing physicians to other health professionals, such as nurses, in error reporting.⁵

Several studies have examined the involvement of residents in reporting errors in patient care. One recent study showed that a graduate medical education financial incentive program significantly increased the number of patient safety events reported by residents and fellows.⁶ This study, along with several others, supports the concept of using incentives to help improve the reporting of errors in patient care for physicians in training.^7-10 Another study used Quality Improvement Knowledge Assessment Tool (QIKAT) scores to assess quality improvement (QI) knowledge. The study demonstrated that self-assessment scores of QI skills using QIKAT scores improved following a targeted intervention.¹¹ Because further information on the involvement and attitudes of residents in reporting errors in patient care is needed, University Hospitals of Cleveland (UH) designed and implemented a QI study during the 2018-2019 academic year. This prospective study used anonymous surveys to objectively examine the involvement and attitudes of residents in reporting errors in patient care.

Methods

The UH health system uses Patient Advocacy and Shared Stories (PASS) reports as incident reports to not only disclose errors in patient care but also to identify any events that may compromise patient safety and quality. Based on preliminary review, nurses, ancillary staff, and administrators file the majority of PASS reports.

The study group consisted of residents at University Hospitals–Regional Hospitals (UH-RH), which is comprised of 2 hospitals: University Hospitals–Richmond Medical Center (UH-RMC) and University Hospitals –Bedford Medical Center (UH-BMC). UH-RMC and UH-BMC are 2 medium-sized university-affiliated community hospitals located in the Cleveland metropolitan area in Northeast Ohio. Both serve as clinical training sites for Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, the latter of which helped fund this study. The study was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of University Hospitals of Cleveland and granted “not human subjects research” status as a QI study.

Surveys

UH-RH offers residency programs in dermatology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, orthopedic surgery, and physical medicine and rehabilitation, along with a 1-year transitional/preliminary year. A total of 80 residents enrolled at UH-RH during the 2018-2019 academic year. All 80 residents at UH-RH received an email in December 2018 asking them to complete an anonymous survey regarding the PASS report system. The survey was administered using the REDCap software system and consisted of 15 multiple-choice questions. As an incentive for completing the survey, residents were offered a $10 Amazon gift card. The gift cards were funded through a research grant from Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine. Residents were given 1 week to complete the survey. At the end of the week, 54 of 80 residents completed the first survey.

Following the first survey, efforts were undertaken by the study authors, in conjunction with the quality improvement department at UH-RH, to educate residents about the PASS report system. These interventions included giving a lecture on the PASS report system during resident didactic sessions, sending an email to all residents about the PASS report system, and providing residents an opportunity to complete an optional online training course regarding the PASS report system. As an incentive for completing the online training course, residents were offered a $10 Amazon gift card. As before, the gift cards were funded through a research grant from Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine.

A second survey was administered in April 2019, 4 months after the first survey. To determine whether the intervention made an impact on the involvement and attitudes of residents in the reporting errors in patient care, only residents who completed the first survey were sent the second survey. The second survey consisted of the same questions as the first survey and was also administered using the REDCap software system. As an incentive for completing the survey, residents were offered another $10 Amazon gift card, again were funded through a research grant from Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine. Residents were given 1 week to complete the survey.

Analysis

Chi-square analyses were utilized to examine differences between preintervention and postintervention responses across categories. All analyses were conducted using R statistical software, version 3.6.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

A total of 54 of 80 eligible residents responded to the first survey (Table). Twenty-nine of 54 eligible residents responded to the second survey. Postintervention, significantly more residents indicated being involved in a situation where they should have filed a PASS report but did not (58.6% vs 53.7%; P = 0.036). Improvement was seen in PASS knowledge postintervention, where fewer residents reported not knowing how to file a PASS report (31.5% vs 55.2%; P = 0.059). No other improvements were significant, nor were there significant differences in responses between any other categories pre- and postintervention.

Discussion

Errors in patient care are a common occurrence in the hospital setting. Reporting errors when they happen is important for hospitals to gain data and better care for patients, but studies show that patient errors are usually underreported. This is concerning, as data on errors and other aspects of patient care are needed to inform quality improvement programs.

This study measured residents’ attitudes and knowledge regarding the filing of a PASS report. It also aimed to increase both the frequency of and knowledge about filing a PASS report with interventions. The results from each survey indicated a statistically significant increase in knowledge of when to file a PASS report. In the first survey, 53.7% of residents responded they they were involved in an instance where they should have filed a PASS report but did not. In the second survey, 58.5% of residents reported being involved in an instance where they should have filed a PASS report but did not. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.036), sugesting that the intervention was successful at increasing residents’ knowledge regarding PASS reports and the appropriate times to file a PASS report.

The survey results also showed a trend toward increasing aggregate knowledge level of how to file PASS reports on the first survey and second surveys (from 31.5% vs 55.2%. This demonstrates an increase in knowledge of how to file a PASS report among residents at our hospital after the intervention. It should be noted that the intervention that was performed in this study was simple, easy to perform, and can be completed at any hospital system that uses a similar system for reporting patient errors.

Another important trend indicating the effectiveness of the intervention was a 15% increase in knowledge of what the PASS report acronym stands for, along with a 13.1% aggregate increase in the number of residents who filed a PASS report. This indicated that residents may have wanted to file a PASS report previously but simply did not know how to until the intervention. In addition, there was also a decrease in the aggregate percentages of residents who had never filed a PASS report and an increase in how many PASS reports were filed.

While PASS reports are a great way for hospitals to gain data and insight into problems at their sites, there was also a negative view of PASS reports. For example, a large percentage of residents indicated that filing a PASS report would not make any difference and that PASS reports are often used as a form of retaliation, either against themselves as the submitter or the person(s) mentioned in the PASS report. More specifically, more than 50% of residents felt that PASS reports were sometimes or often used as a form of retaliation against others. While many residents correctly identified in the survey that PASS reports are not equivalent to a “write-up,” it is concerning that they still feel there is a strong potential for retaliation when filing a PASS report. This finding is unfortunate but matches the results of a multicenter study that found that 44.6% of residents felt uncomfortable reporting patient errors, possibly secondary to fear of retaliation, along with issues with the reporting system.¹²

It is interesting to note that a minority of residents indicated that they feel that PASS reports are filed as often as they should be (25.9% on first survey and 24.1% on second survey). This is concerning, as the data gathered through PASS reports is used to improve patient care. However, the percentage reported in our study, although low, is higher than that reported in a similar study involving patients with Medicare insurance, which showed that only 14% of patient safety events were reported.¹³ These results demonstrate that further interventions are necessary in order to ensure that a PASS report is filed each time a patient safety event occurs.

Another finding of note is that the majority of residents also feel that the process of filing a PASS report is too time consuming. The majority of residents who have completed a PASS report stated that it took them between 10 and 20 minutes to complete a PASS report, but those same individuals also feel that it should take < 10 minutes to complete a PASS report. This is an important issue for hospital systems to address. Reducing the time it takes to file a PASS report may facilitate an increase in the amount of PASS reports filed.

We administered our surveys using email outreach to residents asking them to complete an anonymous online survey regarding the PASS report system using the REDCap software system. Researchers have various ways of administering surveys, ranging from paper surveys, emails, and even mobile apps. One study showed that online surveys tend to have higher response rates compared to non-online surveys, such as paper surveys and telephone surveys, which is likely due to the ease of use of online surveys.¹⁴ At the same time, unsolicited email surveys have been shown to have a negative influence on response rates. Mobile apps are a new way of administering surveys. However, research has not found any significant difference in the time required to complete the survey using mobile apps compared to other forms of administering surveys. In addition, surveys using mobile apps did not have increased response rates compared to other forms of administering surveys.¹⁵

To increase the response rate of our surveys, we offered gift cards to the study population for completing the survey. Studies have shown that surveys that offer incentives tend to have higher response rates than surveys that do not.¹⁶ Also, in addition to serving as a method for gathering data from our study population, we used our surveys as an intervention to increase awareness of PASS reporting, as reported in other studies. For example, another study used the HABITS questionnaire to not only gather information about children’s diet, but also to promote behavioral change towards healthy eating habits.¹⁷

This study had several limitations. First, the study was conducted using an anonymous online survey, which means we could not clarify questions that residents found confusing or needed further explanation. For example, 17 residents indicated in the first survey that they knew how to PASS report, but 19 residents indicated in the same survey that they have filed a PASS report in the past.

A second limitation of the study was that fewer residents completed the second survey (29 of 54 eligible residents) compared to the first survey (54 of 80 eligible residents). This may have impacted the results of the analysis, as certain findings were not statistically significant, despite trends in the data.

A third limitation of the study is that not all of the residents that completed the first and second surveys completed the entire intervention. For example, some residents did not attend the didactic lecture discussing PASS reports, and as such may not have received the appropriate training prior to completing the second survey.

The findings from this study can be used by the residency programs at UH-RH and by residency programs across the country to improve the involvement and attitudes of residents in reporting errors in patient care. Hospital staff need to be encouraged and educated on how to better report patient errors and the importance of reporting these errors. It would benefit hospital systems to provide continued and targeted training to familiarize physicians with the process of reporting patient errors, and take steps to reduce the time it takes to report patient errors. By increasing the reporting of errors, hospitals will be able to improve patient care through initiatives aimed at preventing errors.

Conclusion

Residents play an important role in providing high-quality care for patients. Part of providing high-quality care is the reporting of errors in patient care when they occur. Physicians, and in particular, residents, have historically underreported errors in patient care. Part of this underreporting results from residents not knowing or understanding the process of filing a report and feeling that the reports could be used as a form of retaliation. For hospital systems to continue to improve patient care, it is important for residents to not only know how to report errors in patient care but to feel comfortable doing so.

Corresponding author: Andrew J. Chin, DO, MS, MPH, Department of Internal Medicine, Adelante Healthcare, 1705 W Main St, Mesa, AZ 85201; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding: This study was funded by a research grant provided by Lake Eric College of Osteopathic Medicine to Andrew J. Chin and Anish Bhakta.

From Adelante Healthcare, Mesa, AZ (Dr. Chin), University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH (Drs. Delozier, Bascug, Levine, Bejanishvili, and Wynbrandt and Janet C. Peachey, Rachel M. Cerminara, and Sharon M. Darkovich), and Houston Methodist Hospitals, Houston, TX (Dr. Bhakta).

Abstract

Background: Resident physicians play an active role in the reporting of errors that occur in patient care. Previous studies indicate that residents significantly underreport errors in patient care.

Methods: Fifty-four of 80 eligible residents enrolled at University Hospitals–Regional Hospitals (UH-RH) during the 2018-2019 academic year completed a survey assessing their knowledge and experience in completing Patient Advocacy and Shared Stories (PASS) reports, which serve as incident reports in the UH health system in reporting errors in patient care. A series of interventions aimed at educating residents about the PASS report system were then conducted. The 54 residents who completed the first survey received it again 4 months later.

Results: Residents demonstrated greater understanding of when filing PASS reports was appropriate after the intervention, as significantly more residents reported having been involved in a situation where they should have filed a PASS report but did not (P = 0.036).

Conclusion: In this study, residents often did not report errors in patient care because they simply did not know the process for doing so. In addition, many residents often felt that the reporting of patient errors could be used as a form of retaliation.

Keywords: resident physicians; quality improvement; high-value care; medical errors; patient safety.

Resident physicians play a critical role in patient care. Residents undergo extensive supervised training in order to one day be able to practice medicine in an unsupervised setting, with the goal of providing the highest quality of care possible. One study reported that primary care provided by residents in a training program is of similar or higher quality than that provided by attending physicians.¹

Besides providing high-quality care, it is important that residents play an active role in the reporting of errors that occur regarding patient care as well as in identifying events that may compromise patient safety and quality.² In fact, increased reporting of patient errors has been shown to decrease liability-related costs for hospitals.³ Unfortunately, physicians, and residents in particular, have historically been poor reporters of errors in patient care.⁴ This is especially true when comparing physicians to other health professionals, such as nurses, in error reporting.⁵

Several studies have examined the involvement of residents in reporting errors in patient care. One recent study showed that a graduate medical education financial incentive program significantly increased the number of patient safety events reported by residents and fellows.⁶ This study, along with several others, supports the concept of using incentives to help improve the reporting of errors in patient care for physicians in training.^7-10 Another study used Quality Improvement Knowledge Assessment Tool (QIKAT) scores to assess quality improvement (QI) knowledge. The study demonstrated that self-assessment scores of QI skills using QIKAT scores improved following a targeted intervention.¹¹ Because further information on the involvement and attitudes of residents in reporting errors in patient care is needed, University Hospitals of Cleveland (UH) designed and implemented a QI study during the 2018-2019 academic year. This prospective study used anonymous surveys to objectively examine the involvement and attitudes of residents in reporting errors in patient care.

Methods

The UH health system uses Patient Advocacy and Shared Stories (PASS) reports as incident reports to not only disclose errors in patient care but also to identify any events that may compromise patient safety and quality. Based on preliminary review, nurses, ancillary staff, and administrators file the majority of PASS reports.

The study group consisted of residents at University Hospitals–Regional Hospitals (UH-RH), which is comprised of 2 hospitals: University Hospitals–Richmond Medical Center (UH-RMC) and University Hospitals –Bedford Medical Center (UH-BMC). UH-RMC and UH-BMC are 2 medium-sized university-affiliated community hospitals located in the Cleveland metropolitan area in Northeast Ohio. Both serve as clinical training sites for Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, the latter of which helped fund this study. The study was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of University Hospitals of Cleveland and granted “not human subjects research” status as a QI study.

Surveys

UH-RH offers residency programs in dermatology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, orthopedic surgery, and physical medicine and rehabilitation, along with a 1-year transitional/preliminary year. A total of 80 residents enrolled at UH-RH during the 2018-2019 academic year. All 80 residents at UH-RH received an email in December 2018 asking them to complete an anonymous survey regarding the PASS report system. The survey was administered using the REDCap software system and consisted of 15 multiple-choice questions. As an incentive for completing the survey, residents were offered a $10 Amazon gift card. The gift cards were funded through a research grant from Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine. Residents were given 1 week to complete the survey. At the end of the week, 54 of 80 residents completed the first survey.

Following the first survey, efforts were undertaken by the study authors, in conjunction with the quality improvement department at UH-RH, to educate residents about the PASS report system. These interventions included giving a lecture on the PASS report system during resident didactic sessions, sending an email to all residents about the PASS report system, and providing residents an opportunity to complete an optional online training course regarding the PASS report system. As an incentive for completing the online training course, residents were offered a $10 Amazon gift card. As before, the gift cards were funded through a research grant from Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine.

A second survey was administered in April 2019, 4 months after the first survey. To determine whether the intervention made an impact on the involvement and attitudes of residents in the reporting errors in patient care, only residents who completed the first survey were sent the second survey. The second survey consisted of the same questions as the first survey and was also administered using the REDCap software system. As an incentive for completing the survey, residents were offered another $10 Amazon gift card, again were funded through a research grant from Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine. Residents were given 1 week to complete the survey.

Analysis

Chi-square analyses were utilized to examine differences between preintervention and postintervention responses across categories. All analyses were conducted using R statistical software, version 3.6.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

A total of 54 of 80 eligible residents responded to the first survey (Table). Twenty-nine of 54 eligible residents responded to the second survey. Postintervention, significantly more residents indicated being involved in a situation where they should have filed a PASS report but did not (58.6% vs 53.7%; P = 0.036). Improvement was seen in PASS knowledge postintervention, where fewer residents reported not knowing how to file a PASS report (31.5% vs 55.2%; P = 0.059). No other improvements were significant, nor were there significant differences in responses between any other categories pre- and postintervention.

Discussion

Errors in patient care are a common occurrence in the hospital setting. Reporting errors when they happen is important for hospitals to gain data and better care for patients, but studies show that patient errors are usually underreported. This is concerning, as data on errors and other aspects of patient care are needed to inform quality improvement programs.

This study measured residents’ attitudes and knowledge regarding the filing of a PASS report. It also aimed to increase both the frequency of and knowledge about filing a PASS report with interventions. The results from each survey indicated a statistically significant increase in knowledge of when to file a PASS report. In the first survey, 53.7% of residents responded they they were involved in an instance where they should have filed a PASS report but did not. In the second survey, 58.5% of residents reported being involved in an instance where they should have filed a PASS report but did not. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.036), sugesting that the intervention was successful at increasing residents’ knowledge regarding PASS reports and the appropriate times to file a PASS report.

The survey results also showed a trend toward increasing aggregate knowledge level of how to file PASS reports on the first survey and second surveys (from 31.5% vs 55.2%. This demonstrates an increase in knowledge of how to file a PASS report among residents at our hospital after the intervention. It should be noted that the intervention that was performed in this study was simple, easy to perform, and can be completed at any hospital system that uses a similar system for reporting patient errors.

Another important trend indicating the effectiveness of the intervention was a 15% increase in knowledge of what the PASS report acronym stands for, along with a 13.1% aggregate increase in the number of residents who filed a PASS report. This indicated that residents may have wanted to file a PASS report previously but simply did not know how to until the intervention. In addition, there was also a decrease in the aggregate percentages of residents who had never filed a PASS report and an increase in how many PASS reports were filed.

While PASS reports are a great way for hospitals to gain data and insight into problems at their sites, there was also a negative view of PASS reports. For example, a large percentage of residents indicated that filing a PASS report would not make any difference and that PASS reports are often used as a form of retaliation, either against themselves as the submitter or the person(s) mentioned in the PASS report. More specifically, more than 50% of residents felt that PASS reports were sometimes or often used as a form of retaliation against others. While many residents correctly identified in the survey that PASS reports are not equivalent to a “write-up,” it is concerning that they still feel there is a strong potential for retaliation when filing a PASS report. This finding is unfortunate but matches the results of a multicenter study that found that 44.6% of residents felt uncomfortable reporting patient errors, possibly secondary to fear of retaliation, along with issues with the reporting system.¹²

It is interesting to note that a minority of residents indicated that they feel that PASS reports are filed as often as they should be (25.9% on first survey and 24.1% on second survey). This is concerning, as the data gathered through PASS reports is used to improve patient care. However, the percentage reported in our study, although low, is higher than that reported in a similar study involving patients with Medicare insurance, which showed that only 14% of patient safety events were reported.¹³ These results demonstrate that further interventions are necessary in order to ensure that a PASS report is filed each time a patient safety event occurs.

Another finding of note is that the majority of residents also feel that the process of filing a PASS report is too time consuming. The majority of residents who have completed a PASS report stated that it took them between 10 and 20 minutes to complete a PASS report, but those same individuals also feel that it should take < 10 minutes to complete a PASS report. This is an important issue for hospital systems to address. Reducing the time it takes to file a PASS report may facilitate an increase in the amount of PASS reports filed.

We administered our surveys using email outreach to residents asking them to complete an anonymous online survey regarding the PASS report system using the REDCap software system. Researchers have various ways of administering surveys, ranging from paper surveys, emails, and even mobile apps. One study showed that online surveys tend to have higher response rates compared to non-online surveys, such as paper surveys and telephone surveys, which is likely due to the ease of use of online surveys.¹⁴ At the same time, unsolicited email surveys have been shown to have a negative influence on response rates. Mobile apps are a new way of administering surveys. However, research has not found any significant difference in the time required to complete the survey using mobile apps compared to other forms of administering surveys. In addition, surveys using mobile apps did not have increased response rates compared to other forms of administering surveys.¹⁵

To increase the response rate of our surveys, we offered gift cards to the study population for completing the survey. Studies have shown that surveys that offer incentives tend to have higher response rates than surveys that do not.¹⁶ Also, in addition to serving as a method for gathering data from our study population, we used our surveys as an intervention to increase awareness of PASS reporting, as reported in other studies. For example, another study used the HABITS questionnaire to not only gather information about children’s diet, but also to promote behavioral change towards healthy eating habits.¹⁷

This study had several limitations. First, the study was conducted using an anonymous online survey, which means we could not clarify questions that residents found confusing or needed further explanation. For example, 17 residents indicated in the first survey that they knew how to PASS report, but 19 residents indicated in the same survey that they have filed a PASS report in the past.

A second limitation of the study was that fewer residents completed the second survey (29 of 54 eligible residents) compared to the first survey (54 of 80 eligible residents). This may have impacted the results of the analysis, as certain findings were not statistically significant, despite trends in the data.

A third limitation of the study is that not all of the residents that completed the first and second surveys completed the entire intervention. For example, some residents did not attend the didactic lecture discussing PASS reports, and as such may not have received the appropriate training prior to completing the second survey.

The findings from this study can be used by the residency programs at UH-RH and by residency programs across the country to improve the involvement and attitudes of residents in reporting errors in patient care. Hospital staff need to be encouraged and educated on how to better report patient errors and the importance of reporting these errors. It would benefit hospital systems to provide continued and targeted training to familiarize physicians with the process of reporting patient errors, and take steps to reduce the time it takes to report patient errors. By increasing the reporting of errors, hospitals will be able to improve patient care through initiatives aimed at preventing errors.

Conclusion

Residents play an important role in providing high-quality care for patients. Part of providing high-quality care is the reporting of errors in patient care when they occur. Physicians, and in particular, residents, have historically underreported errors in patient care. Part of this underreporting results from residents not knowing or understanding the process of filing a report and feeling that the reports could be used as a form of retaliation. For hospital systems to continue to improve patient care, it is important for residents to not only know how to report errors in patient care but to feel comfortable doing so.

Corresponding author: Andrew J. Chin, DO, MS, MPH, Department of Internal Medicine, Adelante Healthcare, 1705 W Main St, Mesa, AZ 85201; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding: This study was funded by a research grant provided by Lake Eric College of Osteopathic Medicine to Andrew J. Chin and Anish Bhakta.

From Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL.

Abstract

Objective: To develop and implement a process for administering COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusions for outpatients with mild or moderate COVID-19 at high risk for hospitalization, using multidisciplinary collaboration, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance, and infection prevention standards.

Methods: When monoclonal antibody therapy became available for mild or moderate COVID-19 outpatients via Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), our institution sought to provide this therapy option to our patients. We describe the process for planning, implementing, and maintaining a successful program for administering novel therapies based on FDA guidance and infection prevention standards. Key components of our implementation process were multidisciplinary planning involving decision makers and stakeholders; setting realistic goals in the process; team communication; and measuring and reporting quality improvement on a regular basis.

Results: A total of 790 COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusions were administered from November 20, 2020 to March 5, 2021. Steps to minimize the likelihood of adverse drug reactions were implemented and a low incidence (< 1%) has occurred. There has been no concern from staff regarding infection during the process. Rarely, patients have raised cost-related concerns, typically due to incomplete communication regarding billing prior to the infusion. Patients, families, nursing staff, physicians, pharmacy, and hospital administration have expressed satisfaction with the program.

Conclusion: This process can provide a template for other hospitals or health care delivery facilities to provide novel therapies to patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 in a safe and effective manner.

Keywords: COVID-19; monoclonal antibody; infusion; emergency use authorization.

SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, have transformed from scientific vernacular to common household terms. It began with a cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown etiology in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, with physicians there reporting a novel coronavirus strain (2019-nCoV), now referred to as SARS-CoV-2. Rapid spread of this virus resulted in the World Health Organization (WHO) declaring an international public health emergency. Since this time, the virus has evolved into a worldwide pandemic. COVID-19 has dramatically impacted our society, resulting in more than 2.63 million global deaths as of this writing, of which more than 527,000 deaths have occurred in the United States.¹ This novel virus has resulted in a flurry of literature, research, therapies, and collaboration across multiple disciplines in an effort to prevent, treat, and mitigate cases and complications of this disease.

On November 9, 2020, and November 21, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for 2 novel COVID-19 monoclonal therapies, bamlanivimab^2-3 and casirivimab/imdevimab,^3-4 respectively. The EUAs granted permission for these therapies to be administered for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adult and pediatric patients (≥ 12 years and weighing at least 40 kg) with positive results of direct SARS-CoV-2 viral testing and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. The therapies work by targeting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and subsequent attachment to human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors. Clinical trial data leading to the EUA demonstrated a reduction in viral load, safe outcome, and most importantly, fewer hospitalization and emergency room visits, as compared to the placebo group.^5-7 The use of monoclonal antibodies is not new and gained recognition during the Ebola crisis, when the monoclonal antibody to the Ebola virus showed a significant survival benefit.⁸ Providing monoclonal antibody therapy soon after symptom onset aligns with a shift from the onset of the pandemic to the current focus on the administration of pharmaceutical therapy early in the disease course. This shift prevents progression to severe COVID-19, with the goal of reducing patient mortality, hospitalizations, and strain on health care systems.

The availability of novel neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 led to discussions of how to incorporate these therapies as new options for patients. Our institution networked with colleagues from multiple disciplines to discuss processes and policies for the safe administration of the monoclonal antibody infusion therapies. Federal health leaders urge more use of monoclonal antibodies, but many hospitals have been unable to successfully implement infusions due to staff and logistical challenges.⁹ This article presents a viable process that hospitals can use to provide these novel therapies to outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

The Mount Sinai Medical Center, Florida Experience

Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach, Florida, is the largest private, independent, not-for-profit teaching hospital in South Florida, comprising 672 licensed beds and supporting 150,000 emergency department (ED) visits annually. Per the EUA criteria for use, COVID-19 monoclonal antibody therapies are not authorized for patients who are hospitalized or who require oxygen therapy due to COVID-19. Therefore, options for outpatient administration needed to be evaluated. Directly following the first EUA press release, a task force of key stakeholders was assembled to brainstorm and develop a process to offer this therapy to the community. A multidisciplinary task force with representation from the ED, nursing, primary care, hospital medicine, pharmacy, risk management, billing, information technology, infection prevention, and senior level leadership participated (Table).

The task force reviewed institutional outpatient locations to determine whether offering this service would be feasible (eg, ED, ambulatory care facilities, cancer center). The ED was selected because it would offer the largest array of appointment times to meet the community needs with around-the-clock availability. While Mount Sinai Medical Center offers care in 3 emergency center locations in Aventura, Hialeah, and Miami Beach, it was determined to initiate the infusions at the main campus center in Miami Beach only. The main campus affords an onsite pharmacy with suitable staffing to prepare the anticipated volume of infusions in a timely manner, as both therapies have short stabilities following preparation. Thus, it was decided that patients from freestanding emergency centers in Aventura and Hialeah would be moved to the Miami Beach ED location to receive therapy. Operating at a single site also allowed for more rapid implementation, monitoring, and ability to make modifications more easily. Discussions for the possible expansion of COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusions at satellite locations are underway.

On November 20, 2020, 11 days after the formation of the multidisciplinary task force, the first COVID-19 monoclonal infusion was successfully administered. Figure 1 depicts the timeline from assessment to program implementation. Critical to implementation was the involvement of decision makers from all necessary departments early in the planning process to ensure that standard operating procedures were followed and that the patients, community, and organization had a positive experience. This allowed for simultaneous planning of electronic health record (Epic; EHR) builds, departmental workflows, and staff education, as described in the following section. Figure 2 shows the patient safety activities included in the implementation process.

On the day of bamlanivimab EUA release, email communication was shared among hospital leadership with details of the press release. Departments were quickly involved to initiate a task force to assess if and how this therapy could be offered at Mount Sinai Medical Center. The following sections explain the role of each stakeholder and their essential role to operationalize these novel EUA treatment options. The task force was organized and led by our chief medical officer and chief nursing officer.

Information Technology

Medication Ordering and Documentation EHR and Smart Pumps. Early in the pandemic, the antimicrobial stewardship (ASP) clinical coordinator became the designated point person for pharmacy assessment of novel COVID-19 therapies. As such, this pharmacist began reviewing the bamlanivimab and, later, the casirivimab/imdevimab EUA Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers. All necessary elements for the complete and safe ordering and dispensing of the medication were developed and reviewed by pharmacy administration and ED nursing leadership for input, prior to submitting to the information technology team for implementation. Building the COVID-19 monoclonal medication records into the EHR allowed for detailed direction (ie, administration and preparation instructions) to be consistently applied. The medication records were also built into hospital smart pumps so that nurses could access prepopulated, accurate volumes and infusion rates to minimize errors.

Order Set Development. The pharmacy medication build was added to a comprehensive order set (Figure 3), which was then developed to guide prescribers and standardize the process around ordering of COVID-19 monoclonal therapies. While these therapies are new, oncology monoclonal therapies are regularly administered to outpatients at Mount Sinai Cancer Center. The cancer center was therefore consulted on their process surrounding best practices in administration of monoclonal antibody therapies. This included protocols for medications used in pretreatment and management of hypersensitivity reactions and potential adverse drug reactions of both COVID-19 monoclonal therapies. These medication orders were selected by default in the order set to ensure that all patients received premedications aimed at minimizing the risk of hypersensitivity reaction, and had as-needed medication orders, in the event a hypersensitivity reaction occurred. Reducing hypersensitivity reaction risk is important as well to increase the likelihood that the patient would receive full therapy, as management of this adverse drug reactions involves possible cessation of therapy depending on the level of severity. The pharmacy department also ensured these medications were stocked in ED automated dispensing cabinets to promote quick access. In addition to the aforementioned nursing orders, we added EUA criteria for use and hyperlinks to the Fact Sheets for Patients and Caregivers and Health Care Providers for each monoclonal therapy, and restricted ordering to ED physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

The order set underwent multidisciplinary review by pharmacy administration, the chair of emergency medicine, physicians, and ED nursing leadership prior to presentation and approval by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. Lastly, at time of implementation, the order set was added to the ED preference list, preventing inpatient access. Additionally, as a patient safety action, free- standing orders of COVID-19 monoclonal therapies were disabled, so providers could only order therapies via the approved, comprehensive order set.

Preliminary Assessment Tool. A provider assessment tool was developed to document patient-specific EUA criteria for use during initial assessment (Figure 4). This tool serves as a checklist and is visible to the full multidisciplinary team in the patient’s EHR. It is used as a resource at the time of pharmacist verification and ED physician assessment to ensure criteria for use are met.

Patient Referral. Patients with symptoms or concerns of COVID-19 exposure can make physician appointments via telemedicine or in person at Mount Sinai Medical Center’s primary care and specialty offices. At the time of patient encounter, physicians suspecting a COVID-19 diagnosis will refer patients for outpatient COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) laboratory testing, which has an approximate 24-hour turnaround to results. Physicians also assess whether the patient meets EUA criteria for use, pending results of testing. In the event a patient meets EUA criteria for use, the physician provides patient counseling and requests verbal consent. Following this, the physician enters a note in the EHR describing the patient’s condition, criteria for use evaluation, and the patient’s verbal agreement to therapy. This preliminary screening is beneficial to begin planning with both the patient and ED to minimize delays. Patients are notified of the results of their test once available. If the COVID-19 PCR test returns positive, the physician will call the ED at the main campus and schedule the patient for COVID-19 monoclonal therapy. As the desired timeframe for administering COVID-19 monoclonal therapies is within less than 10 days of symptom onset, timely scheduling of appointments is crucial. Infusion appointments are typically provided the same or next day. The patients are informed that they must bring documentation of their positive COVID-19 PCR test to their ED visit. Lastly, because patients are pretreated with medication that may potentially impair driving, they are instructed that they cannot drive themselves home; ride shares also are not allowed in order to limit the spread of infection.

Emergency Department

Patient Arrival and Screening. A COVID-19 patient can be evaluated in the ED 1 of 2 ways. The first option is via outpatient office referral, as described previously. Upon arrival to the ED, a second screening is performed to ensure the patient still meets EUA criteria for use and the positive COVID-19 PCR test result is confirmed. If the patient no longer meets criteria, the patient is triaged accordingly, including evaluation for higher-level care (eg, supplemental oxygen, hospital admission). The second optoion is via new patient walk-ins without outpatient physician referral (Figure 4). In these cases, an initial screening is performed, documenting EUA criteria for use in the preliminary assessment (Figure 5). Physicians will consider an outside COVID-19 test as valid, so long as documentation is readily available confirming a positive PCR result. Otherwise, an in-house COVID-19 PCR test will be performed, which has a 2-hour turnaround time.

Infusion Schedule. The ED offers a total of 16 COVID-19 monoclonal infusions slots daily. These are broken up into 4 infusion time blocks (eg, 8 am, 12 pm, 4 pm, 8 pm), with each infusion time block consisting of 4 available patient appointments. A list of scheduled infusions for the day is emailed to the pharmacy department every morning, and patients are instructed to arrive 1 hour prior to their appointment time. This allows time for patient registration, assessment, and pharmacy notification in advance of order entry. For logistical purposes, and as a patient safety initiative to reduce the likelihood of medication errors, each of the available COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies is offered on a designated day. Bamlanivimab is offered on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday, while casirivimab/imdevimab is offered Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. This provides flexibility to adjust should supply deviate based on Department of Health allocation or should new therapy options within this class of medication become available.

Patient Education. Prior to administration of the monoclonal therapy, physician and nursing staff obtain a formal, written patient consent for therapy and provide patients with the option of participating in the institutional review board (IRB) approved study. Details of this are discussed in the risk management and IRB sections of the article. Nursing staff also provides the medication-specific Fact Sheet for Patients and Caregivers in either Spanish or English, which is also included as a hyperlink on the COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Order Set for ease of access. Interpreter services are available for patients who speak other languages. An ED decentralized pharmacist is also available onsite Monday through Friday from 12 pm to 8:30 pm to supplement education and serve as a resource for any questions.

Infusion Ordering. Once the patient is ready to begin therapy, the he/she is brought to a dedicated overflow area of the ED. There are few, if any, patients in this location, and it is adjacent to the main emergency center for easy access by the patients, nurses, pharmacists, and physicians. The physician then enters orders in the EHR using the COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Order Set (Figure 3). Three discrete questions were built into the medication order: (1) Was patient consent obtained? (2) Was the Fact Sheet for Patient/Caregiver provided to the patient? (3) Is the patient COVID-19 PCR-positive? These questions were built as hard stops so that the medication orders cannot be placed without a response. This serves as another double-check to ensure processes are followed and helps facilitate timely verification by the pharmacist.

Medication Administration. One nurse is dedicated to administering the monoclonal therapies scheduled at 8 am and 12 pm and another at 4 pm and 8 pm. Each appointment block is 4 hours in duration to allow adequate time for patient registration, infusion, and postinfusion observation. The nurse administers the premedications and COVID-19 monoclonal therapy, and observes the patient for the required 1-hour postadministration observation period. Nursing orders detailing monitoring parameters for mild, moderate, and severe reactions, along with associated medication orders to administer in the event they occur, are detailed in the nursing orders of the COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Order Set (Figure 3). Prior to administration, the nurse scans each medication and the patient’s wrist identification band, and documents the time of administration within the EHR medication administration report.

Pharmacy Department

Medication Receipt Process. Inventory is currently allocated biweekly from the state department of health and will soon be transitioning to a direct order system. The pharmacy technician in charge of deliveries notifies the pharmacy Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) clinical coordinator upon receipt of the monoclonal therapies. Bamlanivimab is supplied as 1 vial per dose, whereas casirivimab/imdevimab is supplied as 4 vials or 8 vials per dose, depending how it is shipped. To reduce the likelihood of medication errors, the ASP clinical coordinator assembles each of the casirivimab/imdevimab vials into kits, where 1 kit equals 1 dose. Labels are then affixed to each kit indicating the medication name, number of vials which equal a full dose, and pharmacist signature. The kits are stored in a dedicated refrigerator, and inventory logs are affixed to the outside of the refrigerator and updated daily. This inventory is also communicated daily to ED physician, nursing, and pharmacy leadership, as well as the director of patient safety, who reports weekly usage to the state Department of Health and Human Services. These weekly reports are used to determine allocation amounts.

Medication Verification and Delivery. The Mount Sinai Medical Center pharmacist staffing model consists of centralized order entry and specialized, decentralized positions. All orders are verified by the ED pharmacist when scheduled (not a 24/7 service) and by the designated pharmacist for all other times. At the time of medication verification, the pharmacist documents patient-specific EUA criteria for use and confirms that consent was obtained and the Fact Sheet for Patients/Caregivers was provided. A pharmacist intervention was developed to assist with this documentation. Pharmacists input smart text “.COVIDmonoclonal” and a drop-down menu of EUA criteria for use appears. The pharmacist reviews the patient care notes and medication order question responses to ascertain this information, contacting the ED prescriber if further clarification is required. This verification serves as another check to ensure processes put in place are followed. Lastly, intravenous preparation and delivery are electronically recorded in the EHR, and the medications require nursing signature at the time of delivery to ensure a formal chain of custody.

Risk Management

At Mount Sinai Medical Center, all EUA and investigational therapies require patient consent. Consistent with this requirement, a COVID-19 monoclonal specific consent was developed by risk management. This is provided to every patient receiving a COVID-19 monoclonal infusion, in addition to the FDA EUA Fact Sheet for Patients and Caregivers, and documented as part of their EHR. The questions providers must answer are built into the order set to ensure this process is followed and these patient safety checks are incorporated into the workflow.

Billing and Finance Department

In alignment with Mount Sinai Medical Center’s mission to provide high-quality health care to its diverse community through teaching, research, charity care, and financial responsibility, it was determined that this therapy would be provided to all patients regardless of insurance type, including those who are uninsured. The billing and finance department was consulted prior to this service being offered, to provide patients with accurate and pertinent information. The billing and finance department provided guidance on how to document patient encounters at time of registration to facilitate appropriate billing. At this time, the medication is free of charge, but nonmedication-related ED fees apply. This is explained to patients so there is a clear understanding prior to booking their appointment.

Infection Prevention

As patients receiving COVID-19 monoclonal therapies can transmit the virus to others, measures to ensure protection for other patients and staff are vital. To minimize exposure, specific nursing and physician staff from the ED are assigned to the treatment of these patients, and patients receive infusions and postobservation monitoring in a designated wing of the ED. Additionally, all staff who interact with these patients are required to don full personal protective equipment. This includes not only physicians and nurses but all specialties such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and laboratory technicians. Moreover, patients are not permitted to go home in a ride share and are counseled on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quarantining following infusion.

Measurement of Process and Outcomes and Reporting

IRB approval was sought and obtained early during initiation of this service, allowing study consent to be offered to patients at the time general consent was obtained, which maximized patient recruitment and streamlined workflow. The study is a prospective observational research study to determine the impact of administration of COVID-19 monoclonal antibody therapy on length of symptoms, chronic illness, and rate of hospitalization. Most patients were eager to participate and offer their assistance to the scientific community during this pandemic.

Staff Education

In order to successfully implement this multidisciplinary EUA treatment option, comprehensive staff education was paramount after the workflow was developed. Prior to the first day of infusions, nurses and pharmacists were provided education during multiple huddle announcements. The pharmacy team also provided screen captures via email to the pharmacists so they could become familiar with the order set, intervention documentation, and location of the preliminary assessment of EUA criteria for use at the time of order verification. The emergency medicine department chair and chief medical officer also provided education via several virtual meetings and email to referring physicians (specialists and primary care) and residents in the emergency centers involved in COVID-19 monoclonal therapy-related patient care.

Factors Contributing to Success

We believe the reasons for continued success of this process are multifactorial and include the following key elements. Multidisciplinary planning, which included decision makers and all stakeholders, began at the time the idea was conceived. This allowed quick implementation of this service by efficiently navigating barriers to engaging impacted staff early on. Throughout this process, the authors set realistic step-wise goals. While navigating through the many details to implementation described, we also kept in mind the big picture, which was to provide this potentially lifesaving therapy to as many qualifying members of our community as possible. This included being flexible with the process and adapting when needed to achieve this ultimate goal. A focus on safety remained a priority to minimize possible errors and enhance patient and staff satisfaction. The optimization of the EHR streamlined workflow, provided point-of-care resources, and enhanced patient safety. Additionally, the target date set for implementation allowed staff and department leads adequate time to plan for and anticipate the changes. Serving only 1 patient on the first day allowed time for staff to experience this new process hands-on and provided opportunity for focused education. This team communication was essential to implementing this project, including staff training of processes and procedures prior to go-live. Early incorporation of IRB approval allowed the experience to be assessed and considered for contribution to the scientific literature to tackle this novel virus that has impacted our communities locally, nationally, and abroad. Moreover, continued measurement and reporting on a regular basis leads to performance improvement. The process outlined here can be adapted to incorporate other new therapies in the future, such as the recent February 9, 2021, EUA of the COVID-19 monoclonal antibody combination bamlanivimab and etesevimab.¹⁰

Conclusion

We administered 790 COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusions between November 20, 2020 and March 5, 2021. Steps to minimize the likelihood of hypersensitivity reactions were implemented, and a low incidence (< 1%) has been observed. There has been no incidence of infection, concern from staff about infection prevention, or risk of infection during the processes. There have been very infrequent cost-related concerns raised by patients, typically due to incomplete communication regarding billing prior to the infusion. To address these issues, staff education has been provided to enhance patient instruction on this topic. The program has provided patient and family satisfaction, as well nursing, physician, pharmacist, clinical staff, and hospital administration pride and gratification. Setting up a new program to provide a 4-hour patient encounter to infuse therapy to high-risk patients with COVID-19 requires commitment and effort. This article describes the experience, ideas, and formula others may consider using to set up such a program. Through networking and formal phone calls and meetings about monoclonal antibody therapy, we have heard about other institutions who have not been able to institute this program due to various barriers to implementation. We hope our experience serves as a resource for others to provide this therapy to their patients and expand access in an effort to mitigate COVID-19 consequences and cases affecting our communities.

Corresponding author: Kathleen Jodoin, PharmD, BCPS, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 4300 Alton Rd, Miami Beach, FL 33140; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL.

Abstract

Objective: To develop and implement a process for administering COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusions for outpatients with mild or moderate COVID-19 at high risk for hospitalization, using multidisciplinary collaboration, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance, and infection prevention standards.

Methods: When monoclonal antibody therapy became available for mild or moderate COVID-19 outpatients via Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), our institution sought to provide this therapy option to our patients. We describe the process for planning, implementing, and maintaining a successful program for administering novel therapies based on FDA guidance and infection prevention standards. Key components of our implementation process were multidisciplinary planning involving decision makers and stakeholders; setting realistic goals in the process; team communication; and measuring and reporting quality improvement on a regular basis.

Results: A total of 790 COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusions were administered from November 20, 2020 to March 5, 2021. Steps to minimize the likelihood of adverse drug reactions were implemented and a low incidence (< 1%) has occurred. There has been no concern from staff regarding infection during the process. Rarely, patients have raised cost-related concerns, typically due to incomplete communication regarding billing prior to the infusion. Patients, families, nursing staff, physicians, pharmacy, and hospital administration have expressed satisfaction with the program.

Conclusion: This process can provide a template for other hospitals or health care delivery facilities to provide novel therapies to patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 in a safe and effective manner.

Keywords: COVID-19; monoclonal antibody; infusion; emergency use authorization.

SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, have transformed from scientific vernacular to common household terms. It began with a cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown etiology in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, with physicians there reporting a novel coronavirus strain (2019-nCoV), now referred to as SARS-CoV-2. Rapid spread of this virus resulted in the World Health Organization (WHO) declaring an international public health emergency. Since this time, the virus has evolved into a worldwide pandemic. COVID-19 has dramatically impacted our society, resulting in more than 2.63 million global deaths as of this writing, of which more than 527,000 deaths have occurred in the United States.¹ This novel virus has resulted in a flurry of literature, research, therapies, and collaboration across multiple disciplines in an effort to prevent, treat, and mitigate cases and complications of this disease.

On November 9, 2020, and November 21, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for 2 novel COVID-19 monoclonal therapies, bamlanivimab^2-3 and casirivimab/imdevimab,^3-4 respectively. The EUAs granted permission for these therapies to be administered for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adult and pediatric patients (≥ 12 years and weighing at least 40 kg) with positive results of direct SARS-CoV-2 viral testing and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. The therapies work by targeting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and subsequent attachment to human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors. Clinical trial data leading to the EUA demonstrated a reduction in viral load, safe outcome, and most importantly, fewer hospitalization and emergency room visits, as compared to the placebo group.^5-7 The use of monoclonal antibodies is not new and gained recognition during the Ebola crisis, when the monoclonal antibody to the Ebola virus showed a significant survival benefit.⁸ Providing monoclonal antibody therapy soon after symptom onset aligns with a shift from the onset of the pandemic to the current focus on the administration of pharmaceutical therapy early in the disease course. This shift prevents progression to severe COVID-19, with the goal of reducing patient mortality, hospitalizations, and strain on health care systems.

The availability of novel neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 led to discussions of how to incorporate these therapies as new options for patients. Our institution networked with colleagues from multiple disciplines to discuss processes and policies for the safe administration of the monoclonal antibody infusion therapies. Federal health leaders urge more use of monoclonal antibodies, but many hospitals have been unable to successfully implement infusions due to staff and logistical challenges.⁹ This article presents a viable process that hospitals can use to provide these novel therapies to outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

The Mount Sinai Medical Center, Florida Experience

Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach, Florida, is the largest private, independent, not-for-profit teaching hospital in South Florida, comprising 672 licensed beds and supporting 150,000 emergency department (ED) visits annually. Per the EUA criteria for use, COVID-19 monoclonal antibody therapies are not authorized for patients who are hospitalized or who require oxygen therapy due to COVID-19. Therefore, options for outpatient administration needed to be evaluated. Directly following the first EUA press release, a task force of key stakeholders was assembled to brainstorm and develop a process to offer this therapy to the community. A multidisciplinary task force with representation from the ED, nursing, primary care, hospital medicine, pharmacy, risk management, billing, information technology, infection prevention, and senior level leadership participated (Table).

The task force reviewed institutional outpatient locations to determine whether offering this service would be feasible (eg, ED, ambulatory care facilities, cancer center). The ED was selected because it would offer the largest array of appointment times to meet the community needs with around-the-clock availability. While Mount Sinai Medical Center offers care in 3 emergency center locations in Aventura, Hialeah, and Miami Beach, it was determined to initiate the infusions at the main campus center in Miami Beach only. The main campus affords an onsite pharmacy with suitable staffing to prepare the anticipated volume of infusions in a timely manner, as both therapies have short stabilities following preparation. Thus, it was decided that patients from freestanding emergency centers in Aventura and Hialeah would be moved to the Miami Beach ED location to receive therapy. Operating at a single site also allowed for more rapid implementation, monitoring, and ability to make modifications more easily. Discussions for the possible expansion of COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusions at satellite locations are underway.

On November 20, 2020, 11 days after the formation of the multidisciplinary task force, the first COVID-19 monoclonal infusion was successfully administered. Figure 1 depicts the timeline from assessment to program implementation. Critical to implementation was the involvement of decision makers from all necessary departments early in the planning process to ensure that standard operating procedures were followed and that the patients, community, and organization had a positive experience. This allowed for simultaneous planning of electronic health record (Epic; EHR) builds, departmental workflows, and staff education, as described in the following section. Figure 2 shows the patient safety activities included in the implementation process.

On the day of bamlanivimab EUA release, email communication was shared among hospital leadership with details of the press release. Departments were quickly involved to initiate a task force to assess if and how this therapy could be offered at Mount Sinai Medical Center. The following sections explain the role of each stakeholder and their essential role to operationalize these novel EUA treatment options. The task force was organized and led by our chief medical officer and chief nursing officer.

Information Technology

Medication Ordering and Documentation EHR and Smart Pumps. Early in the pandemic, the antimicrobial stewardship (ASP) clinical coordinator became the designated point person for pharmacy assessment of novel COVID-19 therapies. As such, this pharmacist began reviewing the bamlanivimab and, later, the casirivimab/imdevimab EUA Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers. All necessary elements for the complete and safe ordering and dispensing of the medication were developed and reviewed by pharmacy administration and ED nursing leadership for input, prior to submitting to the information technology team for implementation. Building the COVID-19 monoclonal medication records into the EHR allowed for detailed direction (ie, administration and preparation instructions) to be consistently applied. The medication records were also built into hospital smart pumps so that nurses could access prepopulated, accurate volumes and infusion rates to minimize errors.

Order Set Development. The pharmacy medication build was added to a comprehensive order set (Figure 3), which was then developed to guide prescribers and standardize the process around ordering of COVID-19 monoclonal therapies. While these therapies are new, oncology monoclonal therapies are regularly administered to outpatients at Mount Sinai Cancer Center. The cancer center was therefore consulted on their process surrounding best practices in administration of monoclonal antibody therapies. This included protocols for medications used in pretreatment and management of hypersensitivity reactions and potential adverse drug reactions of both COVID-19 monoclonal therapies. These medication orders were selected by default in the order set to ensure that all patients received premedications aimed at minimizing the risk of hypersensitivity reaction, and had as-needed medication orders, in the event a hypersensitivity reaction occurred. Reducing hypersensitivity reaction risk is important as well to increase the likelihood that the patient would receive full therapy, as management of this adverse drug reactions involves possible cessation of therapy depending on the level of severity. The pharmacy department also ensured these medications were stocked in ED automated dispensing cabinets to promote quick access. In addition to the aforementioned nursing orders, we added EUA criteria for use and hyperlinks to the Fact Sheets for Patients and Caregivers and Health Care Providers for each monoclonal therapy, and restricted ordering to ED physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

The order set underwent multidisciplinary review by pharmacy administration, the chair of emergency medicine, physicians, and ED nursing leadership prior to presentation and approval by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. Lastly, at time of implementation, the order set was added to the ED preference list, preventing inpatient access. Additionally, as a patient safety action, free- standing orders of COVID-19 monoclonal therapies were disabled, so providers could only order therapies via the approved, comprehensive order set.

Preliminary Assessment Tool. A provider assessment tool was developed to document patient-specific EUA criteria for use during initial assessment (Figure 4). This tool serves as a checklist and is visible to the full multidisciplinary team in the patient’s EHR. It is used as a resource at the time of pharmacist verification and ED physician assessment to ensure criteria for use are met.

Patient Referral. Patients with symptoms or concerns of COVID-19 exposure can make physician appointments via telemedicine or in person at Mount Sinai Medical Center’s primary care and specialty offices. At the time of patient encounter, physicians suspecting a COVID-19 diagnosis will refer patients for outpatient COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) laboratory testing, which has an approximate 24-hour turnaround to results. Physicians also assess whether the patient meets EUA criteria for use, pending results of testing. In the event a patient meets EUA criteria for use, the physician provides patient counseling and requests verbal consent. Following this, the physician enters a note in the EHR describing the patient’s condition, criteria for use evaluation, and the patient’s verbal agreement to therapy. This preliminary screening is beneficial to begin planning with both the patient and ED to minimize delays. Patients are notified of the results of their test once available. If the COVID-19 PCR test returns positive, the physician will call the ED at the main campus and schedule the patient for COVID-19 monoclonal therapy. As the desired timeframe for administering COVID-19 monoclonal therapies is within less than 10 days of symptom onset, timely scheduling of appointments is crucial. Infusion appointments are typically provided the same or next day. The patients are informed that they must bring documentation of their positive COVID-19 PCR test to their ED visit. Lastly, because patients are pretreated with medication that may potentially impair driving, they are instructed that they cannot drive themselves home; ride shares also are not allowed in order to limit the spread of infection.

Emergency Department

Patient Arrival and Screening. A COVID-19 patient can be evaluated in the ED 1 of 2 ways. The first option is via outpatient office referral, as described previously. Upon arrival to the ED, a second screening is performed to ensure the patient still meets EUA criteria for use and the positive COVID-19 PCR test result is confirmed. If the patient no longer meets criteria, the patient is triaged accordingly, including evaluation for higher-level care (eg, supplemental oxygen, hospital admission). The second optoion is via new patient walk-ins without outpatient physician referral (Figure 4). In these cases, an initial screening is performed, documenting EUA criteria for use in the preliminary assessment (Figure 5). Physicians will consider an outside COVID-19 test as valid, so long as documentation is readily available confirming a positive PCR result. Otherwise, an in-house COVID-19 PCR test will be performed, which has a 2-hour turnaround time.

Infusion Schedule. The ED offers a total of 16 COVID-19 monoclonal infusions slots daily. These are broken up into 4 infusion time blocks (eg, 8 am, 12 pm, 4 pm, 8 pm), with each infusion time block consisting of 4 available patient appointments. A list of scheduled infusions for the day is emailed to the pharmacy department every morning, and patients are instructed to arrive 1 hour prior to their appointment time. This allows time for patient registration, assessment, and pharmacy notification in advance of order entry. For logistical purposes, and as a patient safety initiative to reduce the likelihood of medication errors, each of the available COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies is offered on a designated day. Bamlanivimab is offered on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday, while casirivimab/imdevimab is offered Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. This provides flexibility to adjust should supply deviate based on Department of Health allocation or should new therapy options within this class of medication become available.

Patient Education. Prior to administration of the monoclonal therapy, physician and nursing staff obtain a formal, written patient consent for therapy and provide patients with the option of participating in the institutional review board (IRB) approved study. Details of this are discussed in the risk management and IRB sections of the article. Nursing staff also provides the medication-specific Fact Sheet for Patients and Caregivers in either Spanish or English, which is also included as a hyperlink on the COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Order Set for ease of access. Interpreter services are available for patients who speak other languages. An ED decentralized pharmacist is also available onsite Monday through Friday from 12 pm to 8:30 pm to supplement education and serve as a resource for any questions.

Infusion Ordering. Once the patient is ready to begin therapy, the he/she is brought to a dedicated overflow area of the ED. There are few, if any, patients in this location, and it is adjacent to the main emergency center for easy access by the patients, nurses, pharmacists, and physicians. The physician then enters orders in the EHR using the COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Order Set (Figure 3). Three discrete questions were built into the medication order: (1) Was patient consent obtained? (2) Was the Fact Sheet for Patient/Caregiver provided to the patient? (3) Is the patient COVID-19 PCR-positive? These questions were built as hard stops so that the medication orders cannot be placed without a response. This serves as another double-check to ensure processes are followed and helps facilitate timely verification by the pharmacist.

Medication Administration. One nurse is dedicated to administering the monoclonal therapies scheduled at 8 am and 12 pm and another at 4 pm and 8 pm. Each appointment block is 4 hours in duration to allow adequate time for patient registration, infusion, and postinfusion observation. The nurse administers the premedications and COVID-19 monoclonal therapy, and observes the patient for the required 1-hour postadministration observation period. Nursing orders detailing monitoring parameters for mild, moderate, and severe reactions, along with associated medication orders to administer in the event they occur, are detailed in the nursing orders of the COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Order Set (Figure 3). Prior to administration, the nurse scans each medication and the patient’s wrist identification band, and documents the time of administration within the EHR medication administration report.

Pharmacy Department

Medication Receipt Process. Inventory is currently allocated biweekly from the state department of health and will soon be transitioning to a direct order system. The pharmacy technician in charge of deliveries notifies the pharmacy Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) clinical coordinator upon receipt of the monoclonal therapies. Bamlanivimab is supplied as 1 vial per dose, whereas casirivimab/imdevimab is supplied as 4 vials or 8 vials per dose, depending how it is shipped. To reduce the likelihood of medication errors, the ASP clinical coordinator assembles each of the casirivimab/imdevimab vials into kits, where 1 kit equals 1 dose. Labels are then affixed to each kit indicating the medication name, number of vials which equal a full dose, and pharmacist signature. The kits are stored in a dedicated refrigerator, and inventory logs are affixed to the outside of the refrigerator and updated daily. This inventory is also communicated daily to ED physician, nursing, and pharmacy leadership, as well as the director of patient safety, who reports weekly usage to the state Department of Health and Human Services. These weekly reports are used to determine allocation amounts.

Medication Verification and Delivery. The Mount Sinai Medical Center pharmacist staffing model consists of centralized order entry and specialized, decentralized positions. All orders are verified by the ED pharmacist when scheduled (not a 24/7 service) and by the designated pharmacist for all other times. At the time of medication verification, the pharmacist documents patient-specific EUA criteria for use and confirms that consent was obtained and the Fact Sheet for Patients/Caregivers was provided. A pharmacist intervention was developed to assist with this documentation. Pharmacists input smart text “.COVIDmonoclonal” and a drop-down menu of EUA criteria for use appears. The pharmacist reviews the patient care notes and medication order question responses to ascertain this information, contacting the ED prescriber if further clarification is required. This verification serves as another check to ensure processes put in place are followed. Lastly, intravenous preparation and delivery are electronically recorded in the EHR, and the medications require nursing signature at the time of delivery to ensure a formal chain of custody.

Risk Management

At Mount Sinai Medical Center, all EUA and investigational therapies require patient consent. Consistent with this requirement, a COVID-19 monoclonal specific consent was developed by risk management. This is provided to every patient receiving a COVID-19 monoclonal infusion, in addition to the FDA EUA Fact Sheet for Patients and Caregivers, and documented as part of their EHR. The questions providers must answer are built into the order set to ensure this process is followed and these patient safety checks are incorporated into the workflow.

Billing and Finance Department

In alignment with Mount Sinai Medical Center’s mission to provide high-quality health care to its diverse community through teaching, research, charity care, and financial responsibility, it was determined that this therapy would be provided to all patients regardless of insurance type, including those who are uninsured. The billing and finance department was consulted prior to this service being offered, to provide patients with accurate and pertinent information. The billing and finance department provided guidance on how to document patient encounters at time of registration to facilitate appropriate billing. At this time, the medication is free of charge, but nonmedication-related ED fees apply. This is explained to patients so there is a clear understanding prior to booking their appointment.

Infection Prevention

As patients receiving COVID-19 monoclonal therapies can transmit the virus to others, measures to ensure protection for other patients and staff are vital. To minimize exposure, specific nursing and physician staff from the ED are assigned to the treatment of these patients, and patients receive infusions and postobservation monitoring in a designated wing of the ED. Additionally, all staff who interact with these patients are required to don full personal protective equipment. This includes not only physicians and nurses but all specialties such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and laboratory technicians. Moreover, patients are not permitted to go home in a ride share and are counseled on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quarantining following infusion.

Measurement of Process and Outcomes and Reporting

IRB approval was sought and obtained early during initiation of this service, allowing study consent to be offered to patients at the time general consent was obtained, which maximized patient recruitment and streamlined workflow. The study is a prospective observational research study to determine the impact of administration of COVID-19 monoclonal antibody therapy on length of symptoms, chronic illness, and rate of hospitalization. Most patients were eager to participate and offer their assistance to the scientific community during this pandemic.

Staff Education

In order to successfully implement this multidisciplinary EUA treatment option, comprehensive staff education was paramount after the workflow was developed. Prior to the first day of infusions, nurses and pharmacists were provided education during multiple huddle announcements. The pharmacy team also provided screen captures via email to the pharmacists so they could become familiar with the order set, intervention documentation, and location of the preliminary assessment of EUA criteria for use at the time of order verification. The emergency medicine department chair and chief medical officer also provided education via several virtual meetings and email to referring physicians (specialists and primary care) and residents in the emergency centers involved in COVID-19 monoclonal therapy-related patient care.

Factors Contributing to Success

We believe the reasons for continued success of this process are multifactorial and include the following key elements. Multidisciplinary planning, which included decision makers and all stakeholders, began at the time the idea was conceived. This allowed quick implementation of this service by efficiently navigating barriers to engaging impacted staff early on. Throughout this process, the authors set realistic step-wise goals. While navigating through the many details to implementation described, we also kept in mind the big picture, which was to provide this potentially lifesaving therapy to as many qualifying members of our community as possible. This included being flexible with the process and adapting when needed to achieve this ultimate goal. A focus on safety remained a priority to minimize possible errors and enhance patient and staff satisfaction. The optimization of the EHR streamlined workflow, provided point-of-care resources, and enhanced patient safety. Additionally, the target date set for implementation allowed staff and department leads adequate time to plan for and anticipate the changes. Serving only 1 patient on the first day allowed time for staff to experience this new process hands-on and provided opportunity for focused education. This team communication was essential to implementing this project, including staff training of processes and procedures prior to go-live. Early incorporation of IRB approval allowed the experience to be assessed and considered for contribution to the scientific literature to tackle this novel virus that has impacted our communities locally, nationally, and abroad. Moreover, continued measurement and reporting on a regular basis leads to performance improvement. The process outlined here can be adapted to incorporate other new therapies in the future, such as the recent February 9, 2021, EUA of the COVID-19 monoclonal antibody combination bamlanivimab and etesevimab.¹⁰

Conclusion

We administered 790 COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusions between November 20, 2020 and March 5, 2021. Steps to minimize the likelihood of hypersensitivity reactions were implemented, and a low incidence (< 1%) has been observed. There has been no incidence of infection, concern from staff about infection prevention, or risk of infection during the processes. There have been very infrequent cost-related concerns raised by patients, typically due to incomplete communication regarding billing prior to the infusion. To address these issues, staff education has been provided to enhance patient instruction on this topic. The program has provided patient and family satisfaction, as well nursing, physician, pharmacist, clinical staff, and hospital administration pride and gratification. Setting up a new program to provide a 4-hour patient encounter to infuse therapy to high-risk patients with COVID-19 requires commitment and effort. This article describes the experience, ideas, and formula others may consider using to set up such a program. Through networking and formal phone calls and meetings about monoclonal antibody therapy, we have heard about other institutions who have not been able to institute this program due to various barriers to implementation. We hope our experience serves as a resource for others to provide this therapy to their patients and expand access in an effort to mitigate COVID-19 consequences and cases affecting our communities.

Corresponding author: Kathleen Jodoin, PharmD, BCPS, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 4300 Alton Rd, Miami Beach, FL 33140; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL.

Abstract

Objective: To develop and implement a process for administering COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusions for outpatients with mild or moderate COVID-19 at high risk for hospitalization, using multidisciplinary collaboration, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance, and infection prevention standards.

Methods: When monoclonal antibody therapy became available for mild or moderate COVID-19 outpatients via Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), our institution sought to provide this therapy option to our patients. We describe the process for planning, implementing, and maintaining a successful program for administering novel therapies based on FDA guidance and infection prevention standards. Key components of our implementation process were multidisciplinary planning involving decision makers and stakeholders; setting realistic goals in the process; team communication; and measuring and reporting quality improvement on a regular basis.

Results: A total of 790 COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusions were administered from November 20, 2020 to March 5, 2021. Steps to minimize the likelihood of adverse drug reactions were implemented and a low incidence (< 1%) has occurred. There has been no concern from staff regarding infection during the process. Rarely, patients have raised cost-related concerns, typically due to incomplete communication regarding billing prior to the infusion. Patients, families, nursing staff, physicians, pharmacy, and hospital administration have expressed satisfaction with the program.

Conclusion: This process can provide a template for other hospitals or health care delivery facilities to provide novel therapies to patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 in a safe and effective manner.

Keywords: COVID-19; monoclonal antibody; infusion; emergency use authorization.

SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, have transformed from scientific vernacular to common household terms. It began with a cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown etiology in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, with physicians there reporting a novel coronavirus strain (2019-nCoV), now referred to as SARS-CoV-2. Rapid spread of this virus resulted in the World Health Organization (WHO) declaring an international public health emergency. Since this time, the virus has evolved into a worldwide pandemic. COVID-19 has dramatically impacted our society, resulting in more than 2.63 million global deaths as of this writing, of which more than 527,000 deaths have occurred in the United States.¹ This novel virus has resulted in a flurry of literature, research, therapies, and collaboration across multiple disciplines in an effort to prevent, treat, and mitigate cases and complications of this disease.

On November 9, 2020, and November 21, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for 2 novel COVID-19 monoclonal therapies, bamlanivimab^2-3 and casirivimab/imdevimab,^3-4 respectively. The EUAs granted permission for these therapies to be administered for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adult and pediatric patients (≥ 12 years and weighing at least 40 kg) with positive results of direct SARS-CoV-2 viral testing and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. The therapies work by targeting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and subsequent attachment to human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors. Clinical trial data leading to the EUA demonstrated a reduction in viral load, safe outcome, and most importantly, fewer hospitalization and emergency room visits, as compared to the placebo group.^5-7 The use of monoclonal antibodies is not new and gained recognition during the Ebola crisis, when the monoclonal antibody to the Ebola virus showed a significant survival benefit.⁸ Providing monoclonal antibody therapy soon after symptom onset aligns with a shift from the onset of the pandemic to the current focus on the administration of pharmaceutical therapy early in the disease course. This shift prevents progression to severe COVID-19, with the goal of reducing patient mortality, hospitalizations, and strain on health care systems.

The availability of novel neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 led to discussions of how to incorporate these therapies as new options for patients. Our institution networked with colleagues from multiple disciplines to discuss processes and policies for the safe administration of the monoclonal antibody infusion therapies. Federal health leaders urge more use of monoclonal antibodies, but many hospitals have been unable to successfully implement infusions due to staff and logistical challenges.⁹ This article presents a viable process that hospitals can use to provide these novel therapies to outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

The Mount Sinai Medical Center, Florida Experience

Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach, Florida, is the largest private, independent, not-for-profit teaching hospital in South Florida, comprising 672 licensed beds and supporting 150,000 emergency department (ED) visits annually. Per the EUA criteria for use, COVID-19 monoclonal antibody therapies are not authorized for patients who are hospitalized or who require oxygen therapy due to COVID-19. Therefore, options for outpatient administration needed to be evaluated. Directly following the first EUA press release, a task force of key stakeholders was assembled to brainstorm and develop a process to offer this therapy to the community. A multidisciplinary task force with representation from the ED, nursing, primary care, hospital medicine, pharmacy, risk management, billing, information technology, infection prevention, and senior level leadership participated (Table).

The task force reviewed institutional outpatient locations to determine whether offering this service would be feasible (eg, ED, ambulatory care facilities, cancer center). The ED was selected because it would offer the largest array of appointment times to meet the community needs with around-the-clock availability. While Mount Sinai Medical Center offers care in 3 emergency center locations in Aventura, Hialeah, and Miami Beach, it was determined to initiate the infusions at the main campus center in Miami Beach only. The main campus affords an onsite pharmacy with suitable staffing to prepare the anticipated volume of infusions in a timely manner, as both therapies have short stabilities following preparation. Thus, it was decided that patients from freestanding emergency centers in Aventura and Hialeah would be moved to the Miami Beach ED location to receive therapy. Operating at a single site also allowed for more rapid implementation, monitoring, and ability to make modifications more easily. Discussions for the possible expansion of COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusions at satellite locations are underway.

On November 20, 2020, 11 days after the formation of the multidisciplinary task force, the first COVID-19 monoclonal infusion was successfully administered. Figure 1 depicts the timeline from assessment to program implementation. Critical to implementation was the involvement of decision makers from all necessary departments early in the planning process to ensure that standard operating procedures were followed and that the patients, community, and organization had a positive experience. This allowed for simultaneous planning of electronic health record (Epic; EHR) builds, departmental workflows, and staff education, as described in the following section. Figure 2 shows the patient safety activities included in the implementation process.

On the day of bamlanivimab EUA release, email communication was shared among hospital leadership with details of the press release. Departments were quickly involved to initiate a task force to assess if and how this therapy could be offered at Mount Sinai Medical Center. The following sections explain the role of each stakeholder and their essential role to operationalize these novel EUA treatment options. The task force was organized and led by our chief medical officer and chief nursing officer.

Information Technology

Medication Ordering and Documentation EHR and Smart Pumps. Early in the pandemic, the antimicrobial stewardship (ASP) clinical coordinator became the designated point person for pharmacy assessment of novel COVID-19 therapies. As such, this pharmacist began reviewing the bamlanivimab and, later, the casirivimab/imdevimab EUA Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers. All necessary elements for the complete and safe ordering and dispensing of the medication were developed and reviewed by pharmacy administration and ED nursing leadership for input, prior to submitting to the information technology team for implementation. Building the COVID-19 monoclonal medication records into the EHR allowed for detailed direction (ie, administration and preparation instructions) to be consistently applied. The medication records were also built into hospital smart pumps so that nurses could access prepopulated, accurate volumes and infusion rates to minimize errors.

Order Set Development. The pharmacy medication build was added to a comprehensive order set (Figure 3), which was then developed to guide prescribers and standardize the process around ordering of COVID-19 monoclonal therapies. While these therapies are new, oncology monoclonal therapies are regularly administered to outpatients at Mount Sinai Cancer Center. The cancer center was therefore consulted on their process surrounding best practices in administration of monoclonal antibody therapies. This included protocols for medications used in pretreatment and management of hypersensitivity reactions and potential adverse drug reactions of both COVID-19 monoclonal therapies. These medication orders were selected by default in the order set to ensure that all patients received premedications aimed at minimizing the risk of hypersensitivity reaction, and had as-needed medication orders, in the event a hypersensitivity reaction occurred. Reducing hypersensitivity reaction risk is important as well to increase the likelihood that the patient would receive full therapy, as management of this adverse drug reactions involves possible cessation of therapy depending on the level of severity. The pharmacy department also ensured these medications were stocked in ED automated dispensing cabinets to promote quick access. In addition to the aforementioned nursing orders, we added EUA criteria for use and hyperlinks to the Fact Sheets for Patients and Caregivers and Health Care Providers for each monoclonal therapy, and restricted ordering to ED physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

The order set underwent multidisciplinary review by pharmacy administration, the chair of emergency medicine, physicians, and ED nursing leadership prior to presentation and approval by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. Lastly, at time of implementation, the order set was added to the ED preference list, preventing inpatient access. Additionally, as a patient safety action, free- standing orders of COVID-19 monoclonal therapies were disabled, so providers could only order therapies via the approved, comprehensive order set.

Preliminary Assessment Tool. A provider assessment tool was developed to document patient-specific EUA criteria for use during initial assessment (Figure 4). This tool serves as a checklist and is visible to the full multidisciplinary team in the patient’s EHR. It is used as a resource at the time of pharmacist verification and ED physician assessment to ensure criteria for use are met.

Patient Referral. Patients with symptoms or concerns of COVID-19 exposure can make physician appointments via telemedicine or in person at Mount Sinai Medical Center’s primary care and specialty offices. At the time of patient encounter, physicians suspecting a COVID-19 diagnosis will refer patients for outpatient COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) laboratory testing, which has an approximate 24-hour turnaround to results. Physicians also assess whether the patient meets EUA criteria for use, pending results of testing. In the event a patient meets EUA criteria for use, the physician provides patient counseling and requests verbal consent. Following this, the physician enters a note in the EHR describing the patient’s condition, criteria for use evaluation, and the patient’s verbal agreement to therapy. This preliminary screening is beneficial to begin planning with both the patient and ED to minimize delays. Patients are notified of the results of their test once available. If the COVID-19 PCR test returns positive, the physician will call the ED at the main campus and schedule the patient for COVID-19 monoclonal therapy. As the desired timeframe for administering COVID-19 monoclonal therapies is within less than 10 days of symptom onset, timely scheduling of appointments is crucial. Infusion appointments are typically provided the same or next day. The patients are informed that they must bring documentation of their positive COVID-19 PCR test to their ED visit. Lastly, because patients are pretreated with medication that may potentially impair driving, they are instructed that they cannot drive themselves home; ride shares also are not allowed in order to limit the spread of infection.

Emergency Department

Patient Arrival and Screening. A COVID-19 patient can be evaluated in the ED 1 of 2 ways. The first option is via outpatient office referral, as described previously. Upon arrival to the ED, a second screening is performed to ensure the patient still meets EUA criteria for use and the positive COVID-19 PCR test result is confirmed. If the patient no longer meets criteria, the patient is triaged accordingly, including evaluation for higher-level care (eg, supplemental oxygen, hospital admission). The second optoion is via new patient walk-ins without outpatient physician referral (Figure 4). In these cases, an initial screening is performed, documenting EUA criteria for use in the preliminary assessment (Figure 5). Physicians will consider an outside COVID-19 test as valid, so long as documentation is readily available confirming a positive PCR result. Otherwise, an in-house COVID-19 PCR test will be performed, which has a 2-hour turnaround time.

Infusion Schedule. The ED offers a total of 16 COVID-19 monoclonal infusions slots daily. These are broken up into 4 infusion time blocks (eg, 8 am, 12 pm, 4 pm, 8 pm), with each infusion time block consisting of 4 available patient appointments. A list of scheduled infusions for the day is emailed to the pharmacy department every morning, and patients are instructed to arrive 1 hour prior to their appointment time. This allows time for patient registration, assessment, and pharmacy notification in advance of order entry. For logistical purposes, and as a patient safety initiative to reduce the likelihood of medication errors, each of the available COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies is offered on a designated day. Bamlanivimab is offered on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday, while casirivimab/imdevimab is offered Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. This provides flexibility to adjust should supply deviate based on Department of Health allocation or should new therapy options within this class of medication become available.

Patient Education. Prior to administration of the monoclonal therapy, physician and nursing staff obtain a formal, written patient consent for therapy and provide patients with the option of participating in the institutional review board (IRB) approved study. Details of this are discussed in the risk management and IRB sections of the article. Nursing staff also provides the medication-specific Fact Sheet for Patients and Caregivers in either Spanish or English, which is also included as a hyperlink on the COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Order Set for ease of access. Interpreter services are available for patients who speak other languages. An ED decentralized pharmacist is also available onsite Monday through Friday from 12 pm to 8:30 pm to supplement education and serve as a resource for any questions.

Infusion Ordering. Once the patient is ready to begin therapy, the he/she is brought to a dedicated overflow area of the ED. There are few, if any, patients in this location, and it is adjacent to the main emergency center for easy access by the patients, nurses, pharmacists, and physicians. The physician then enters orders in the EHR using the COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Order Set (Figure 3). Three discrete questions were built into the medication order: (1) Was patient consent obtained? (2) Was the Fact Sheet for Patient/Caregiver provided to the patient? (3) Is the patient COVID-19 PCR-positive? These questions were built as hard stops so that the medication orders cannot be placed without a response. This serves as another double-check to ensure processes are followed and helps facilitate timely verification by the pharmacist.

Medication Administration. One nurse is dedicated to administering the monoclonal therapies scheduled at 8 am and 12 pm and another at 4 pm and 8 pm. Each appointment block is 4 hours in duration to allow adequate time for patient registration, infusion, and postinfusion observation. The nurse administers the premedications and COVID-19 monoclonal therapy, and observes the patient for the required 1-hour postadministration observation period. Nursing orders detailing monitoring parameters for mild, moderate, and severe reactions, along with associated medication orders to administer in the event they occur, are detailed in the nursing orders of the COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Order Set (Figure 3). Prior to administration, the nurse scans each medication and the patient’s wrist identification band, and documents the time of administration within the EHR medication administration report.

Pharmacy Department

Medication Receipt Process. Inventory is currently allocated biweekly from the state department of health and will soon be transitioning to a direct order system. The pharmacy technician in charge of deliveries notifies the pharmacy Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) clinical coordinator upon receipt of the monoclonal therapies. Bamlanivimab is supplied as 1 vial per dose, whereas casirivimab/imdevimab is supplied as 4 vials or 8 vials per dose, depending how it is shipped. To reduce the likelihood of medication errors, the ASP clinical coordinator assembles each of the casirivimab/imdevimab vials into kits, where 1 kit equals 1 dose. Labels are then affixed to each kit indicating the medication name, number of vials which equal a full dose, and pharmacist signature. The kits are stored in a dedicated refrigerator, and inventory logs are affixed to the outside of the refrigerator and updated daily. This inventory is also communicated daily to ED physician, nursing, and pharmacy leadership, as well as the director of patient safety, who reports weekly usage to the state Department of Health and Human Services. These weekly reports are used to determine allocation amounts.

Medication Verification and Delivery. The Mount Sinai Medical Center pharmacist staffing model consists of centralized order entry and specialized, decentralized positions. All orders are verified by the ED pharmacist when scheduled (not a 24/7 service) and by the designated pharmacist for all other times. At the time of medication verification, the pharmacist documents patient-specific EUA criteria for use and confirms that consent was obtained and the Fact Sheet for Patients/Caregivers was provided. A pharmacist intervention was developed to assist with this documentation. Pharmacists input smart text “.COVIDmonoclonal” and a drop-down menu of EUA criteria for use appears. The pharmacist reviews the patient care notes and medication order question responses to ascertain this information, contacting the ED prescriber if further clarification is required. This verification serves as another check to ensure processes put in place are followed. Lastly, intravenous preparation and delivery are electronically recorded in the EHR, and the medications require nursing signature at the time of delivery to ensure a formal chain of custody.

Risk Management

At Mount Sinai Medical Center, all EUA and investigational therapies require patient consent. Consistent with this requirement, a COVID-19 monoclonal specific consent was developed by risk management. This is provided to every patient receiving a COVID-19 monoclonal infusion, in addition to the FDA EUA Fact Sheet for Patients and Caregivers, and documented as part of their EHR. The questions providers must answer are built into the order set to ensure this process is followed and these patient safety checks are incorporated into the workflow.

Billing and Finance Department

In alignment with Mount Sinai Medical Center’s mission to provide high-quality health care to its diverse community through teaching, research, charity care, and financial responsibility, it was determined that this therapy would be provided to all patients regardless of insurance type, including those who are uninsured. The billing and finance department was consulted prior to this service being offered, to provide patients with accurate and pertinent information. The billing and finance department provided guidance on how to document patient encounters at time of registration to facilitate appropriate billing. At this time, the medication is free of charge, but nonmedication-related ED fees apply. This is explained to patients so there is a clear understanding prior to booking their appointment.

Infection Prevention

As patients receiving COVID-19 monoclonal therapies can transmit the virus to others, measures to ensure protection for other patients and staff are vital. To minimize exposure, specific nursing and physician staff from the ED are assigned to the treatment of these patients, and patients receive infusions and postobservation monitoring in a designated wing of the ED. Additionally, all staff who interact with these patients are required to don full personal protective equipment. This includes not only physicians and nurses but all specialties such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and laboratory technicians. Moreover, patients are not permitted to go home in a ride share and are counseled on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quarantining following infusion.

Measurement of Process and Outcomes and Reporting

IRB approval was sought and obtained early during initiation of this service, allowing study consent to be offered to patients at the time general consent was obtained, which maximized patient recruitment and streamlined workflow. The study is a prospective observational research study to determine the impact of administration of COVID-19 monoclonal antibody therapy on length of symptoms, chronic illness, and rate of hospitalization. Most patients were eager to participate and offer their assistance to the scientific community during this pandemic.

Staff Education

In order to successfully implement this multidisciplinary EUA treatment option, comprehensive staff education was paramount after the workflow was developed. Prior to the first day of infusions, nurses and pharmacists were provided education during multiple huddle announcements. The pharmacy team also provided screen captures via email to the pharmacists so they could become familiar with the order set, intervention documentation, and location of the preliminary assessment of EUA criteria for use at the time of order verification. The emergency medicine department chair and chief medical officer also provided education via several virtual meetings and email to referring physicians (specialists and primary care) and residents in the emergency centers involved in COVID-19 monoclonal therapy-related patient care.

Factors Contributing to Success

We believe the reasons for continued success of this process are multifactorial and include the following key elements. Multidisciplinary planning, which included decision makers and all stakeholders, began at the time the idea was conceived. This allowed quick implementation of this service by efficiently navigating barriers to engaging impacted staff early on. Throughout this process, the authors set realistic step-wise goals. While navigating through the many details to implementation described, we also kept in mind the big picture, which was to provide this potentially lifesaving therapy to as many qualifying members of our community as possible. This included being flexible with the process and adapting when needed to achieve this ultimate goal. A focus on safety remained a priority to minimize possible errors and enhance patient and staff satisfaction. The optimization of the EHR streamlined workflow, provided point-of-care resources, and enhanced patient safety. Additionally, the target date set for implementation allowed staff and department leads adequate time to plan for and anticipate the changes. Serving only 1 patient on the first day allowed time for staff to experience this new process hands-on and provided opportunity for focused education. This team communication was essential to implementing this project, including staff training of processes and procedures prior to go-live. Early incorporation of IRB approval allowed the experience to be assessed and considered for contribution to the scientific literature to tackle this novel virus that has impacted our communities locally, nationally, and abroad. Moreover, continued measurement and reporting on a regular basis leads to performance improvement. The process outlined here can be adapted to incorporate other new therapies in the future, such as the recent February 9, 2021, EUA of the COVID-19 monoclonal antibody combination bamlanivimab and etesevimab.¹⁰

Conclusion

We administered 790 COVID-19 monoclonal antibody infusions between November 20, 2020 and March 5, 2021. Steps to minimize the likelihood of hypersensitivity reactions were implemented, and a low incidence (< 1%) has been observed. There has been no incidence of infection, concern from staff about infection prevention, or risk of infection during the processes. There have been very infrequent cost-related concerns raised by patients, typically due to incomplete communication regarding billing prior to the infusion. To address these issues, staff education has been provided to enhance patient instruction on this topic. The program has provided patient and family satisfaction, as well nursing, physician, pharmacist, clinical staff, and hospital administration pride and gratification. Setting up a new program to provide a 4-hour patient encounter to infuse therapy to high-risk patients with COVID-19 requires commitment and effort. This article describes the experience, ideas, and formula others may consider using to set up such a program. Through networking and formal phone calls and meetings about monoclonal antibody therapy, we have heard about other institutions who have not been able to institute this program due to various barriers to implementation. We hope our experience serves as a resource for others to provide this therapy to their patients and expand access in an effort to mitigate COVID-19 consequences and cases affecting our communities.

Corresponding author: Kathleen Jodoin, PharmD, BCPS, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 4300 Alton Rd, Miami Beach, FL 33140; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.