User login
Since COVID-19 onset, admissions for MI are down, mortality rates are up
A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.
Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.
The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.
When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.
The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.
The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
Differences in mortality, patients, treatment
In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).
The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).
The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
More than fear of COVID-19?
One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.
“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.
In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.
“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”
Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.
More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.
“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”
The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.
A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.
Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.
The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.
When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.
The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.
The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
Differences in mortality, patients, treatment
In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).
The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).
The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
More than fear of COVID-19?
One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.
“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.
In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.
“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”
Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.
More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.
“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”
The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.
A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.
Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.
The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.
When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.
The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.
The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
Differences in mortality, patients, treatment
In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).
The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).
The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
More than fear of COVID-19?
One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.
“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.
In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.
“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”
Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.
More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.
“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”
The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.
FROM JAMA CARDIOLOGY
Swallowable ‘sponge on string’ to diagnose esophageal cancer
An experimental cell-collection device that can be administered without anesthesia in a primary care practice was shown to be better at detecting Barrett esophagus than the standard of care in a community-based clinical trial.
Use of this patient-swallowed device, called Cytosponge-TFF3, could allow clinicians to diagnose esophageal conditions such as dysplasia or cancer at an earlier and potentially curable stage, said the investigators. However, it would also increase the likelihood of unnecessary endoscopies, owing to false-positive results.
“In this multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial we found that an invitation to have a Cytosponge-TFF3 test led to increased diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus when compared with usual care by general practitioners,” write Rebecca C. Fitzgerald, MD, from the Hutchison/MRC Research Center in Cambridge, England, and colleagues.
The study was published online on Aug. 1 in The Lancet.
“This is a very important study, a landmark study,” said Stephen J. Meltzer, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was approached for comment.
“What it shows is that if you opt to have this procedure, you’re much more likely to have your Barrett’s diagnosed than if you don’t opt to have it,” he said.
He congratulated Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues for successful completion of a large, primary practice–based clinical utility study.
“Those studies are very difficult to do. This is looking at the actual impact of an intervention, which is the sponge,” he said in an interview.
Soaking up cells
Dr. Meltzer was senior author of a case-control study published in 2019 in Clinical Cancer Research that described use of a similar device. As previously reported, that device, called EsophaCap, uses a “methylation on bead” technique to collect DNA on a swallowed sponge. The DNA is then extracted from the sponge and analyzed with a methylation biomarker panel.
Like the EsophaCap device, the Cytosponge-TFF3 device consists of a compressed, gelatin-coated collection sponge attached to a thread. The patient swallows the device. After the gelatin dissolves and the sponge expands, it is gently withdrawn through the esophagus, picking up cells as it passes through.
The collected cells are then analyzed with an in vitro test for biomarker trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), a sign of intestinal metaplasia that is a histopathologic hallmark of Barrett esophagus, the authors explained.
Cytosponge-TFF3 study
The study by Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues was conducted in patients taking medications for gastroesophageal reflux. The patients were undergoing treatment at 109 general practice clinics in England.
Eligible patients included adults aged 50 years and older who had been taking acid-suppressing medication for gastroesophageal reflux for more than 6 months and had not undergone endoscopy within the previous 5 years.
The study was randomized at both the clinic level (cluster randomization) and the individual patient level. Patients were assigned to either standard management of gastroesophageal reflux, with endoscopies performed only if recommended by the practitioner, or to the intervention group, where individuals received usual care and were offered the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Those patients whose samples yielded TFF3-positive cells subsequently underwent endoscopy.
Among 6,834 patients assigned to the intervention group, 2,679 (39%) expressed willingness to undergo the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Of this group, 1,750 patients met all of the eligibility criteria on telephone screening and underwent the procedure.
The large majority of patients (95%) who agreed to undergo the procedure were able to swallow the capsule and the attached thread.
Patients in the intervention group who declined the Cytosponge-TFF3 and all patients assigned to the usual-care arm underwent endoscopy only at the recommendation of their primary practitioner.
During a mean follow-up of 12 months, 140 of the 6,834 patients in the intervention group (2%) were diagnosed with Barrett esophagus, compared with 13 of 6,388 patients in the usual-care group (0.2%). The absolute difference per 1000 person-years, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 18.3. The rate ratio adjusted for cluster randomization was 10.6 (P < .001).
A total of four patients in the intervention group were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett esophagus, and five were diagnosed with stage I esophagogastric cancer. No patients in the usual-care group were diagnosed with either condition.
Of the 1,654 patients in the intervention group who opted for the Cytosponge device and swallowed it successfully, 221 underwent endoscopy after testing positive for TFF3. Of these patients, 131 (59%) were diagnosed with either Barrett esophagus or cancer.
The most common adverse event with the Cytosponge procedure was sore throat, reported by 4% of those who opted for it. In one patient, the thread became detach from the Cytopsonge, necessitating endoscopy to remove the device.
Promising, but refinements needed
In an editorial accompanying the study, Yuri Hanada, MD, and Kenneth K. Wang, MD, from the department of gastroenterology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure “is a promising nonendoscopic screening tool and will represent a component in the screening for Barrett’s esophagus and esophagogastric cancer.”
They noted, however, that it is unlikely to be the sole screening tool for Barrett esophagus and that its use in primary practice may be problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, because of the release of aerosolized particles as the sponge is withdrawn from the esophagus.
“It might also be necessary to enrich disease prevalence in the screened population by limiting this population to males and people with other risk factors, in order to make this test more cost-effective than previously shown,” they wrote.
Acceptance rate low?
Dr. Meltzer noted that, despite being less invasive than endoscopy, only 39% of the group who could try it agreed to do so.
“It was kind of surprising, because in my experience, when I offer it to my patients, the acceptance is much higher, but that’s not in a controlled clinical trial situation, so I don’t really know what the true percentage is,” he said.
He pointed out that the patients he sees in his clinic are more likely to be symptomatic and highly motivated to accept a test, in contrast to the general patient population in the study.
He also noted that the endoscopy-confirmed prevalence rate of Barrett esophagus or cancer in 221 patients in the intervention group was 59%, suggesting that 41% underwent an unnecessary endoscopy after the Cytosponge screening.
Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues acknowledged the potential for overdiagnosis with screening. They noted a debate as to whether 1 cm or short segments of Barrett esophagus are a cause for clinical concern.
They also note that the TFF3 test (used in the CytoSponge device) is sensitive and detects some short segments of Barrett esophagus and that, “since this was a pragmatic trial that relied on a coded diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus, we also identified patients in the usual care group who had short segments of Barrett’s esophagus (1 cm or less in length) and were diagnosed as having the condition, reflecting the variable practice in U.K. hospitals.
“We expect that these patients can be reassured and probably do not require surveillance,” they continued. “This expectation is consistent with the clinical guidelines, which suggest that patients with over 1 cm of salmon-colored epithelium containing intestinal metaplasia should be monitored.”
The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the U.K. National Health Service, Medtronic, and the Medical Research Council. Dr. Fitzgerald is named on patents related to the Cytosponge-TFF3 test. Dr. Meltzer has cofounded a company, Capsulomics, to commercialize the methylation biomarker panel used in EsophaCap studies. Dr. Wang has received research funding from eNose for research on a device used in a screening study of Barrett esophagus.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An experimental cell-collection device that can be administered without anesthesia in a primary care practice was shown to be better at detecting Barrett esophagus than the standard of care in a community-based clinical trial.
Use of this patient-swallowed device, called Cytosponge-TFF3, could allow clinicians to diagnose esophageal conditions such as dysplasia or cancer at an earlier and potentially curable stage, said the investigators. However, it would also increase the likelihood of unnecessary endoscopies, owing to false-positive results.
“In this multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial we found that an invitation to have a Cytosponge-TFF3 test led to increased diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus when compared with usual care by general practitioners,” write Rebecca C. Fitzgerald, MD, from the Hutchison/MRC Research Center in Cambridge, England, and colleagues.
The study was published online on Aug. 1 in The Lancet.
“This is a very important study, a landmark study,” said Stephen J. Meltzer, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was approached for comment.
“What it shows is that if you opt to have this procedure, you’re much more likely to have your Barrett’s diagnosed than if you don’t opt to have it,” he said.
He congratulated Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues for successful completion of a large, primary practice–based clinical utility study.
“Those studies are very difficult to do. This is looking at the actual impact of an intervention, which is the sponge,” he said in an interview.
Soaking up cells
Dr. Meltzer was senior author of a case-control study published in 2019 in Clinical Cancer Research that described use of a similar device. As previously reported, that device, called EsophaCap, uses a “methylation on bead” technique to collect DNA on a swallowed sponge. The DNA is then extracted from the sponge and analyzed with a methylation biomarker panel.
Like the EsophaCap device, the Cytosponge-TFF3 device consists of a compressed, gelatin-coated collection sponge attached to a thread. The patient swallows the device. After the gelatin dissolves and the sponge expands, it is gently withdrawn through the esophagus, picking up cells as it passes through.
The collected cells are then analyzed with an in vitro test for biomarker trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), a sign of intestinal metaplasia that is a histopathologic hallmark of Barrett esophagus, the authors explained.
Cytosponge-TFF3 study
The study by Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues was conducted in patients taking medications for gastroesophageal reflux. The patients were undergoing treatment at 109 general practice clinics in England.
Eligible patients included adults aged 50 years and older who had been taking acid-suppressing medication for gastroesophageal reflux for more than 6 months and had not undergone endoscopy within the previous 5 years.
The study was randomized at both the clinic level (cluster randomization) and the individual patient level. Patients were assigned to either standard management of gastroesophageal reflux, with endoscopies performed only if recommended by the practitioner, or to the intervention group, where individuals received usual care and were offered the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Those patients whose samples yielded TFF3-positive cells subsequently underwent endoscopy.
Among 6,834 patients assigned to the intervention group, 2,679 (39%) expressed willingness to undergo the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Of this group, 1,750 patients met all of the eligibility criteria on telephone screening and underwent the procedure.
The large majority of patients (95%) who agreed to undergo the procedure were able to swallow the capsule and the attached thread.
Patients in the intervention group who declined the Cytosponge-TFF3 and all patients assigned to the usual-care arm underwent endoscopy only at the recommendation of their primary practitioner.
During a mean follow-up of 12 months, 140 of the 6,834 patients in the intervention group (2%) were diagnosed with Barrett esophagus, compared with 13 of 6,388 patients in the usual-care group (0.2%). The absolute difference per 1000 person-years, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 18.3. The rate ratio adjusted for cluster randomization was 10.6 (P < .001).
A total of four patients in the intervention group were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett esophagus, and five were diagnosed with stage I esophagogastric cancer. No patients in the usual-care group were diagnosed with either condition.
Of the 1,654 patients in the intervention group who opted for the Cytosponge device and swallowed it successfully, 221 underwent endoscopy after testing positive for TFF3. Of these patients, 131 (59%) were diagnosed with either Barrett esophagus or cancer.
The most common adverse event with the Cytosponge procedure was sore throat, reported by 4% of those who opted for it. In one patient, the thread became detach from the Cytopsonge, necessitating endoscopy to remove the device.
Promising, but refinements needed
In an editorial accompanying the study, Yuri Hanada, MD, and Kenneth K. Wang, MD, from the department of gastroenterology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure “is a promising nonendoscopic screening tool and will represent a component in the screening for Barrett’s esophagus and esophagogastric cancer.”
They noted, however, that it is unlikely to be the sole screening tool for Barrett esophagus and that its use in primary practice may be problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, because of the release of aerosolized particles as the sponge is withdrawn from the esophagus.
“It might also be necessary to enrich disease prevalence in the screened population by limiting this population to males and people with other risk factors, in order to make this test more cost-effective than previously shown,” they wrote.
Acceptance rate low?
Dr. Meltzer noted that, despite being less invasive than endoscopy, only 39% of the group who could try it agreed to do so.
“It was kind of surprising, because in my experience, when I offer it to my patients, the acceptance is much higher, but that’s not in a controlled clinical trial situation, so I don’t really know what the true percentage is,” he said.
He pointed out that the patients he sees in his clinic are more likely to be symptomatic and highly motivated to accept a test, in contrast to the general patient population in the study.
He also noted that the endoscopy-confirmed prevalence rate of Barrett esophagus or cancer in 221 patients in the intervention group was 59%, suggesting that 41% underwent an unnecessary endoscopy after the Cytosponge screening.
Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues acknowledged the potential for overdiagnosis with screening. They noted a debate as to whether 1 cm or short segments of Barrett esophagus are a cause for clinical concern.
They also note that the TFF3 test (used in the CytoSponge device) is sensitive and detects some short segments of Barrett esophagus and that, “since this was a pragmatic trial that relied on a coded diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus, we also identified patients in the usual care group who had short segments of Barrett’s esophagus (1 cm or less in length) and were diagnosed as having the condition, reflecting the variable practice in U.K. hospitals.
“We expect that these patients can be reassured and probably do not require surveillance,” they continued. “This expectation is consistent with the clinical guidelines, which suggest that patients with over 1 cm of salmon-colored epithelium containing intestinal metaplasia should be monitored.”
The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the U.K. National Health Service, Medtronic, and the Medical Research Council. Dr. Fitzgerald is named on patents related to the Cytosponge-TFF3 test. Dr. Meltzer has cofounded a company, Capsulomics, to commercialize the methylation biomarker panel used in EsophaCap studies. Dr. Wang has received research funding from eNose for research on a device used in a screening study of Barrett esophagus.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An experimental cell-collection device that can be administered without anesthesia in a primary care practice was shown to be better at detecting Barrett esophagus than the standard of care in a community-based clinical trial.
Use of this patient-swallowed device, called Cytosponge-TFF3, could allow clinicians to diagnose esophageal conditions such as dysplasia or cancer at an earlier and potentially curable stage, said the investigators. However, it would also increase the likelihood of unnecessary endoscopies, owing to false-positive results.
“In this multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial we found that an invitation to have a Cytosponge-TFF3 test led to increased diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus when compared with usual care by general practitioners,” write Rebecca C. Fitzgerald, MD, from the Hutchison/MRC Research Center in Cambridge, England, and colleagues.
The study was published online on Aug. 1 in The Lancet.
“This is a very important study, a landmark study,” said Stephen J. Meltzer, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was approached for comment.
“What it shows is that if you opt to have this procedure, you’re much more likely to have your Barrett’s diagnosed than if you don’t opt to have it,” he said.
He congratulated Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues for successful completion of a large, primary practice–based clinical utility study.
“Those studies are very difficult to do. This is looking at the actual impact of an intervention, which is the sponge,” he said in an interview.
Soaking up cells
Dr. Meltzer was senior author of a case-control study published in 2019 in Clinical Cancer Research that described use of a similar device. As previously reported, that device, called EsophaCap, uses a “methylation on bead” technique to collect DNA on a swallowed sponge. The DNA is then extracted from the sponge and analyzed with a methylation biomarker panel.
Like the EsophaCap device, the Cytosponge-TFF3 device consists of a compressed, gelatin-coated collection sponge attached to a thread. The patient swallows the device. After the gelatin dissolves and the sponge expands, it is gently withdrawn through the esophagus, picking up cells as it passes through.
The collected cells are then analyzed with an in vitro test for biomarker trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), a sign of intestinal metaplasia that is a histopathologic hallmark of Barrett esophagus, the authors explained.
Cytosponge-TFF3 study
The study by Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues was conducted in patients taking medications for gastroesophageal reflux. The patients were undergoing treatment at 109 general practice clinics in England.
Eligible patients included adults aged 50 years and older who had been taking acid-suppressing medication for gastroesophageal reflux for more than 6 months and had not undergone endoscopy within the previous 5 years.
The study was randomized at both the clinic level (cluster randomization) and the individual patient level. Patients were assigned to either standard management of gastroesophageal reflux, with endoscopies performed only if recommended by the practitioner, or to the intervention group, where individuals received usual care and were offered the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Those patients whose samples yielded TFF3-positive cells subsequently underwent endoscopy.
Among 6,834 patients assigned to the intervention group, 2,679 (39%) expressed willingness to undergo the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Of this group, 1,750 patients met all of the eligibility criteria on telephone screening and underwent the procedure.
The large majority of patients (95%) who agreed to undergo the procedure were able to swallow the capsule and the attached thread.
Patients in the intervention group who declined the Cytosponge-TFF3 and all patients assigned to the usual-care arm underwent endoscopy only at the recommendation of their primary practitioner.
During a mean follow-up of 12 months, 140 of the 6,834 patients in the intervention group (2%) were diagnosed with Barrett esophagus, compared with 13 of 6,388 patients in the usual-care group (0.2%). The absolute difference per 1000 person-years, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 18.3. The rate ratio adjusted for cluster randomization was 10.6 (P < .001).
A total of four patients in the intervention group were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett esophagus, and five were diagnosed with stage I esophagogastric cancer. No patients in the usual-care group were diagnosed with either condition.
Of the 1,654 patients in the intervention group who opted for the Cytosponge device and swallowed it successfully, 221 underwent endoscopy after testing positive for TFF3. Of these patients, 131 (59%) were diagnosed with either Barrett esophagus or cancer.
The most common adverse event with the Cytosponge procedure was sore throat, reported by 4% of those who opted for it. In one patient, the thread became detach from the Cytopsonge, necessitating endoscopy to remove the device.
Promising, but refinements needed
In an editorial accompanying the study, Yuri Hanada, MD, and Kenneth K. Wang, MD, from the department of gastroenterology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure “is a promising nonendoscopic screening tool and will represent a component in the screening for Barrett’s esophagus and esophagogastric cancer.”
They noted, however, that it is unlikely to be the sole screening tool for Barrett esophagus and that its use in primary practice may be problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, because of the release of aerosolized particles as the sponge is withdrawn from the esophagus.
“It might also be necessary to enrich disease prevalence in the screened population by limiting this population to males and people with other risk factors, in order to make this test more cost-effective than previously shown,” they wrote.
Acceptance rate low?
Dr. Meltzer noted that, despite being less invasive than endoscopy, only 39% of the group who could try it agreed to do so.
“It was kind of surprising, because in my experience, when I offer it to my patients, the acceptance is much higher, but that’s not in a controlled clinical trial situation, so I don’t really know what the true percentage is,” he said.
He pointed out that the patients he sees in his clinic are more likely to be symptomatic and highly motivated to accept a test, in contrast to the general patient population in the study.
He also noted that the endoscopy-confirmed prevalence rate of Barrett esophagus or cancer in 221 patients in the intervention group was 59%, suggesting that 41% underwent an unnecessary endoscopy after the Cytosponge screening.
Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues acknowledged the potential for overdiagnosis with screening. They noted a debate as to whether 1 cm or short segments of Barrett esophagus are a cause for clinical concern.
They also note that the TFF3 test (used in the CytoSponge device) is sensitive and detects some short segments of Barrett esophagus and that, “since this was a pragmatic trial that relied on a coded diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus, we also identified patients in the usual care group who had short segments of Barrett’s esophagus (1 cm or less in length) and were diagnosed as having the condition, reflecting the variable practice in U.K. hospitals.
“We expect that these patients can be reassured and probably do not require surveillance,” they continued. “This expectation is consistent with the clinical guidelines, which suggest that patients with over 1 cm of salmon-colored epithelium containing intestinal metaplasia should be monitored.”
The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the U.K. National Health Service, Medtronic, and the Medical Research Council. Dr. Fitzgerald is named on patents related to the Cytosponge-TFF3 test. Dr. Meltzer has cofounded a company, Capsulomics, to commercialize the methylation biomarker panel used in EsophaCap studies. Dr. Wang has received research funding from eNose for research on a device used in a screening study of Barrett esophagus.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AI improves diagnostic accuracy in cervical cancer
This could allow some women to avoid surgery and be treated with chemotherapy instead, suggested researchers.
The model mined tumor information from pelvic sagittal contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRIs and combined this with clinical MRI lymph node status.
It was 90.62% sensitive and 87.16% specific for predicting lymph node metastases (LNMs) in a validation cohort of women who underwent surgery for cervical cancer.
The area under the curve was 0.933. The approach was significantly associated with disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 4.59; 95% confidence interval, 2.04-10.31; P < .001).
The study was published online on July 24 in JAMA Network Open.
“The findings of this study suggest that deep learning can be used as a preoperative noninvasive tool to diagnose lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer ... This model might be used preoperatively to help gynecologists make decisions,” said investigators led by Qingxia Wu, PhD, of the Northeastern University College of Medicine and Biomedical Information Engineering in Shenyang, China.
“Studies like these suggest that deep learning has the potential to improve the way we care for our patients,” but there’s much to be done “before these types of algorithms will be commonplace,” commented Christiaan Rees, MD, PhD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has a doctorate in quantitative biomedical sciences.
Next steps include repeated validation across multiple control groups, he said in an interview, as well as “finding ways to effectively integrate these tools into the radiologist’s day-to-day practice. One possibility would be for direct integration of the algorithm into the electronic health record.”
Accurate prediction could lead to skipping surgery
Chemotherapy, rather than surgery, is an option for women with positive lymph nodes (LNs), so accurate prediction can help them avoid an operation and its risks, the authors said.
The problem is that “the traditional methods for assessing LN status in cervical cancer, which rely mainly on assessing the size of LNs on MRI, have limited sensitivity in diagnosing LNM in cervical cancer and might lead to inappropriate treatment decisions,” they wrote.
“Although sentinel LN dissection ... shows good sensitivity and specificity, its application is limited by available facilities and experts,” the team said.
DL is an advanced form of artificial intelligence in which a computer program continuously improves on a given task as it incorporates more data – in Dr. Wu’s study, more than 14 million images. Deep learning has recently shown promise in several imaging tasks, such as diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease and screening for breast cancer.
Once adapted for cervical cancer, DL “does not require precise tumor delineation, making it an easy-to-use method in clinical practice. In many tumor analysis tasks, DL outperforms traditional radiomic features,” the team noted.
The study involved 479 women – 338 during model development, and 141 in the validation cohorts. The mean age of the participants was 49.1 years. They had undergone radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage IB-IIB cervical cancer within 2 weeks of a pelvic MRI. Pathology reports were used to check the accuracy of the model’s predictions.
Specificity, sensitivity, and area under the curve were a little better in the study’s development cohort than its validation group, for whom median disease-free survival was 23 months versus 31 months among the patients in the development cohort. Nodes were positive on lymphadenectomy in a little more than 20% of women in both groups.
Incorporation of both intratumoral and peritumoral regions on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRIs versus axial T2-weighted and axial diffusion-weighted imaging, produced the highest sensitivity. Adding MRI-LN status – defined as positive when the short-axis diameter of the largest LN on MRI was ≥1 cm – improved the model’s specificity.
To understand how the model reached its conclusions, the team analyzed how it extracted features from tumor images. “In the shallow convolution layers, the DL model extracted simple tumor edge features ... while in deeper convolution layers, it extracted complex tumor texture information ... In the last convolution layer, the DL model extracted high-level abstract features (the fourteenth layer). Although these high-level features were so intricate that they were hard to interpret by general gross observation, they were associated with LN status,” the investigators said.
The team notes that “both intratumoral and peritumoral regions were necessary for the DL model to make decisions,” which “can probably be explained by the fact that higher lymphatic vessel density in peritumoral regions might lead to higher regional LNM.”
Commenting on the study, Dr. Rees said that “the authors did a [good] job of essentially deconstructing their neural network to see what the algorithm was actually picking up on to make its decision.
“One of the nice features of deep learning is that once the algorithm has been developed and validated, the end user doesn’t need any experience in deep learning in order to use it,” he added.
Even so, “while these resources can be incredibly powerful tools, they should not function in a vacuum without human judgment,” Dr. Rees said.
The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, among others. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This could allow some women to avoid surgery and be treated with chemotherapy instead, suggested researchers.
The model mined tumor information from pelvic sagittal contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRIs and combined this with clinical MRI lymph node status.
It was 90.62% sensitive and 87.16% specific for predicting lymph node metastases (LNMs) in a validation cohort of women who underwent surgery for cervical cancer.
The area under the curve was 0.933. The approach was significantly associated with disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 4.59; 95% confidence interval, 2.04-10.31; P < .001).
The study was published online on July 24 in JAMA Network Open.
“The findings of this study suggest that deep learning can be used as a preoperative noninvasive tool to diagnose lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer ... This model might be used preoperatively to help gynecologists make decisions,” said investigators led by Qingxia Wu, PhD, of the Northeastern University College of Medicine and Biomedical Information Engineering in Shenyang, China.
“Studies like these suggest that deep learning has the potential to improve the way we care for our patients,” but there’s much to be done “before these types of algorithms will be commonplace,” commented Christiaan Rees, MD, PhD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has a doctorate in quantitative biomedical sciences.
Next steps include repeated validation across multiple control groups, he said in an interview, as well as “finding ways to effectively integrate these tools into the radiologist’s day-to-day practice. One possibility would be for direct integration of the algorithm into the electronic health record.”
Accurate prediction could lead to skipping surgery
Chemotherapy, rather than surgery, is an option for women with positive lymph nodes (LNs), so accurate prediction can help them avoid an operation and its risks, the authors said.
The problem is that “the traditional methods for assessing LN status in cervical cancer, which rely mainly on assessing the size of LNs on MRI, have limited sensitivity in diagnosing LNM in cervical cancer and might lead to inappropriate treatment decisions,” they wrote.
“Although sentinel LN dissection ... shows good sensitivity and specificity, its application is limited by available facilities and experts,” the team said.
DL is an advanced form of artificial intelligence in which a computer program continuously improves on a given task as it incorporates more data – in Dr. Wu’s study, more than 14 million images. Deep learning has recently shown promise in several imaging tasks, such as diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease and screening for breast cancer.
Once adapted for cervical cancer, DL “does not require precise tumor delineation, making it an easy-to-use method in clinical practice. In many tumor analysis tasks, DL outperforms traditional radiomic features,” the team noted.
The study involved 479 women – 338 during model development, and 141 in the validation cohorts. The mean age of the participants was 49.1 years. They had undergone radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage IB-IIB cervical cancer within 2 weeks of a pelvic MRI. Pathology reports were used to check the accuracy of the model’s predictions.
Specificity, sensitivity, and area under the curve were a little better in the study’s development cohort than its validation group, for whom median disease-free survival was 23 months versus 31 months among the patients in the development cohort. Nodes were positive on lymphadenectomy in a little more than 20% of women in both groups.
Incorporation of both intratumoral and peritumoral regions on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRIs versus axial T2-weighted and axial diffusion-weighted imaging, produced the highest sensitivity. Adding MRI-LN status – defined as positive when the short-axis diameter of the largest LN on MRI was ≥1 cm – improved the model’s specificity.
To understand how the model reached its conclusions, the team analyzed how it extracted features from tumor images. “In the shallow convolution layers, the DL model extracted simple tumor edge features ... while in deeper convolution layers, it extracted complex tumor texture information ... In the last convolution layer, the DL model extracted high-level abstract features (the fourteenth layer). Although these high-level features were so intricate that they were hard to interpret by general gross observation, they were associated with LN status,” the investigators said.
The team notes that “both intratumoral and peritumoral regions were necessary for the DL model to make decisions,” which “can probably be explained by the fact that higher lymphatic vessel density in peritumoral regions might lead to higher regional LNM.”
Commenting on the study, Dr. Rees said that “the authors did a [good] job of essentially deconstructing their neural network to see what the algorithm was actually picking up on to make its decision.
“One of the nice features of deep learning is that once the algorithm has been developed and validated, the end user doesn’t need any experience in deep learning in order to use it,” he added.
Even so, “while these resources can be incredibly powerful tools, they should not function in a vacuum without human judgment,” Dr. Rees said.
The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, among others. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This could allow some women to avoid surgery and be treated with chemotherapy instead, suggested researchers.
The model mined tumor information from pelvic sagittal contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRIs and combined this with clinical MRI lymph node status.
It was 90.62% sensitive and 87.16% specific for predicting lymph node metastases (LNMs) in a validation cohort of women who underwent surgery for cervical cancer.
The area under the curve was 0.933. The approach was significantly associated with disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 4.59; 95% confidence interval, 2.04-10.31; P < .001).
The study was published online on July 24 in JAMA Network Open.
“The findings of this study suggest that deep learning can be used as a preoperative noninvasive tool to diagnose lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer ... This model might be used preoperatively to help gynecologists make decisions,” said investigators led by Qingxia Wu, PhD, of the Northeastern University College of Medicine and Biomedical Information Engineering in Shenyang, China.
“Studies like these suggest that deep learning has the potential to improve the way we care for our patients,” but there’s much to be done “before these types of algorithms will be commonplace,” commented Christiaan Rees, MD, PhD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has a doctorate in quantitative biomedical sciences.
Next steps include repeated validation across multiple control groups, he said in an interview, as well as “finding ways to effectively integrate these tools into the radiologist’s day-to-day practice. One possibility would be for direct integration of the algorithm into the electronic health record.”
Accurate prediction could lead to skipping surgery
Chemotherapy, rather than surgery, is an option for women with positive lymph nodes (LNs), so accurate prediction can help them avoid an operation and its risks, the authors said.
The problem is that “the traditional methods for assessing LN status in cervical cancer, which rely mainly on assessing the size of LNs on MRI, have limited sensitivity in diagnosing LNM in cervical cancer and might lead to inappropriate treatment decisions,” they wrote.
“Although sentinel LN dissection ... shows good sensitivity and specificity, its application is limited by available facilities and experts,” the team said.
DL is an advanced form of artificial intelligence in which a computer program continuously improves on a given task as it incorporates more data – in Dr. Wu’s study, more than 14 million images. Deep learning has recently shown promise in several imaging tasks, such as diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease and screening for breast cancer.
Once adapted for cervical cancer, DL “does not require precise tumor delineation, making it an easy-to-use method in clinical practice. In many tumor analysis tasks, DL outperforms traditional radiomic features,” the team noted.
The study involved 479 women – 338 during model development, and 141 in the validation cohorts. The mean age of the participants was 49.1 years. They had undergone radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage IB-IIB cervical cancer within 2 weeks of a pelvic MRI. Pathology reports were used to check the accuracy of the model’s predictions.
Specificity, sensitivity, and area under the curve were a little better in the study’s development cohort than its validation group, for whom median disease-free survival was 23 months versus 31 months among the patients in the development cohort. Nodes were positive on lymphadenectomy in a little more than 20% of women in both groups.
Incorporation of both intratumoral and peritumoral regions on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRIs versus axial T2-weighted and axial diffusion-weighted imaging, produced the highest sensitivity. Adding MRI-LN status – defined as positive when the short-axis diameter of the largest LN on MRI was ≥1 cm – improved the model’s specificity.
To understand how the model reached its conclusions, the team analyzed how it extracted features from tumor images. “In the shallow convolution layers, the DL model extracted simple tumor edge features ... while in deeper convolution layers, it extracted complex tumor texture information ... In the last convolution layer, the DL model extracted high-level abstract features (the fourteenth layer). Although these high-level features were so intricate that they were hard to interpret by general gross observation, they were associated with LN status,” the investigators said.
The team notes that “both intratumoral and peritumoral regions were necessary for the DL model to make decisions,” which “can probably be explained by the fact that higher lymphatic vessel density in peritumoral regions might lead to higher regional LNM.”
Commenting on the study, Dr. Rees said that “the authors did a [good] job of essentially deconstructing their neural network to see what the algorithm was actually picking up on to make its decision.
“One of the nice features of deep learning is that once the algorithm has been developed and validated, the end user doesn’t need any experience in deep learning in order to use it,” he added.
Even so, “while these resources can be incredibly powerful tools, they should not function in a vacuum without human judgment,” Dr. Rees said.
The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, among others. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NSCLC success story: Mortality down, survival improved
“This analysis shows for the first time that nationwide mortality rates for the most common category of lung cancer, NSCLC, are declining faster than its incidence, an advance that correlates with the [FDA] approval of several targeted therapies for this cancer in recent years,” coauthor Douglas Lowy, MD, deputy director, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., said in a statement.
“Major improvements have been made in NSCLC treatment with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapies,” lead author Nadia Howlander, PhD, National Cancer Institute, and colleagues observed.
“The survival benefit for patients with NSCLC treated with targeted therapy has been shown in clinical trials, but our study highlights their possible effect at the population level,” they added.
In contrast, mortality from SCLC has dropped only in tandem with a decline in the incidence of SCLC, and survival has remained largely unchanged, the same analysis showed.
NSCLC is by far the most common type of lung cancer, accounting for more than 75% of all lung cancer cases in the United States. SCLC accounts for about 13%.
The study was published online Aug. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“Although overall mortality from lung cancer has been declining in the United States, little is known about mortality trends according to cancer subtype at the population level because death certificates do not record subtype information,” the authors commented.
“To address this data limitation, the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program has linked mortality records to incidence cancer cases,” the authors explained. This allowed them to calculate incidence-based mortality among men and women in the United States.
The incidence-based mortality method that the researchers used was applied to the SEER data to describe population-level mortality trends in the United States that were attributable to each subtype of lung cancer as well as gender from 2001 to 2016.
Among men, the incidence of NSCLC decreased gradually by 1.9% a year from 2001 to 2008, then more dramatically by 3.1% a year from 2008 to 2016.
Corresponding incidence-based mortality rates among men dropped by 3.2% a year from 2006 to 2013, then again more dramatically by 6.3% a year from 2013 to 2016.
“The 2-year relative survival among patients with lung cancer improved substantially from 26% among men with NSCLC diagnosed in 2001 to 35% among those with NSCLC diagnosed in 2014,” the researchers added.
Among women, the incidence of NSCLC remained unchanged between 2001 and 2006, after which it began to drop by 1.5% a year from 2006 to 2016.
“In contrast, incidence-based mortality decreased slowly [among women] by 2.3% annually ... from 2006 through 2014 and then at a faster rate of 5.9% annually ... from 2014 through 2016,” the authors noted.
The 2-year relative survival rate for patients with NSCLC was higher among women than among men, improving from 35% in 2001 to 44% in 2014.
Improvements in survival were also observed for all races and ethnicities, despite concerns that new cancer treatments might increase treatment disparities between races, because they are all so expensive, the authors commented.
Mortality from SCLC declined by 4.3% a year among men, but that decline was entirely due to a similar decrease in the incidence of SCLC. Survival at 2 years for patients with this subtype of lung cancer remained largely unchanged over the same interval.
Genetic testing
The accelerating decline in NSCLC mortality starting in 2013 corresponds to the period in which clinicians began to routinely test for molecular alterations in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), the authors pointed out.
In 2012, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommended that all patients with nonsquamous NSCLC undergo genetic testing for EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements.
At about the same time, the FDA approved a number of targeted therapies for tumors that are sensitive to targeted tyrosine kinase inhibition.
More recently, immunotherapies that act as programmed cell death inhibitors have substantially improved NSCLC outcomes, the authors noted.
The first of these was approved for NSCLC in 2015 (pembrolizumab). It was followed by a number of similar agents. It is unlikely that their approval contributed to the observed decline in NSCLC mortality, which started to accelerate in 2013 in the United States, the authors commented.
Nevertheless, the effect that the immune checkpoint inhibitors has had on the survival of patients with NSCLC can be expected to continue and to extend improvement in survival beyond the current study endpoint in 2016, they suggest.
Another contributing factor is the decline in smoking that has occurred in the United States since the 1960s. This has led to the decrease in the incidence of lung cancer. The faster decrease in the incidence of SCLC, compared with NSCLC can be explained by the higher relative risk of smoking with regard to SCLC compared to NSCLC, they commented.
Similarly, the faster decrease in lung cancer incidence in men compared to women can be explained by the relative difference in the prevalence of smoking between men and women, they added.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“This analysis shows for the first time that nationwide mortality rates for the most common category of lung cancer, NSCLC, are declining faster than its incidence, an advance that correlates with the [FDA] approval of several targeted therapies for this cancer in recent years,” coauthor Douglas Lowy, MD, deputy director, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., said in a statement.
“Major improvements have been made in NSCLC treatment with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapies,” lead author Nadia Howlander, PhD, National Cancer Institute, and colleagues observed.
“The survival benefit for patients with NSCLC treated with targeted therapy has been shown in clinical trials, but our study highlights their possible effect at the population level,” they added.
In contrast, mortality from SCLC has dropped only in tandem with a decline in the incidence of SCLC, and survival has remained largely unchanged, the same analysis showed.
NSCLC is by far the most common type of lung cancer, accounting for more than 75% of all lung cancer cases in the United States. SCLC accounts for about 13%.
The study was published online Aug. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“Although overall mortality from lung cancer has been declining in the United States, little is known about mortality trends according to cancer subtype at the population level because death certificates do not record subtype information,” the authors commented.
“To address this data limitation, the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program has linked mortality records to incidence cancer cases,” the authors explained. This allowed them to calculate incidence-based mortality among men and women in the United States.
The incidence-based mortality method that the researchers used was applied to the SEER data to describe population-level mortality trends in the United States that were attributable to each subtype of lung cancer as well as gender from 2001 to 2016.
Among men, the incidence of NSCLC decreased gradually by 1.9% a year from 2001 to 2008, then more dramatically by 3.1% a year from 2008 to 2016.
Corresponding incidence-based mortality rates among men dropped by 3.2% a year from 2006 to 2013, then again more dramatically by 6.3% a year from 2013 to 2016.
“The 2-year relative survival among patients with lung cancer improved substantially from 26% among men with NSCLC diagnosed in 2001 to 35% among those with NSCLC diagnosed in 2014,” the researchers added.
Among women, the incidence of NSCLC remained unchanged between 2001 and 2006, after which it began to drop by 1.5% a year from 2006 to 2016.
“In contrast, incidence-based mortality decreased slowly [among women] by 2.3% annually ... from 2006 through 2014 and then at a faster rate of 5.9% annually ... from 2014 through 2016,” the authors noted.
The 2-year relative survival rate for patients with NSCLC was higher among women than among men, improving from 35% in 2001 to 44% in 2014.
Improvements in survival were also observed for all races and ethnicities, despite concerns that new cancer treatments might increase treatment disparities between races, because they are all so expensive, the authors commented.
Mortality from SCLC declined by 4.3% a year among men, but that decline was entirely due to a similar decrease in the incidence of SCLC. Survival at 2 years for patients with this subtype of lung cancer remained largely unchanged over the same interval.
Genetic testing
The accelerating decline in NSCLC mortality starting in 2013 corresponds to the period in which clinicians began to routinely test for molecular alterations in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), the authors pointed out.
In 2012, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommended that all patients with nonsquamous NSCLC undergo genetic testing for EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements.
At about the same time, the FDA approved a number of targeted therapies for tumors that are sensitive to targeted tyrosine kinase inhibition.
More recently, immunotherapies that act as programmed cell death inhibitors have substantially improved NSCLC outcomes, the authors noted.
The first of these was approved for NSCLC in 2015 (pembrolizumab). It was followed by a number of similar agents. It is unlikely that their approval contributed to the observed decline in NSCLC mortality, which started to accelerate in 2013 in the United States, the authors commented.
Nevertheless, the effect that the immune checkpoint inhibitors has had on the survival of patients with NSCLC can be expected to continue and to extend improvement in survival beyond the current study endpoint in 2016, they suggest.
Another contributing factor is the decline in smoking that has occurred in the United States since the 1960s. This has led to the decrease in the incidence of lung cancer. The faster decrease in the incidence of SCLC, compared with NSCLC can be explained by the higher relative risk of smoking with regard to SCLC compared to NSCLC, they commented.
Similarly, the faster decrease in lung cancer incidence in men compared to women can be explained by the relative difference in the prevalence of smoking between men and women, they added.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“This analysis shows for the first time that nationwide mortality rates for the most common category of lung cancer, NSCLC, are declining faster than its incidence, an advance that correlates with the [FDA] approval of several targeted therapies for this cancer in recent years,” coauthor Douglas Lowy, MD, deputy director, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., said in a statement.
“Major improvements have been made in NSCLC treatment with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapies,” lead author Nadia Howlander, PhD, National Cancer Institute, and colleagues observed.
“The survival benefit for patients with NSCLC treated with targeted therapy has been shown in clinical trials, but our study highlights their possible effect at the population level,” they added.
In contrast, mortality from SCLC has dropped only in tandem with a decline in the incidence of SCLC, and survival has remained largely unchanged, the same analysis showed.
NSCLC is by far the most common type of lung cancer, accounting for more than 75% of all lung cancer cases in the United States. SCLC accounts for about 13%.
The study was published online Aug. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“Although overall mortality from lung cancer has been declining in the United States, little is known about mortality trends according to cancer subtype at the population level because death certificates do not record subtype information,” the authors commented.
“To address this data limitation, the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program has linked mortality records to incidence cancer cases,” the authors explained. This allowed them to calculate incidence-based mortality among men and women in the United States.
The incidence-based mortality method that the researchers used was applied to the SEER data to describe population-level mortality trends in the United States that were attributable to each subtype of lung cancer as well as gender from 2001 to 2016.
Among men, the incidence of NSCLC decreased gradually by 1.9% a year from 2001 to 2008, then more dramatically by 3.1% a year from 2008 to 2016.
Corresponding incidence-based mortality rates among men dropped by 3.2% a year from 2006 to 2013, then again more dramatically by 6.3% a year from 2013 to 2016.
“The 2-year relative survival among patients with lung cancer improved substantially from 26% among men with NSCLC diagnosed in 2001 to 35% among those with NSCLC diagnosed in 2014,” the researchers added.
Among women, the incidence of NSCLC remained unchanged between 2001 and 2006, after which it began to drop by 1.5% a year from 2006 to 2016.
“In contrast, incidence-based mortality decreased slowly [among women] by 2.3% annually ... from 2006 through 2014 and then at a faster rate of 5.9% annually ... from 2014 through 2016,” the authors noted.
The 2-year relative survival rate for patients with NSCLC was higher among women than among men, improving from 35% in 2001 to 44% in 2014.
Improvements in survival were also observed for all races and ethnicities, despite concerns that new cancer treatments might increase treatment disparities between races, because they are all so expensive, the authors commented.
Mortality from SCLC declined by 4.3% a year among men, but that decline was entirely due to a similar decrease in the incidence of SCLC. Survival at 2 years for patients with this subtype of lung cancer remained largely unchanged over the same interval.
Genetic testing
The accelerating decline in NSCLC mortality starting in 2013 corresponds to the period in which clinicians began to routinely test for molecular alterations in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), the authors pointed out.
In 2012, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommended that all patients with nonsquamous NSCLC undergo genetic testing for EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements.
At about the same time, the FDA approved a number of targeted therapies for tumors that are sensitive to targeted tyrosine kinase inhibition.
More recently, immunotherapies that act as programmed cell death inhibitors have substantially improved NSCLC outcomes, the authors noted.
The first of these was approved for NSCLC in 2015 (pembrolizumab). It was followed by a number of similar agents. It is unlikely that their approval contributed to the observed decline in NSCLC mortality, which started to accelerate in 2013 in the United States, the authors commented.
Nevertheless, the effect that the immune checkpoint inhibitors has had on the survival of patients with NSCLC can be expected to continue and to extend improvement in survival beyond the current study endpoint in 2016, they suggest.
Another contributing factor is the decline in smoking that has occurred in the United States since the 1960s. This has led to the decrease in the incidence of lung cancer. The faster decrease in the incidence of SCLC, compared with NSCLC can be explained by the higher relative risk of smoking with regard to SCLC compared to NSCLC, they commented.
Similarly, the faster decrease in lung cancer incidence in men compared to women can be explained by the relative difference in the prevalence of smoking between men and women, they added.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pandemic effect: Telemedicine is now a ‘must-have’ service
If people try telemedicine, they’ll like telemedicine. And if they want to avoid a doctor’s office, as most people do these days, they’ll try telemedicine. That is the message coming from 1,000 people surveyed for DocASAP, a provider of online patient access and engagement systems.
Here are a couple of numbers: 92% of those who made a telemedicine visit said they were satisfied with the overall appointment experience, and 91% said that they are more likely to schedule a telemedicine visit instead of an in-person appointment. All of the survey respondents had visited a health care provider in the past year, and 40% already had made a telemedicine visit, DocASAP reported.
Puneet Maheshwari, DocASAP cofounder and CEO, said in a statement. “As providers continue to adopt innovative technology to power a more seamless, end-to-end digital consumer experience, I expect telehealth to become fully integrated into overall care management.”
For now, though, COVID-19 is an overriding concern and health care facilities are suspect. When respondents were asked to identify the types of public facilities where they felt safe, hospitals were named by 32%, doctors’ offices by 26%, and ED/urgent care by just 12%, the DocASAP report said. Even public transportation got 13%.
The safest place to be, according to 42% of the respondents? The grocery store.
Of those surveyed, 43% “indicated they will not feel safe entering any health care setting until at least the fall,” the company said. An even higher share of patients, 68%, canceled or postponed an in-person appointment during the pandemic.
“No longer are remote health services viewed as ‘nice to have’ – they are now a must-have care delivery option,” DocASAP said in their report.
Safety concerns involving COVID-19, named by 47% of the sample, were the leading factor that would influence patients’ decision to schedule a telemedicine visit. Insurance coverage was next at 43%, followed by “ease of accessing quality care” at 40%, the report said.
Among those who had made a telemedicine visit, scheduling the appointment was the most satisfying aspect of the experience, according to 54% of respondents, with day-of-appointment wait time next at 38% and quality of the video/audio technology tied with preappointment communication at almost 33%, the survey data show.
Conversely, scheduling the appointment also was declared the most frustrating aspect of the telemedicine experience, although the total in that category was a much lower 29%.
“The pandemic has thrust profound change on every aspect of life, particularly health care. … Innovations – like digital and telehealth solutions – designed to meet patient needs will likely become embedded into the health care delivery system,” DocASAP said.
The survey was commissioned by DocASAP and conducted by marketing research company OnePoll on June 29-30, 2020.
If people try telemedicine, they’ll like telemedicine. And if they want to avoid a doctor’s office, as most people do these days, they’ll try telemedicine. That is the message coming from 1,000 people surveyed for DocASAP, a provider of online patient access and engagement systems.
Here are a couple of numbers: 92% of those who made a telemedicine visit said they were satisfied with the overall appointment experience, and 91% said that they are more likely to schedule a telemedicine visit instead of an in-person appointment. All of the survey respondents had visited a health care provider in the past year, and 40% already had made a telemedicine visit, DocASAP reported.
Puneet Maheshwari, DocASAP cofounder and CEO, said in a statement. “As providers continue to adopt innovative technology to power a more seamless, end-to-end digital consumer experience, I expect telehealth to become fully integrated into overall care management.”
For now, though, COVID-19 is an overriding concern and health care facilities are suspect. When respondents were asked to identify the types of public facilities where they felt safe, hospitals were named by 32%, doctors’ offices by 26%, and ED/urgent care by just 12%, the DocASAP report said. Even public transportation got 13%.
The safest place to be, according to 42% of the respondents? The grocery store.
Of those surveyed, 43% “indicated they will not feel safe entering any health care setting until at least the fall,” the company said. An even higher share of patients, 68%, canceled or postponed an in-person appointment during the pandemic.
“No longer are remote health services viewed as ‘nice to have’ – they are now a must-have care delivery option,” DocASAP said in their report.
Safety concerns involving COVID-19, named by 47% of the sample, were the leading factor that would influence patients’ decision to schedule a telemedicine visit. Insurance coverage was next at 43%, followed by “ease of accessing quality care” at 40%, the report said.
Among those who had made a telemedicine visit, scheduling the appointment was the most satisfying aspect of the experience, according to 54% of respondents, with day-of-appointment wait time next at 38% and quality of the video/audio technology tied with preappointment communication at almost 33%, the survey data show.
Conversely, scheduling the appointment also was declared the most frustrating aspect of the telemedicine experience, although the total in that category was a much lower 29%.
“The pandemic has thrust profound change on every aspect of life, particularly health care. … Innovations – like digital and telehealth solutions – designed to meet patient needs will likely become embedded into the health care delivery system,” DocASAP said.
The survey was commissioned by DocASAP and conducted by marketing research company OnePoll on June 29-30, 2020.
If people try telemedicine, they’ll like telemedicine. And if they want to avoid a doctor’s office, as most people do these days, they’ll try telemedicine. That is the message coming from 1,000 people surveyed for DocASAP, a provider of online patient access and engagement systems.
Here are a couple of numbers: 92% of those who made a telemedicine visit said they were satisfied with the overall appointment experience, and 91% said that they are more likely to schedule a telemedicine visit instead of an in-person appointment. All of the survey respondents had visited a health care provider in the past year, and 40% already had made a telemedicine visit, DocASAP reported.
Puneet Maheshwari, DocASAP cofounder and CEO, said in a statement. “As providers continue to adopt innovative technology to power a more seamless, end-to-end digital consumer experience, I expect telehealth to become fully integrated into overall care management.”
For now, though, COVID-19 is an overriding concern and health care facilities are suspect. When respondents were asked to identify the types of public facilities where they felt safe, hospitals were named by 32%, doctors’ offices by 26%, and ED/urgent care by just 12%, the DocASAP report said. Even public transportation got 13%.
The safest place to be, according to 42% of the respondents? The grocery store.
Of those surveyed, 43% “indicated they will not feel safe entering any health care setting until at least the fall,” the company said. An even higher share of patients, 68%, canceled or postponed an in-person appointment during the pandemic.
“No longer are remote health services viewed as ‘nice to have’ – they are now a must-have care delivery option,” DocASAP said in their report.
Safety concerns involving COVID-19, named by 47% of the sample, were the leading factor that would influence patients’ decision to schedule a telemedicine visit. Insurance coverage was next at 43%, followed by “ease of accessing quality care” at 40%, the report said.
Among those who had made a telemedicine visit, scheduling the appointment was the most satisfying aspect of the experience, according to 54% of respondents, with day-of-appointment wait time next at 38% and quality of the video/audio technology tied with preappointment communication at almost 33%, the survey data show.
Conversely, scheduling the appointment also was declared the most frustrating aspect of the telemedicine experience, although the total in that category was a much lower 29%.
“The pandemic has thrust profound change on every aspect of life, particularly health care. … Innovations – like digital and telehealth solutions – designed to meet patient needs will likely become embedded into the health care delivery system,” DocASAP said.
The survey was commissioned by DocASAP and conducted by marketing research company OnePoll on June 29-30, 2020.
FDA clamps down on compliance for gluten-free products
To retain the label of “gluten free,” manufacturers of foods that are fermented and hydrolyzed, or that contain fermented or hydrolyzed ingredients, must make and keep detailed records of the manufacturing and production process, according to a final rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration.
In an announcement released on Aug. 12, the FDA stated that manufacturers must confirm that food products such as soy sauce, yogurt, sauerkraut, pickles, cheese, and green olives, as well as distilled foods such as vinegar, meet the definition of gluten free before the fermentation or hydrolysis process. In addition, the rule states that “the manufacturer has adequately evaluated the potential for cross-contact with gluten during the manufacturing process; and if necessary, measures are in place to prevent the introduction of gluten into the food during the manufacturing process,” according to the FDA.
Gluten breaks down during fermentation and hydrolysis, and the gluten-free status of products manufactured in this way can’t be confirmed after the process using currently available methods, according to the FDA.
The new rule is designed to ensure that products labeled as gluten-free meet the definition of gluten free, which remains unchanged from the FDA guidance in 2013.
“The FDA continues to work to protect people with celiac disease, which impacts at least 3 million Americans,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.
“The agency has taken a number of steps on this front by first establishing a standardized definition of gluten free, and now by continuing to work to ensure manufacturers are keeping the products that are labeled with this claim gluten free,” he emphasized.
The final rule states that manufacturers will not need to keep such records if and when other analytical methods are developed, but in the meantime products that do not meet the definition will be deemed misbranded, according to the FDA.
To retain the label of “gluten free,” manufacturers of foods that are fermented and hydrolyzed, or that contain fermented or hydrolyzed ingredients, must make and keep detailed records of the manufacturing and production process, according to a final rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration.
In an announcement released on Aug. 12, the FDA stated that manufacturers must confirm that food products such as soy sauce, yogurt, sauerkraut, pickles, cheese, and green olives, as well as distilled foods such as vinegar, meet the definition of gluten free before the fermentation or hydrolysis process. In addition, the rule states that “the manufacturer has adequately evaluated the potential for cross-contact with gluten during the manufacturing process; and if necessary, measures are in place to prevent the introduction of gluten into the food during the manufacturing process,” according to the FDA.
Gluten breaks down during fermentation and hydrolysis, and the gluten-free status of products manufactured in this way can’t be confirmed after the process using currently available methods, according to the FDA.
The new rule is designed to ensure that products labeled as gluten-free meet the definition of gluten free, which remains unchanged from the FDA guidance in 2013.
“The FDA continues to work to protect people with celiac disease, which impacts at least 3 million Americans,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.
“The agency has taken a number of steps on this front by first establishing a standardized definition of gluten free, and now by continuing to work to ensure manufacturers are keeping the products that are labeled with this claim gluten free,” he emphasized.
The final rule states that manufacturers will not need to keep such records if and when other analytical methods are developed, but in the meantime products that do not meet the definition will be deemed misbranded, according to the FDA.
To retain the label of “gluten free,” manufacturers of foods that are fermented and hydrolyzed, or that contain fermented or hydrolyzed ingredients, must make and keep detailed records of the manufacturing and production process, according to a final rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration.
In an announcement released on Aug. 12, the FDA stated that manufacturers must confirm that food products such as soy sauce, yogurt, sauerkraut, pickles, cheese, and green olives, as well as distilled foods such as vinegar, meet the definition of gluten free before the fermentation or hydrolysis process. In addition, the rule states that “the manufacturer has adequately evaluated the potential for cross-contact with gluten during the manufacturing process; and if necessary, measures are in place to prevent the introduction of gluten into the food during the manufacturing process,” according to the FDA.
Gluten breaks down during fermentation and hydrolysis, and the gluten-free status of products manufactured in this way can’t be confirmed after the process using currently available methods, according to the FDA.
The new rule is designed to ensure that products labeled as gluten-free meet the definition of gluten free, which remains unchanged from the FDA guidance in 2013.
“The FDA continues to work to protect people with celiac disease, which impacts at least 3 million Americans,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.
“The agency has taken a number of steps on this front by first establishing a standardized definition of gluten free, and now by continuing to work to ensure manufacturers are keeping the products that are labeled with this claim gluten free,” he emphasized.
The final rule states that manufacturers will not need to keep such records if and when other analytical methods are developed, but in the meantime products that do not meet the definition will be deemed misbranded, according to the FDA.
Cancer treatments bring concerns for hospitalists
Advances in cancer treatment have brought a range of potential issues hospitalists are likely to see in admitted patients – many of which can escalate quickly into life-threatening emergencies if they’re not handled properly, an oncologist said in a presentation at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.
Checkpoint inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapy – revolutions in fighting cancer but potential instigators of serious side effects because of the way they set the immune system in motion – can have consequences throughout the body, said Megan Kruse, MD, an oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic.
Checkpoint inhibitors, which cause the body to essentially take its foot off the break of the immune system, in particular have diverse effects, Dr. Kruse said.
“Suffice it to say that any odd symptom in any organ system in a patient on immunotherapy, or with a history of immunotherapy, can be cause for concern,” she said. Most common are skin, gut, endocrine, lung, and musculoskeletal involvement. Cardiovascular, hematologic, renal, neurologic, and ophthalmological effects are less common, but when they happen, they’re often dramatic and need urgent management.
With these medications –which include anti–programmed death-1 agents pembrolizumab and nivolumab and anti–PD-ligand 1 agents atezolizumab and avelumab, among others – rash is often seen first, followed by diarrhea and colitis. Hypophysitis, which requires intervention, and liver toxicity, which usually tapers off on its own, often occur about 6-8 weeks into treatment. There are no rigid rules for the arrival of these symptoms, however, Dr. Kruse said.
“We must have a high index of suspicion. ... They really can occur at any point after a patient has had even one dose of an immunologic agent,” she said.
In more serious cases, steroids are typically the go-to treatment, she added, because they will quickly tamp down the immune activation brought on by the medications.
“When these drugs first came out, we were all very concerned about adding steroids,” she said. “In follow-up studies, it actually looks like we don’t attenuate the anticancer response very much by instituting steroids when clinically appropriate. And so you all should feel very comfortable adding steroids while waiting to talk to oncology.”
In these cases, the steroid taper is done very slowly, over weeks or even months.
With CAR T-cell therapy – in which patients receive T cells to target liquid tumors – cytokine release syndrome (CRS) can occur, often within 14 days after treatment. Dr. Kruse cautioned that it can present with symptoms similar to tumor lysis syndrome or sepsis.
“Patients are at a high risk of bacterial infection, so antibiotics are advised,” she said.
In these cases, fever is often a harbinger, often arriving at least a day before the rest of the symptoms of CRS.
Early treatment with the interleukin-6 inhibitor tocilizumab is recommended for these patients, she said. This agent has been shown to have a 69% response rate in severe CRS and has no known effect on the efficacy of the CAR T-cell treatment.
Dr. Kruse also touched on several other conditions that can rise to the level of emergencies in cancer treatment:
- In cases of neutropenic fever, patients should be treated as soon as possible with antibiotics, and some solid-tumor patients at lower risk can be treated as outpatients, she said. Those with hematologic cancer, however, will need inpatient care.
- For tumor lysis syndrome with renal failure, fluids should be started quickly. Rasburicase, a recombinant urate oxidase enzyme, can be considered in some cases, but requires caution.
- In cases of spinal cord compression, a full spine MRI should be completed because about a third of patients have multilevel involvement. Steroids should be started as soon as possible.
In a question-and-answer session, much of the discussion focused on when outpatient care for neutropenic fever was possible. Dr. Kruse said those who need to be admitted for neutropenic fever treatment tend to be those with hematologic malignancies because their treatment is so myelosuppressive.
“Their window of complications is longer,” she said. Solid tumor patients, on the other hand, will usually improve “fairly rapidly” in about 3-4 days.
Many session viewers expressed surprise at the possibility of outpatient neutropenic fever treatment. Dr. Kruse said that the Cleveland Clinic’s incorporation of this approach has included the input of neutropenic fever risk index scoring into their electronic medical record and a good deal of in-service training.
Asked about appropriate swabbing of patients for COVID-19 before chemotherapy, Dr. Kruse said that her center screens only patients who need to be hospitalized for the treatment – those with a high incidence of prolonged neutropenia.
“For our typical outpatients who are receiving chemotherapy,” she said, “we are not swabbing them.” But they have intense fever screening and distance measures in place.
Dr. Kruse reported advisory board involvement for Novartis Oncology and consulting for Puma Biotechnology.
Advances in cancer treatment have brought a range of potential issues hospitalists are likely to see in admitted patients – many of which can escalate quickly into life-threatening emergencies if they’re not handled properly, an oncologist said in a presentation at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.
Checkpoint inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapy – revolutions in fighting cancer but potential instigators of serious side effects because of the way they set the immune system in motion – can have consequences throughout the body, said Megan Kruse, MD, an oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic.
Checkpoint inhibitors, which cause the body to essentially take its foot off the break of the immune system, in particular have diverse effects, Dr. Kruse said.
“Suffice it to say that any odd symptom in any organ system in a patient on immunotherapy, or with a history of immunotherapy, can be cause for concern,” she said. Most common are skin, gut, endocrine, lung, and musculoskeletal involvement. Cardiovascular, hematologic, renal, neurologic, and ophthalmological effects are less common, but when they happen, they’re often dramatic and need urgent management.
With these medications –which include anti–programmed death-1 agents pembrolizumab and nivolumab and anti–PD-ligand 1 agents atezolizumab and avelumab, among others – rash is often seen first, followed by diarrhea and colitis. Hypophysitis, which requires intervention, and liver toxicity, which usually tapers off on its own, often occur about 6-8 weeks into treatment. There are no rigid rules for the arrival of these symptoms, however, Dr. Kruse said.
“We must have a high index of suspicion. ... They really can occur at any point after a patient has had even one dose of an immunologic agent,” she said.
In more serious cases, steroids are typically the go-to treatment, she added, because they will quickly tamp down the immune activation brought on by the medications.
“When these drugs first came out, we were all very concerned about adding steroids,” she said. “In follow-up studies, it actually looks like we don’t attenuate the anticancer response very much by instituting steroids when clinically appropriate. And so you all should feel very comfortable adding steroids while waiting to talk to oncology.”
In these cases, the steroid taper is done very slowly, over weeks or even months.
With CAR T-cell therapy – in which patients receive T cells to target liquid tumors – cytokine release syndrome (CRS) can occur, often within 14 days after treatment. Dr. Kruse cautioned that it can present with symptoms similar to tumor lysis syndrome or sepsis.
“Patients are at a high risk of bacterial infection, so antibiotics are advised,” she said.
In these cases, fever is often a harbinger, often arriving at least a day before the rest of the symptoms of CRS.
Early treatment with the interleukin-6 inhibitor tocilizumab is recommended for these patients, she said. This agent has been shown to have a 69% response rate in severe CRS and has no known effect on the efficacy of the CAR T-cell treatment.
Dr. Kruse also touched on several other conditions that can rise to the level of emergencies in cancer treatment:
- In cases of neutropenic fever, patients should be treated as soon as possible with antibiotics, and some solid-tumor patients at lower risk can be treated as outpatients, she said. Those with hematologic cancer, however, will need inpatient care.
- For tumor lysis syndrome with renal failure, fluids should be started quickly. Rasburicase, a recombinant urate oxidase enzyme, can be considered in some cases, but requires caution.
- In cases of spinal cord compression, a full spine MRI should be completed because about a third of patients have multilevel involvement. Steroids should be started as soon as possible.
In a question-and-answer session, much of the discussion focused on when outpatient care for neutropenic fever was possible. Dr. Kruse said those who need to be admitted for neutropenic fever treatment tend to be those with hematologic malignancies because their treatment is so myelosuppressive.
“Their window of complications is longer,” she said. Solid tumor patients, on the other hand, will usually improve “fairly rapidly” in about 3-4 days.
Many session viewers expressed surprise at the possibility of outpatient neutropenic fever treatment. Dr. Kruse said that the Cleveland Clinic’s incorporation of this approach has included the input of neutropenic fever risk index scoring into their electronic medical record and a good deal of in-service training.
Asked about appropriate swabbing of patients for COVID-19 before chemotherapy, Dr. Kruse said that her center screens only patients who need to be hospitalized for the treatment – those with a high incidence of prolonged neutropenia.
“For our typical outpatients who are receiving chemotherapy,” she said, “we are not swabbing them.” But they have intense fever screening and distance measures in place.
Dr. Kruse reported advisory board involvement for Novartis Oncology and consulting for Puma Biotechnology.
Advances in cancer treatment have brought a range of potential issues hospitalists are likely to see in admitted patients – many of which can escalate quickly into life-threatening emergencies if they’re not handled properly, an oncologist said in a presentation at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.
Checkpoint inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapy – revolutions in fighting cancer but potential instigators of serious side effects because of the way they set the immune system in motion – can have consequences throughout the body, said Megan Kruse, MD, an oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic.
Checkpoint inhibitors, which cause the body to essentially take its foot off the break of the immune system, in particular have diverse effects, Dr. Kruse said.
“Suffice it to say that any odd symptom in any organ system in a patient on immunotherapy, or with a history of immunotherapy, can be cause for concern,” she said. Most common are skin, gut, endocrine, lung, and musculoskeletal involvement. Cardiovascular, hematologic, renal, neurologic, and ophthalmological effects are less common, but when they happen, they’re often dramatic and need urgent management.
With these medications –which include anti–programmed death-1 agents pembrolizumab and nivolumab and anti–PD-ligand 1 agents atezolizumab and avelumab, among others – rash is often seen first, followed by diarrhea and colitis. Hypophysitis, which requires intervention, and liver toxicity, which usually tapers off on its own, often occur about 6-8 weeks into treatment. There are no rigid rules for the arrival of these symptoms, however, Dr. Kruse said.
“We must have a high index of suspicion. ... They really can occur at any point after a patient has had even one dose of an immunologic agent,” she said.
In more serious cases, steroids are typically the go-to treatment, she added, because they will quickly tamp down the immune activation brought on by the medications.
“When these drugs first came out, we were all very concerned about adding steroids,” she said. “In follow-up studies, it actually looks like we don’t attenuate the anticancer response very much by instituting steroids when clinically appropriate. And so you all should feel very comfortable adding steroids while waiting to talk to oncology.”
In these cases, the steroid taper is done very slowly, over weeks or even months.
With CAR T-cell therapy – in which patients receive T cells to target liquid tumors – cytokine release syndrome (CRS) can occur, often within 14 days after treatment. Dr. Kruse cautioned that it can present with symptoms similar to tumor lysis syndrome or sepsis.
“Patients are at a high risk of bacterial infection, so antibiotics are advised,” she said.
In these cases, fever is often a harbinger, often arriving at least a day before the rest of the symptoms of CRS.
Early treatment with the interleukin-6 inhibitor tocilizumab is recommended for these patients, she said. This agent has been shown to have a 69% response rate in severe CRS and has no known effect on the efficacy of the CAR T-cell treatment.
Dr. Kruse also touched on several other conditions that can rise to the level of emergencies in cancer treatment:
- In cases of neutropenic fever, patients should be treated as soon as possible with antibiotics, and some solid-tumor patients at lower risk can be treated as outpatients, she said. Those with hematologic cancer, however, will need inpatient care.
- For tumor lysis syndrome with renal failure, fluids should be started quickly. Rasburicase, a recombinant urate oxidase enzyme, can be considered in some cases, but requires caution.
- In cases of spinal cord compression, a full spine MRI should be completed because about a third of patients have multilevel involvement. Steroids should be started as soon as possible.
In a question-and-answer session, much of the discussion focused on when outpatient care for neutropenic fever was possible. Dr. Kruse said those who need to be admitted for neutropenic fever treatment tend to be those with hematologic malignancies because their treatment is so myelosuppressive.
“Their window of complications is longer,” she said. Solid tumor patients, on the other hand, will usually improve “fairly rapidly” in about 3-4 days.
Many session viewers expressed surprise at the possibility of outpatient neutropenic fever treatment. Dr. Kruse said that the Cleveland Clinic’s incorporation of this approach has included the input of neutropenic fever risk index scoring into their electronic medical record and a good deal of in-service training.
Asked about appropriate swabbing of patients for COVID-19 before chemotherapy, Dr. Kruse said that her center screens only patients who need to be hospitalized for the treatment – those with a high incidence of prolonged neutropenia.
“For our typical outpatients who are receiving chemotherapy,” she said, “we are not swabbing them.” But they have intense fever screening and distance measures in place.
Dr. Kruse reported advisory board involvement for Novartis Oncology and consulting for Puma Biotechnology.
FROM HM20 VIRTUAL
Welcome to week 2 of HM20 Virtual!
The Society of Hospital Medicine prides itself on bringing a broad range of experts together with the largest gathering of hospitalists at any conference – virtual or otherwise! Hospitalists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, executives, pharmacists, educators, and practitioners of many hospital-based specialties make HM20 Virtual a unique educational experience.
We know that patients depend on you to have pertinent, updated, and timely information for their acute care needs. HM20 Virtual can provide the information you need to stay abreast in this complex and ever-changing year. From COVID-19 to common diagnosis, from racism/bias to blood glucose, from peds to pulmonary embolism, HM20 Virtual covers important topics for all acute care and hospital clinicians and professionals.
This year’s conference is something new. To meet the ever-changing challenges that the year 2020 has brought all of us, HM20 Virtual has addressed one of the limitations of an online conference: personal interactions. With Simulive sessions, you will have the opportunity to chat with fellow participants and interact with the expert faculty in real time! Of course, all Simulive sessions will be available on demand after the fact for those of you who need alternate times to watch.
Be sure to attend some (or all!) of this week’s Simulive sessions. There is something for everyone:
- On Tuesday, Aug. 18, Sam Brondfield, MD, will discuss oncologic work-ups, and James Kim, MD, will make antibiotics simple (where was Dr. Kim for my medical school training?).
- Wednesday, Aug. 19, circles back to another epidemic, the opioid crisis, presented by Theresa Vettese, MD. Dr. Alfred Burger updates us on Clinical Practice Guidelines, and Jeff Trost, MD, brings us up to speed on the effects of COVID-19 and the heart.
- Thursday, Aug. 20, wraps up week 2 of HM20 Virtual with Population Health by Adam Myers, MD, and Updates in Pneumonia by Joanna Bonsall, MD.
The personal interactions don’t have to stop there! HM20 Virtual also features Special Interest Forums. Check out the list and find out how to join by visiting the HM20 Virtual website.
We look forward to “seeing” you at HM20 Virtual. We always want your feedback; however, in this socially distanced, travel-limited world, your input is more important now than ever. Be sure to let us know how this new format works for your learning, networking, and professional needs.
On behalf of the SHM board of directors, the SHM staff, and myself, we hope you enjoy HM20 Virtual. Through this meeting’s rich selection of educational opportunities – and the innovative approaches in a world dominated by the coronavirus – SHM continues to further its mission to promote excellence in the practice of hospital medicine. SHM remains at the forefront of health care today, empowering hospitalists and transforming patient care.
Dr. Howell is CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
The Society of Hospital Medicine prides itself on bringing a broad range of experts together with the largest gathering of hospitalists at any conference – virtual or otherwise! Hospitalists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, executives, pharmacists, educators, and practitioners of many hospital-based specialties make HM20 Virtual a unique educational experience.
We know that patients depend on you to have pertinent, updated, and timely information for their acute care needs. HM20 Virtual can provide the information you need to stay abreast in this complex and ever-changing year. From COVID-19 to common diagnosis, from racism/bias to blood glucose, from peds to pulmonary embolism, HM20 Virtual covers important topics for all acute care and hospital clinicians and professionals.
This year’s conference is something new. To meet the ever-changing challenges that the year 2020 has brought all of us, HM20 Virtual has addressed one of the limitations of an online conference: personal interactions. With Simulive sessions, you will have the opportunity to chat with fellow participants and interact with the expert faculty in real time! Of course, all Simulive sessions will be available on demand after the fact for those of you who need alternate times to watch.
Be sure to attend some (or all!) of this week’s Simulive sessions. There is something for everyone:
- On Tuesday, Aug. 18, Sam Brondfield, MD, will discuss oncologic work-ups, and James Kim, MD, will make antibiotics simple (where was Dr. Kim for my medical school training?).
- Wednesday, Aug. 19, circles back to another epidemic, the opioid crisis, presented by Theresa Vettese, MD. Dr. Alfred Burger updates us on Clinical Practice Guidelines, and Jeff Trost, MD, brings us up to speed on the effects of COVID-19 and the heart.
- Thursday, Aug. 20, wraps up week 2 of HM20 Virtual with Population Health by Adam Myers, MD, and Updates in Pneumonia by Joanna Bonsall, MD.
The personal interactions don’t have to stop there! HM20 Virtual also features Special Interest Forums. Check out the list and find out how to join by visiting the HM20 Virtual website.
We look forward to “seeing” you at HM20 Virtual. We always want your feedback; however, in this socially distanced, travel-limited world, your input is more important now than ever. Be sure to let us know how this new format works for your learning, networking, and professional needs.
On behalf of the SHM board of directors, the SHM staff, and myself, we hope you enjoy HM20 Virtual. Through this meeting’s rich selection of educational opportunities – and the innovative approaches in a world dominated by the coronavirus – SHM continues to further its mission to promote excellence in the practice of hospital medicine. SHM remains at the forefront of health care today, empowering hospitalists and transforming patient care.
Dr. Howell is CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
The Society of Hospital Medicine prides itself on bringing a broad range of experts together with the largest gathering of hospitalists at any conference – virtual or otherwise! Hospitalists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, executives, pharmacists, educators, and practitioners of many hospital-based specialties make HM20 Virtual a unique educational experience.
We know that patients depend on you to have pertinent, updated, and timely information for their acute care needs. HM20 Virtual can provide the information you need to stay abreast in this complex and ever-changing year. From COVID-19 to common diagnosis, from racism/bias to blood glucose, from peds to pulmonary embolism, HM20 Virtual covers important topics for all acute care and hospital clinicians and professionals.
This year’s conference is something new. To meet the ever-changing challenges that the year 2020 has brought all of us, HM20 Virtual has addressed one of the limitations of an online conference: personal interactions. With Simulive sessions, you will have the opportunity to chat with fellow participants and interact with the expert faculty in real time! Of course, all Simulive sessions will be available on demand after the fact for those of you who need alternate times to watch.
Be sure to attend some (or all!) of this week’s Simulive sessions. There is something for everyone:
- On Tuesday, Aug. 18, Sam Brondfield, MD, will discuss oncologic work-ups, and James Kim, MD, will make antibiotics simple (where was Dr. Kim for my medical school training?).
- Wednesday, Aug. 19, circles back to another epidemic, the opioid crisis, presented by Theresa Vettese, MD. Dr. Alfred Burger updates us on Clinical Practice Guidelines, and Jeff Trost, MD, brings us up to speed on the effects of COVID-19 and the heart.
- Thursday, Aug. 20, wraps up week 2 of HM20 Virtual with Population Health by Adam Myers, MD, and Updates in Pneumonia by Joanna Bonsall, MD.
The personal interactions don’t have to stop there! HM20 Virtual also features Special Interest Forums. Check out the list and find out how to join by visiting the HM20 Virtual website.
We look forward to “seeing” you at HM20 Virtual. We always want your feedback; however, in this socially distanced, travel-limited world, your input is more important now than ever. Be sure to let us know how this new format works for your learning, networking, and professional needs.
On behalf of the SHM board of directors, the SHM staff, and myself, we hope you enjoy HM20 Virtual. Through this meeting’s rich selection of educational opportunities – and the innovative approaches in a world dominated by the coronavirus – SHM continues to further its mission to promote excellence in the practice of hospital medicine. SHM remains at the forefront of health care today, empowering hospitalists and transforming patient care.
Dr. Howell is CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
COVID-19/heart connection: What hospitalists need to know
The heart-related manifestations of COVID-19 are a serious matter, but no one should make the mistake of thinking of COVID-19 as primarily a cardiac disease, according to Jeffrey C. Trost, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
he said in offering a preview of his upcoming clinical update at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.
For this reason, in his clinical update talk, titled “COVID-19 and the Heart: What Every Hospitalist Should Know,” he’ll urge hospitalists to be conservative in ordering cardiac biomarker tests such troponin and natriuretic peptide levels. The focus should appropriately be on the subset of COVID-19 patients having the same symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or new-onset cardiomyopathy that would trigger laboratory testing in non–COVID-19 patients.
“Be more selective. Definitely do not routinely monitor troponin or [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide] in patients just because they have COVID-19. A lot of patients with COVID-19 have these labs drawn, especially in the emergency department. We see a high signal-to-noise ratio: not infrequently the values are abnormal, and yet we don’t really know what that means,” said Dr. Trost, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center.
COVID-19 patients with preexisting heart disease are clearly at increased risk of severe forms of the infectious illness. In his talk, Dr. Trost will review the epidemiology of this association. He’ll also discuss the varied cardiac manifestations of COVID-19, consisting of myocarditis or other forms of new-onset cardiomyopathy, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and arrhythmias.
Many questions regarding COVID-19 and the heart remain unanswered for now, such as the mechanism and long-term implications of the phenomenon of ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome with chest pain in the presence of unobstructed coronary arteries, which Dr. Trost and others have encountered. Or the extent to which COVID-19–associated myocarditis is directly virus mediated as opposed to an autoimmune process.
“We’re relying completely on case reports at this point,” according to the cardiologist.
But one major issue has, thankfully, been put to rest on the basis of persuasive evidence which Dr. Trost plans to highlight: Millions of patients on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers can now rest assured that taking those medications doesn’t place them at increased risk of becoming infected with the novel coronavirus or, if infected, developing severe complications of COVID-19. Earlier in the pandemic that had been a legitimate theoretic concern based upon a plausible mechanism.
“I think we as physicians can now confidently say that we don’t need to stop these medicines in folks,” Dr. Trost said.
COVID-19 and the Heart: What Every Hospitalist Should Know
Live Q&A: Wednesday, Aug. 19, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET
The heart-related manifestations of COVID-19 are a serious matter, but no one should make the mistake of thinking of COVID-19 as primarily a cardiac disease, according to Jeffrey C. Trost, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
he said in offering a preview of his upcoming clinical update at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.
For this reason, in his clinical update talk, titled “COVID-19 and the Heart: What Every Hospitalist Should Know,” he’ll urge hospitalists to be conservative in ordering cardiac biomarker tests such troponin and natriuretic peptide levels. The focus should appropriately be on the subset of COVID-19 patients having the same symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or new-onset cardiomyopathy that would trigger laboratory testing in non–COVID-19 patients.
“Be more selective. Definitely do not routinely monitor troponin or [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide] in patients just because they have COVID-19. A lot of patients with COVID-19 have these labs drawn, especially in the emergency department. We see a high signal-to-noise ratio: not infrequently the values are abnormal, and yet we don’t really know what that means,” said Dr. Trost, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center.
COVID-19 patients with preexisting heart disease are clearly at increased risk of severe forms of the infectious illness. In his talk, Dr. Trost will review the epidemiology of this association. He’ll also discuss the varied cardiac manifestations of COVID-19, consisting of myocarditis or other forms of new-onset cardiomyopathy, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and arrhythmias.
Many questions regarding COVID-19 and the heart remain unanswered for now, such as the mechanism and long-term implications of the phenomenon of ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome with chest pain in the presence of unobstructed coronary arteries, which Dr. Trost and others have encountered. Or the extent to which COVID-19–associated myocarditis is directly virus mediated as opposed to an autoimmune process.
“We’re relying completely on case reports at this point,” according to the cardiologist.
But one major issue has, thankfully, been put to rest on the basis of persuasive evidence which Dr. Trost plans to highlight: Millions of patients on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers can now rest assured that taking those medications doesn’t place them at increased risk of becoming infected with the novel coronavirus or, if infected, developing severe complications of COVID-19. Earlier in the pandemic that had been a legitimate theoretic concern based upon a plausible mechanism.
“I think we as physicians can now confidently say that we don’t need to stop these medicines in folks,” Dr. Trost said.
COVID-19 and the Heart: What Every Hospitalist Should Know
Live Q&A: Wednesday, Aug. 19, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET
The heart-related manifestations of COVID-19 are a serious matter, but no one should make the mistake of thinking of COVID-19 as primarily a cardiac disease, according to Jeffrey C. Trost, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
he said in offering a preview of his upcoming clinical update at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.
For this reason, in his clinical update talk, titled “COVID-19 and the Heart: What Every Hospitalist Should Know,” he’ll urge hospitalists to be conservative in ordering cardiac biomarker tests such troponin and natriuretic peptide levels. The focus should appropriately be on the subset of COVID-19 patients having the same symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or new-onset cardiomyopathy that would trigger laboratory testing in non–COVID-19 patients.
“Be more selective. Definitely do not routinely monitor troponin or [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide] in patients just because they have COVID-19. A lot of patients with COVID-19 have these labs drawn, especially in the emergency department. We see a high signal-to-noise ratio: not infrequently the values are abnormal, and yet we don’t really know what that means,” said Dr. Trost, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center.
COVID-19 patients with preexisting heart disease are clearly at increased risk of severe forms of the infectious illness. In his talk, Dr. Trost will review the epidemiology of this association. He’ll also discuss the varied cardiac manifestations of COVID-19, consisting of myocarditis or other forms of new-onset cardiomyopathy, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and arrhythmias.
Many questions regarding COVID-19 and the heart remain unanswered for now, such as the mechanism and long-term implications of the phenomenon of ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome with chest pain in the presence of unobstructed coronary arteries, which Dr. Trost and others have encountered. Or the extent to which COVID-19–associated myocarditis is directly virus mediated as opposed to an autoimmune process.
“We’re relying completely on case reports at this point,” according to the cardiologist.
But one major issue has, thankfully, been put to rest on the basis of persuasive evidence which Dr. Trost plans to highlight: Millions of patients on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers can now rest assured that taking those medications doesn’t place them at increased risk of becoming infected with the novel coronavirus or, if infected, developing severe complications of COVID-19. Earlier in the pandemic that had been a legitimate theoretic concern based upon a plausible mechanism.
“I think we as physicians can now confidently say that we don’t need to stop these medicines in folks,” Dr. Trost said.
COVID-19 and the Heart: What Every Hospitalist Should Know
Live Q&A: Wednesday, Aug. 19, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET
Scaly hand papule
This pink raised nodule underlying a scaly surface was suspicious for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Since this was a virtual visit, and the lesion required pathology due to the likelihood of cancer, the patient was brought into the clinic for additional evaluation. A broad-based deep shave biopsy was performed to remove the visible lesion. Pathology showed SCC in situ, with borders uninvolved.
Patients who have had AKs are extremely likely to develop additional AKs. A notable percentage of AKs will, over time, develop into SCC in situ and then invasive SCC if not treated. While cryosurgery of an SK should not result in SCC, it’s most likely that in this case, an AK adjacent to the SK progressed to the SCC in situ.
There are multiple treatments available for SCC in situ. Topical imiquimod has been shown to be somewhat effective in stimulating the immune system, thus leading to resolution of SCC in situ. But there is a significant risk of recurrence. Topical 5-FU can be utilized on a daily or twice daily basis for 2 weeks (or up to several months). The risk of recurrence ranges from 7% to 33%. Electrodesiccation and curettage is often used for SCC in situ, with recurrence rates of 2% to 19%. Cryosurgery for SCC in situ requires an aggressive freeze, with freeze times of up to 30 seconds. Photodynamic therapy also is an option; however, it requires multiple sessions and is more costly than other treatment options.
This patient’s borders were uninvolved on pathology, but it was possible that there was some residual SCC in situ due to the standard “bread loaf slicing” used for routine pathology. To treat possible residual SCC in situ at the wound site and surrounding tissue, the patient was given a prescription for topical 5-FU to apply twice daily for 6 weeks. The patient was instructed to return for follow-up in 6 months, or sooner, if any problems arose.
Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
Shimizu I, Cruz A, Chang KH, et al. Treatment of squamous cell carcinoma in situ: a review. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37:1394-1411.
This pink raised nodule underlying a scaly surface was suspicious for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Since this was a virtual visit, and the lesion required pathology due to the likelihood of cancer, the patient was brought into the clinic for additional evaluation. A broad-based deep shave biopsy was performed to remove the visible lesion. Pathology showed SCC in situ, with borders uninvolved.
Patients who have had AKs are extremely likely to develop additional AKs. A notable percentage of AKs will, over time, develop into SCC in situ and then invasive SCC if not treated. While cryosurgery of an SK should not result in SCC, it’s most likely that in this case, an AK adjacent to the SK progressed to the SCC in situ.
There are multiple treatments available for SCC in situ. Topical imiquimod has been shown to be somewhat effective in stimulating the immune system, thus leading to resolution of SCC in situ. But there is a significant risk of recurrence. Topical 5-FU can be utilized on a daily or twice daily basis for 2 weeks (or up to several months). The risk of recurrence ranges from 7% to 33%. Electrodesiccation and curettage is often used for SCC in situ, with recurrence rates of 2% to 19%. Cryosurgery for SCC in situ requires an aggressive freeze, with freeze times of up to 30 seconds. Photodynamic therapy also is an option; however, it requires multiple sessions and is more costly than other treatment options.
This patient’s borders were uninvolved on pathology, but it was possible that there was some residual SCC in situ due to the standard “bread loaf slicing” used for routine pathology. To treat possible residual SCC in situ at the wound site and surrounding tissue, the patient was given a prescription for topical 5-FU to apply twice daily for 6 weeks. The patient was instructed to return for follow-up in 6 months, or sooner, if any problems arose.
Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
This pink raised nodule underlying a scaly surface was suspicious for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Since this was a virtual visit, and the lesion required pathology due to the likelihood of cancer, the patient was brought into the clinic for additional evaluation. A broad-based deep shave biopsy was performed to remove the visible lesion. Pathology showed SCC in situ, with borders uninvolved.
Patients who have had AKs are extremely likely to develop additional AKs. A notable percentage of AKs will, over time, develop into SCC in situ and then invasive SCC if not treated. While cryosurgery of an SK should not result in SCC, it’s most likely that in this case, an AK adjacent to the SK progressed to the SCC in situ.
There are multiple treatments available for SCC in situ. Topical imiquimod has been shown to be somewhat effective in stimulating the immune system, thus leading to resolution of SCC in situ. But there is a significant risk of recurrence. Topical 5-FU can be utilized on a daily or twice daily basis for 2 weeks (or up to several months). The risk of recurrence ranges from 7% to 33%. Electrodesiccation and curettage is often used for SCC in situ, with recurrence rates of 2% to 19%. Cryosurgery for SCC in situ requires an aggressive freeze, with freeze times of up to 30 seconds. Photodynamic therapy also is an option; however, it requires multiple sessions and is more costly than other treatment options.
This patient’s borders were uninvolved on pathology, but it was possible that there was some residual SCC in situ due to the standard “bread loaf slicing” used for routine pathology. To treat possible residual SCC in situ at the wound site and surrounding tissue, the patient was given a prescription for topical 5-FU to apply twice daily for 6 weeks. The patient was instructed to return for follow-up in 6 months, or sooner, if any problems arose.
Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
Shimizu I, Cruz A, Chang KH, et al. Treatment of squamous cell carcinoma in situ: a review. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37:1394-1411.
Shimizu I, Cruz A, Chang KH, et al. Treatment of squamous cell carcinoma in situ: a review. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37:1394-1411.
