Hematology

Patients with hematologic disease who develop COVID-19 may experience substantial morbidity and mortality related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to recent registry data reported at the all-virtual annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Overall mortality was 28% for the first 250 patients entered into the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, researchers reported in an abstract of their study findings.

However, the burden of death and moderate-to-severe COVID-19 outcomes was highest in patients with poorer prognosis and those with relapsed/refractory hematological disease, they added.

The most commonly represented malignancies were acute leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and myeloma or amyloidosis, according to the report.

Taken together, the findings do support an “emerging consensus” that COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality is significant in these patients, authors said – however, the current findings may not be reason enough to support a change in treatment course for the underlying disease.

“We see no reason, based on our data, to withhold intensive therapies from patients with underlying hematologic malignancies and favorable prognoses, if aggressive supportive care is consistent with patient preferences,” wrote the researchers.

ASH President Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, said these registry findings are important to better understand how SARS-CoV-2 is affecting not only patients with hematologic diseases, but also individuals who experience COVID-19-related hematologic complications.

However, the findings are limited due to the heterogeneity of diseases, symptoms, and treatments represented in the registry, said Dr. Lee, associate director of the clinical research division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.

“More data will be coming in, but I think this is an example of trying to harness real-world information to try to learn things until we get more controlled studies,” Dr. Lee said in a media briefing held in advance of the ASH meeting.
 

Comorbidities and more

Patients with blood cancers are often older and may have comorbidities such as diabetes or hypertension that have been linked to poor COVID-19 outcomes, according to the authors of the report, led by William A. Wood, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine with the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.

Moreover, these patients may have underlying immune dysfunction and may receive chemotherapy or immunotherapy that is “profoundly immunosuppressive,” Dr. Wood and coauthors said in their report.

To date, however, risks of morbidity and mortality related to SARS-CoV-2 infection have not been well defined in this patient population, authors said.

More data is emerging now from the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, which includes data on patients positive for COVID-19 who have a past or present hematologic condition or have experienced a hematologic complication related to COVID-19.

All data from the registry is being made available through a dashboard on the ASH Research Collaborative website, which as of Dec. 1, 2020, included 693 complete cases.

The data cut in the ASH abstract includes the first 250 patients enrolled at 74 sites around the world, the authors said. The most common malignancies included acute leukemia in 33%, non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 27%, and myeloma or amyloidosis in 16%.

The most frequently reported symptoms included fever in 73%, cough in 67%, dyspnea in 50%, and fatigue in 40%, according to that report.

At the time of this data snapshot, treatment with COVID-19-directed therapies including hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin were common, reported in 76 and 59 patients, respectively, in the cohort.

Batch submissions from sites with high incidence of COVID-19 infection are ongoing. The registry has been expanded to include nonmalignant hematologic diseases, and the registry will continue to accumulate data as a resource for the hematology community.

Overall mortality was 28% at the time, according to the abstract, with nearly all of the deaths occurring in patients classified as having COVID-19 that was moderate (i.e., requiring hospitalization) or severe (i.e., requiring ICU admission).

“In some instances, death occurred after a decision was made to forgo ICU admission in favor of a palliative approach,” said Dr. Wood and coauthors in their report.

Dr. Wood reported research funding from Pfizer, consultancy with Teladoc/Best Doctors, and honoraria from the ASH Research Collaborative. Coauthors provided disclosures related to Celgene, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Pharmacyclics, and Amgen, among others.

SOURCE: Wood WA et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 215.

Patients with hematologic disease who develop COVID-19 may experience substantial morbidity and mortality related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to recent registry data reported at the all-virtual annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Overall mortality was 28% for the first 250 patients entered into the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, researchers reported in an abstract of their study findings.

However, the burden of death and moderate-to-severe COVID-19 outcomes was highest in patients with poorer prognosis and those with relapsed/refractory hematological disease, they added.

The most commonly represented malignancies were acute leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and myeloma or amyloidosis, according to the report.

Taken together, the findings do support an “emerging consensus” that COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality is significant in these patients, authors said – however, the current findings may not be reason enough to support a change in treatment course for the underlying disease.

“We see no reason, based on our data, to withhold intensive therapies from patients with underlying hematologic malignancies and favorable prognoses, if aggressive supportive care is consistent with patient preferences,” wrote the researchers.

ASH President Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, said these registry findings are important to better understand how SARS-CoV-2 is affecting not only patients with hematologic diseases, but also individuals who experience COVID-19-related hematologic complications.

However, the findings are limited due to the heterogeneity of diseases, symptoms, and treatments represented in the registry, said Dr. Lee, associate director of the clinical research division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.

“More data will be coming in, but I think this is an example of trying to harness real-world information to try to learn things until we get more controlled studies,” Dr. Lee said in a media briefing held in advance of the ASH meeting.
 

Comorbidities and more

Patients with blood cancers are often older and may have comorbidities such as diabetes or hypertension that have been linked to poor COVID-19 outcomes, according to the authors of the report, led by William A. Wood, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine with the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.

Moreover, these patients may have underlying immune dysfunction and may receive chemotherapy or immunotherapy that is “profoundly immunosuppressive,” Dr. Wood and coauthors said in their report.

To date, however, risks of morbidity and mortality related to SARS-CoV-2 infection have not been well defined in this patient population, authors said.

More data is emerging now from the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, which includes data on patients positive for COVID-19 who have a past or present hematologic condition or have experienced a hematologic complication related to COVID-19.

All data from the registry is being made available through a dashboard on the ASH Research Collaborative website, which as of Dec. 1, 2020, included 693 complete cases.

The data cut in the ASH abstract includes the first 250 patients enrolled at 74 sites around the world, the authors said. The most common malignancies included acute leukemia in 33%, non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 27%, and myeloma or amyloidosis in 16%.

The most frequently reported symptoms included fever in 73%, cough in 67%, dyspnea in 50%, and fatigue in 40%, according to that report.

At the time of this data snapshot, treatment with COVID-19-directed therapies including hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin were common, reported in 76 and 59 patients, respectively, in the cohort.

Batch submissions from sites with high incidence of COVID-19 infection are ongoing. The registry has been expanded to include nonmalignant hematologic diseases, and the registry will continue to accumulate data as a resource for the hematology community.

Overall mortality was 28% at the time, according to the abstract, with nearly all of the deaths occurring in patients classified as having COVID-19 that was moderate (i.e., requiring hospitalization) or severe (i.e., requiring ICU admission).

“In some instances, death occurred after a decision was made to forgo ICU admission in favor of a palliative approach,” said Dr. Wood and coauthors in their report.

Dr. Wood reported research funding from Pfizer, consultancy with Teladoc/Best Doctors, and honoraria from the ASH Research Collaborative. Coauthors provided disclosures related to Celgene, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Pharmacyclics, and Amgen, among others.

SOURCE: Wood WA et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 215.

Patients with hematologic disease who develop COVID-19 may experience substantial morbidity and mortality related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to recent registry data reported at the all-virtual annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Overall mortality was 28% for the first 250 patients entered into the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, researchers reported in an abstract of their study findings.

However, the burden of death and moderate-to-severe COVID-19 outcomes was highest in patients with poorer prognosis and those with relapsed/refractory hematological disease, they added.

The most commonly represented malignancies were acute leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and myeloma or amyloidosis, according to the report.

Taken together, the findings do support an “emerging consensus” that COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality is significant in these patients, authors said – however, the current findings may not be reason enough to support a change in treatment course for the underlying disease.

“We see no reason, based on our data, to withhold intensive therapies from patients with underlying hematologic malignancies and favorable prognoses, if aggressive supportive care is consistent with patient preferences,” wrote the researchers.

ASH President Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, said these registry findings are important to better understand how SARS-CoV-2 is affecting not only patients with hematologic diseases, but also individuals who experience COVID-19-related hematologic complications.

However, the findings are limited due to the heterogeneity of diseases, symptoms, and treatments represented in the registry, said Dr. Lee, associate director of the clinical research division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.

“More data will be coming in, but I think this is an example of trying to harness real-world information to try to learn things until we get more controlled studies,” Dr. Lee said in a media briefing held in advance of the ASH meeting.
 

Comorbidities and more

Patients with blood cancers are often older and may have comorbidities such as diabetes or hypertension that have been linked to poor COVID-19 outcomes, according to the authors of the report, led by William A. Wood, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine with the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.

Moreover, these patients may have underlying immune dysfunction and may receive chemotherapy or immunotherapy that is “profoundly immunosuppressive,” Dr. Wood and coauthors said in their report.

To date, however, risks of morbidity and mortality related to SARS-CoV-2 infection have not been well defined in this patient population, authors said.

More data is emerging now from the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, which includes data on patients positive for COVID-19 who have a past or present hematologic condition or have experienced a hematologic complication related to COVID-19.

All data from the registry is being made available through a dashboard on the ASH Research Collaborative website, which as of Dec. 1, 2020, included 693 complete cases.

The data cut in the ASH abstract includes the first 250 patients enrolled at 74 sites around the world, the authors said. The most common malignancies included acute leukemia in 33%, non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 27%, and myeloma or amyloidosis in 16%.

The most frequently reported symptoms included fever in 73%, cough in 67%, dyspnea in 50%, and fatigue in 40%, according to that report.

At the time of this data snapshot, treatment with COVID-19-directed therapies including hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin were common, reported in 76 and 59 patients, respectively, in the cohort.

Batch submissions from sites with high incidence of COVID-19 infection are ongoing. The registry has been expanded to include nonmalignant hematologic diseases, and the registry will continue to accumulate data as a resource for the hematology community.

Overall mortality was 28% at the time, according to the abstract, with nearly all of the deaths occurring in patients classified as having COVID-19 that was moderate (i.e., requiring hospitalization) or severe (i.e., requiring ICU admission).

“In some instances, death occurred after a decision was made to forgo ICU admission in favor of a palliative approach,” said Dr. Wood and coauthors in their report.

Dr. Wood reported research funding from Pfizer, consultancy with Teladoc/Best Doctors, and honoraria from the ASH Research Collaborative. Coauthors provided disclosures related to Celgene, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Pharmacyclics, and Amgen, among others.

SOURCE: Wood WA et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 215.

New results suggest that allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), which is typically reserved for younger patients, may well be offered to older patients with advanced myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

In patients with a median age of 66 years who had received a donor transplant, the overall survival (OS) at 3 years was almost double compared with patients who did not receive a transplant – 47.9% vs. 26.6% for the “no-donor” group.  

The finding comes from the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) Study 1102 (NCT02016781) presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2020 virtual meeting.

“This study conclusively solidifies the role of transplantation in older individuals with MDS,” presenter Corey Cutler, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston, said in an interview.

Coauthor Ryotaro Nakamura, MD, of City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview that this was the largest and first trial in the United States to determine in a prospective fashion that allogeneic stem cell transplantation offers a significant survival in older patients. “There was more than a 20% benefit in OS in this age group,” he said.

“This is an incredibly important study,” said Andrew Brunner, MD, medical oncologist at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, who was approached for comment. He explained that for years early transplant was recommended as important for patients who have higher-risk MDS. “This study validates this in a prospective, pseudo-randomized (donor/no donor) fashion,” he said in an interview.

“[This study] is really a seminal advance in the care of patients with MDS. Transplant should be integrated into the care algorithm, if not already, and we as a community need to build upon this study further,” Dr. Brunner added.

Several experts in addition to the authors hailed the study as practice changing.

Robert A. Brodsky, MD, ASH, director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that in younger patients bone marrow transplant is the standard of care for aggressive MDS, but a lot of practices do not refer older patients or those with comorbidities for transplant and prefer to give these patients palliative care with hypomethylating agents for fear that the transplant process would be too toxic.

“There has been an institutional bias to do transplant in older patients, but until now there was no randomized clinical trial to show that this is the right choice. Now we have the data,” Dr Brodsky said, predicting that “this study will change the standard of care.”

Henry Fung, MD, chair of the department of bone marrow transplant and cellular therapies at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agreed. “We should congratulate all the investigators and our patients who participated in this study. Reduced intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation improved disease control and overall survival with similar quality of life.

“I will recommend all patients with intermediate-2 or higher-risk MDS to be evaluated by the transplant team at diagnosis and eligible patients should be considered for a transplant,” Dr. Fung said in an interview.

Immediate impact on clinical practice

Lead author Dr. Cutler suggested that the study results had an immediate impact for changing clinical practice. “Individuals between the ages of 50 and 75 years with intermediate-2 or high-risk MDS who are eligible to undergo reduced-intensity transplantation had superior outcomes if they had a suitable donor for transplantation in comparison with those who did not have a donor,” he said.

Dr. Cutler further explained that many community-based hematologists do not refer their patients for transplantation. In addition, there is a lack of a uniform payer position for transplantation for MDS, he noted. Also, there is a lack of understanding of the cost-effectiveness of transplantation in comparison to nontransplant strategies, he suggested.

“Transplant is curative for MDS,” he emphasized. Most transplant recipients will eventually become transfusion-independent within weeks to months from transplant.

“We do transplants in this age group all the time,” Dr. Cutler noted. He said that academic centers will continue to offer transplants, and suggested that community oncologists encourage referral to transplant centers early in a patient’s disease course to maximize search time and provide patients all potential options for therapy.

Dr. Brunner agreed and noted that there is a need to build capacity for higher transplant volume, and in general physicians should seek ways to expand this treatment option to more patients. “At this time, allogeneic transplant still requires close collaboration with referral centers; that said, more and more we are able to work closely with colleagues in the community to share management, including earlier after the actual transplant,” he said.

He noted that one silver lining of the pandemic in 2020 has been increased use of telemedicine to collaborate. “Ongoing advances may be able to further encourage these virtual connections to enhance the entire patient care experience,” Dr. Brunner said.
 

Reimbursement by CMS for Medicare recipients

Despite the data showing benefit, allogeneic stem cell transplantation is not offered to older individuals with high-risk MDS and is not covered by Medicare in the United States, Dr. Cutler noted in his presentation.

“This study was spurred by the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] ruling for transplantation in MDS and the story has come full circle,” Aaron T. Gerds, MD, MS, noted at a preconference press briefing. Dr. Gerds is chair of the ASH Committee on Communications and assistant professor at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland.

Dr. Nakamura explained that in 2010 a CMS decision memo noted that the evidence of a benefit for transplantation in MDS was lacking and Medicare would not cover transplant unless patients were enrolled in a clinical study. That memo outlined criteria that a clinical trial would have to address before it could consider reimbursement for Medicare beneficiaries.

“The BMT CTN Study 1102 was one of two studies that met the criteria set by CMS,” Dr. Nakamura said, noting that the data are being prepared for CMS review.

“This study will likely be the deciding factor for CMS to begin to cover payment for transplantation for MDS,” said Dr. Cutler.

The other study, published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology, showed that outcomes for patients older than ager 65 were similar to those of patients aged 55-65.
 

BMT CTN 1102 study details

Dr. Cutler noted that the study was designed to address the issue of whether transplantation was beneficial to Medicare-aged individuals with high-risk MDS, and the trial had been approved by Medicare.

The multicenter study enrolled patients who were between ages 50 and 75 years and had newly diagnosed MDS of higher risk (International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS] intermediate-2 or higher) and were candidates for reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT.

Patients were enrolled prior to a formal donor search and were initially assigned to the “no donor” group and reassigned to the donor group when a suitable donor (matched sibling or unrelated donor) was identified. Patients underwent RIC HCT according to institution protocol.

Of 384 patients, 260 received RIC HCT and 124 received hypomethylating therapy. Median follow-up was 34.2 months for the donor group and 26.9 months for the no-donor group.

The two arms were well balanced with respect to age (median 66 years), gender, disease risk [two-thirds of the patients had an intermediate-2 and one third had a high-risk MDS], and response to hypomethylating therapy. The majority of subjects in the donor arm had unrelated donors and more than one-third had a high comorbidity score, Dr. Cutler indicated.

At 3 years, absolute improvement in OS was 21.3% in favor of donor-arm subjects. Leukemia-free survival was also higher in the donor group: 35.8% vs. 20.6% for the no-donor group.

Improvement in OS for patients receiving transplants was seen across all patient subtypes, regardless of age, response to hypomethylating therapy, and IPSS score. “Treatment effects were seen in any subgroup, but particularly in subjects above age 65,” Dr. Cutler stressed.

In an as-treated analysis that excluded subjects who died, the treatment effects were even more pronounced, with an absolute improvement in OS of 31.4% (47.4% vs. 16% for the no-donor arm) and improvement in leukemia-free survival of 28.4% (39.3% vs. 10.9% for the no-donor arm).

In 25 patients in the no-donor arm who subsequently went on to receive alternate donor transplant, the 3-year OS and leukemia-free survival was 58.5%, underscoring the potential value of alternate donor transplant, Dr. Cutler noted.

Dr. Nakamura emphasized that the gains in survival benefits were not seen at the expense of quality of life, as preliminary results showed no difference in quality-of-life measures across those who received donor transplants and those who did not.

Dr. Brunner noted that physicians often highlight the toxicities of transplant as a consideration for whether to proceed, and while there are toxicities specific to transplant that should be considered, in this study it is seen that, even early on, survival is improved in those patients who move toward early transplant. “It also underscores the limitations of current nontransplant treatments for MDS – there is much room to improve,” he said.
 

Role for alternate donors

Dr. Cutler noted that the majority of patients in the no-donor group died without transplantation. “We need to establish the role of alternative donor transplantation in this population,” he said. Dr. Nakamura indicated that mismatched donors and haploidentical donors such as family donors and umbilical cord blood may be alternate donor sources; outcomes from published studies show similar results, he said.

However, Dr. Brunner noted that the study looked only at traditional fully matched donors, leaving open some questions about alternative donor options such as haploidentical donors and umbilical cord blood donation.

“Our experience in other areas of transplant would suggest that these donor sources may be as good as traditional fully matched options, when using newer conditioning and prophylaxis regimens,” Dr. Brunner said.

Dr. Cutler added, “With the increased acceptance of alternate transplant modalities, we need to determine the outcomes associated with these in prospective trials.”

“I think a significant consideration here as well is health equity,” Dr. Brunner said. “Donor options vary according to race and ethnicity and we need to be proactive as a community to ensure that all MDS patients have access to a potentially curative option early in their diagnosis.”

Dr. Cutler reports consultancy for Mesoblast, Generon, Medsenic, Jazz, Kadmon, and Incyte. Dr. Nakamura reports relationships with Magenta Therapeutics, Kyowa-Kirin, Alexion, Merck, NapaJen Pharma, Kadmon Corporation, Celgene, and Viracor. Dr. Fung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Brodsky reports receiving funding from and being on the board/advisory committee for Achillion Pharmaceuticals, consults with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and receives honoraria from UpToDate. Dr. Brunner reports relationships with Biogen, Acceleron Pharma Inc, Celgene/BMS, Forty Seven Inc, Jazz Pharma, Novartis, Takeda, Xcenda, GSK, Janssen, and AstraZeneca.

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

New results suggest that allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), which is typically reserved for younger patients, may well be offered to older patients with advanced myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

In patients with a median age of 66 years who had received a donor transplant, the overall survival (OS) at 3 years was almost double compared with patients who did not receive a transplant – 47.9% vs. 26.6% for the “no-donor” group.  

The finding comes from the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) Study 1102 (NCT02016781) presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2020 virtual meeting.

“This study conclusively solidifies the role of transplantation in older individuals with MDS,” presenter Corey Cutler, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston, said in an interview.

Coauthor Ryotaro Nakamura, MD, of City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview that this was the largest and first trial in the United States to determine in a prospective fashion that allogeneic stem cell transplantation offers a significant survival in older patients. “There was more than a 20% benefit in OS in this age group,” he said.

“This is an incredibly important study,” said Andrew Brunner, MD, medical oncologist at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, who was approached for comment. He explained that for years early transplant was recommended as important for patients who have higher-risk MDS. “This study validates this in a prospective, pseudo-randomized (donor/no donor) fashion,” he said in an interview.

“[This study] is really a seminal advance in the care of patients with MDS. Transplant should be integrated into the care algorithm, if not already, and we as a community need to build upon this study further,” Dr. Brunner added.

Several experts in addition to the authors hailed the study as practice changing.

Robert A. Brodsky, MD, ASH, director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that in younger patients bone marrow transplant is the standard of care for aggressive MDS, but a lot of practices do not refer older patients or those with comorbidities for transplant and prefer to give these patients palliative care with hypomethylating agents for fear that the transplant process would be too toxic.

“There has been an institutional bias to do transplant in older patients, but until now there was no randomized clinical trial to show that this is the right choice. Now we have the data,” Dr Brodsky said, predicting that “this study will change the standard of care.”

Henry Fung, MD, chair of the department of bone marrow transplant and cellular therapies at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agreed. “We should congratulate all the investigators and our patients who participated in this study. Reduced intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation improved disease control and overall survival with similar quality of life.

“I will recommend all patients with intermediate-2 or higher-risk MDS to be evaluated by the transplant team at diagnosis and eligible patients should be considered for a transplant,” Dr. Fung said in an interview.

Immediate impact on clinical practice

Lead author Dr. Cutler suggested that the study results had an immediate impact for changing clinical practice. “Individuals between the ages of 50 and 75 years with intermediate-2 or high-risk MDS who are eligible to undergo reduced-intensity transplantation had superior outcomes if they had a suitable donor for transplantation in comparison with those who did not have a donor,” he said.

Dr. Cutler further explained that many community-based hematologists do not refer their patients for transplantation. In addition, there is a lack of a uniform payer position for transplantation for MDS, he noted. Also, there is a lack of understanding of the cost-effectiveness of transplantation in comparison to nontransplant strategies, he suggested.

“Transplant is curative for MDS,” he emphasized. Most transplant recipients will eventually become transfusion-independent within weeks to months from transplant.

“We do transplants in this age group all the time,” Dr. Cutler noted. He said that academic centers will continue to offer transplants, and suggested that community oncologists encourage referral to transplant centers early in a patient’s disease course to maximize search time and provide patients all potential options for therapy.

Dr. Brunner agreed and noted that there is a need to build capacity for higher transplant volume, and in general physicians should seek ways to expand this treatment option to more patients. “At this time, allogeneic transplant still requires close collaboration with referral centers; that said, more and more we are able to work closely with colleagues in the community to share management, including earlier after the actual transplant,” he said.

He noted that one silver lining of the pandemic in 2020 has been increased use of telemedicine to collaborate. “Ongoing advances may be able to further encourage these virtual connections to enhance the entire patient care experience,” Dr. Brunner said.
 

Reimbursement by CMS for Medicare recipients

Despite the data showing benefit, allogeneic stem cell transplantation is not offered to older individuals with high-risk MDS and is not covered by Medicare in the United States, Dr. Cutler noted in his presentation.

“This study was spurred by the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] ruling for transplantation in MDS and the story has come full circle,” Aaron T. Gerds, MD, MS, noted at a preconference press briefing. Dr. Gerds is chair of the ASH Committee on Communications and assistant professor at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland.

Dr. Nakamura explained that in 2010 a CMS decision memo noted that the evidence of a benefit for transplantation in MDS was lacking and Medicare would not cover transplant unless patients were enrolled in a clinical study. That memo outlined criteria that a clinical trial would have to address before it could consider reimbursement for Medicare beneficiaries.

“The BMT CTN Study 1102 was one of two studies that met the criteria set by CMS,” Dr. Nakamura said, noting that the data are being prepared for CMS review.

“This study will likely be the deciding factor for CMS to begin to cover payment for transplantation for MDS,” said Dr. Cutler.

The other study, published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology, showed that outcomes for patients older than ager 65 were similar to those of patients aged 55-65.
 

BMT CTN 1102 study details

Dr. Cutler noted that the study was designed to address the issue of whether transplantation was beneficial to Medicare-aged individuals with high-risk MDS, and the trial had been approved by Medicare.

The multicenter study enrolled patients who were between ages 50 and 75 years and had newly diagnosed MDS of higher risk (International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS] intermediate-2 or higher) and were candidates for reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT.

Patients were enrolled prior to a formal donor search and were initially assigned to the “no donor” group and reassigned to the donor group when a suitable donor (matched sibling or unrelated donor) was identified. Patients underwent RIC HCT according to institution protocol.

Of 384 patients, 260 received RIC HCT and 124 received hypomethylating therapy. Median follow-up was 34.2 months for the donor group and 26.9 months for the no-donor group.

The two arms were well balanced with respect to age (median 66 years), gender, disease risk [two-thirds of the patients had an intermediate-2 and one third had a high-risk MDS], and response to hypomethylating therapy. The majority of subjects in the donor arm had unrelated donors and more than one-third had a high comorbidity score, Dr. Cutler indicated.

At 3 years, absolute improvement in OS was 21.3% in favor of donor-arm subjects. Leukemia-free survival was also higher in the donor group: 35.8% vs. 20.6% for the no-donor group.

Improvement in OS for patients receiving transplants was seen across all patient subtypes, regardless of age, response to hypomethylating therapy, and IPSS score. “Treatment effects were seen in any subgroup, but particularly in subjects above age 65,” Dr. Cutler stressed.

In an as-treated analysis that excluded subjects who died, the treatment effects were even more pronounced, with an absolute improvement in OS of 31.4% (47.4% vs. 16% for the no-donor arm) and improvement in leukemia-free survival of 28.4% (39.3% vs. 10.9% for the no-donor arm).

In 25 patients in the no-donor arm who subsequently went on to receive alternate donor transplant, the 3-year OS and leukemia-free survival was 58.5%, underscoring the potential value of alternate donor transplant, Dr. Cutler noted.

Dr. Nakamura emphasized that the gains in survival benefits were not seen at the expense of quality of life, as preliminary results showed no difference in quality-of-life measures across those who received donor transplants and those who did not.

Dr. Brunner noted that physicians often highlight the toxicities of transplant as a consideration for whether to proceed, and while there are toxicities specific to transplant that should be considered, in this study it is seen that, even early on, survival is improved in those patients who move toward early transplant. “It also underscores the limitations of current nontransplant treatments for MDS – there is much room to improve,” he said.
 

Role for alternate donors

Dr. Cutler noted that the majority of patients in the no-donor group died without transplantation. “We need to establish the role of alternative donor transplantation in this population,” he said. Dr. Nakamura indicated that mismatched donors and haploidentical donors such as family donors and umbilical cord blood may be alternate donor sources; outcomes from published studies show similar results, he said.

However, Dr. Brunner noted that the study looked only at traditional fully matched donors, leaving open some questions about alternative donor options such as haploidentical donors and umbilical cord blood donation.

“Our experience in other areas of transplant would suggest that these donor sources may be as good as traditional fully matched options, when using newer conditioning and prophylaxis regimens,” Dr. Brunner said.

Dr. Cutler added, “With the increased acceptance of alternate transplant modalities, we need to determine the outcomes associated with these in prospective trials.”

“I think a significant consideration here as well is health equity,” Dr. Brunner said. “Donor options vary according to race and ethnicity and we need to be proactive as a community to ensure that all MDS patients have access to a potentially curative option early in their diagnosis.”

Dr. Cutler reports consultancy for Mesoblast, Generon, Medsenic, Jazz, Kadmon, and Incyte. Dr. Nakamura reports relationships with Magenta Therapeutics, Kyowa-Kirin, Alexion, Merck, NapaJen Pharma, Kadmon Corporation, Celgene, and Viracor. Dr. Fung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Brodsky reports receiving funding from and being on the board/advisory committee for Achillion Pharmaceuticals, consults with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and receives honoraria from UpToDate. Dr. Brunner reports relationships with Biogen, Acceleron Pharma Inc, Celgene/BMS, Forty Seven Inc, Jazz Pharma, Novartis, Takeda, Xcenda, GSK, Janssen, and AstraZeneca.

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

New results suggest that allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), which is typically reserved for younger patients, may well be offered to older patients with advanced myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

In patients with a median age of 66 years who had received a donor transplant, the overall survival (OS) at 3 years was almost double compared with patients who did not receive a transplant – 47.9% vs. 26.6% for the “no-donor” group.  

The finding comes from the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) Study 1102 (NCT02016781) presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2020 virtual meeting.

“This study conclusively solidifies the role of transplantation in older individuals with MDS,” presenter Corey Cutler, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston, said in an interview.

Coauthor Ryotaro Nakamura, MD, of City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview that this was the largest and first trial in the United States to determine in a prospective fashion that allogeneic stem cell transplantation offers a significant survival in older patients. “There was more than a 20% benefit in OS in this age group,” he said.

“This is an incredibly important study,” said Andrew Brunner, MD, medical oncologist at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, who was approached for comment. He explained that for years early transplant was recommended as important for patients who have higher-risk MDS. “This study validates this in a prospective, pseudo-randomized (donor/no donor) fashion,” he said in an interview.

“[This study] is really a seminal advance in the care of patients with MDS. Transplant should be integrated into the care algorithm, if not already, and we as a community need to build upon this study further,” Dr. Brunner added.

Several experts in addition to the authors hailed the study as practice changing.

Robert A. Brodsky, MD, ASH, director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that in younger patients bone marrow transplant is the standard of care for aggressive MDS, but a lot of practices do not refer older patients or those with comorbidities for transplant and prefer to give these patients palliative care with hypomethylating agents for fear that the transplant process would be too toxic.

“There has been an institutional bias to do transplant in older patients, but until now there was no randomized clinical trial to show that this is the right choice. Now we have the data,” Dr Brodsky said, predicting that “this study will change the standard of care.”

Henry Fung, MD, chair of the department of bone marrow transplant and cellular therapies at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agreed. “We should congratulate all the investigators and our patients who participated in this study. Reduced intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation improved disease control and overall survival with similar quality of life.

“I will recommend all patients with intermediate-2 or higher-risk MDS to be evaluated by the transplant team at diagnosis and eligible patients should be considered for a transplant,” Dr. Fung said in an interview.

Immediate impact on clinical practice

Lead author Dr. Cutler suggested that the study results had an immediate impact for changing clinical practice. “Individuals between the ages of 50 and 75 years with intermediate-2 or high-risk MDS who are eligible to undergo reduced-intensity transplantation had superior outcomes if they had a suitable donor for transplantation in comparison with those who did not have a donor,” he said.

Dr. Cutler further explained that many community-based hematologists do not refer their patients for transplantation. In addition, there is a lack of a uniform payer position for transplantation for MDS, he noted. Also, there is a lack of understanding of the cost-effectiveness of transplantation in comparison to nontransplant strategies, he suggested.

“Transplant is curative for MDS,” he emphasized. Most transplant recipients will eventually become transfusion-independent within weeks to months from transplant.

“We do transplants in this age group all the time,” Dr. Cutler noted. He said that academic centers will continue to offer transplants, and suggested that community oncologists encourage referral to transplant centers early in a patient’s disease course to maximize search time and provide patients all potential options for therapy.

Dr. Brunner agreed and noted that there is a need to build capacity for higher transplant volume, and in general physicians should seek ways to expand this treatment option to more patients. “At this time, allogeneic transplant still requires close collaboration with referral centers; that said, more and more we are able to work closely with colleagues in the community to share management, including earlier after the actual transplant,” he said.

He noted that one silver lining of the pandemic in 2020 has been increased use of telemedicine to collaborate. “Ongoing advances may be able to further encourage these virtual connections to enhance the entire patient care experience,” Dr. Brunner said.
 

Reimbursement by CMS for Medicare recipients

Despite the data showing benefit, allogeneic stem cell transplantation is not offered to older individuals with high-risk MDS and is not covered by Medicare in the United States, Dr. Cutler noted in his presentation.

“This study was spurred by the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] ruling for transplantation in MDS and the story has come full circle,” Aaron T. Gerds, MD, MS, noted at a preconference press briefing. Dr. Gerds is chair of the ASH Committee on Communications and assistant professor at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland.

Dr. Nakamura explained that in 2010 a CMS decision memo noted that the evidence of a benefit for transplantation in MDS was lacking and Medicare would not cover transplant unless patients were enrolled in a clinical study. That memo outlined criteria that a clinical trial would have to address before it could consider reimbursement for Medicare beneficiaries.

“The BMT CTN Study 1102 was one of two studies that met the criteria set by CMS,” Dr. Nakamura said, noting that the data are being prepared for CMS review.

“This study will likely be the deciding factor for CMS to begin to cover payment for transplantation for MDS,” said Dr. Cutler.

The other study, published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology, showed that outcomes for patients older than ager 65 were similar to those of patients aged 55-65.
 

BMT CTN 1102 study details

Dr. Cutler noted that the study was designed to address the issue of whether transplantation was beneficial to Medicare-aged individuals with high-risk MDS, and the trial had been approved by Medicare.

The multicenter study enrolled patients who were between ages 50 and 75 years and had newly diagnosed MDS of higher risk (International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS] intermediate-2 or higher) and were candidates for reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT.

Patients were enrolled prior to a formal donor search and were initially assigned to the “no donor” group and reassigned to the donor group when a suitable donor (matched sibling or unrelated donor) was identified. Patients underwent RIC HCT according to institution protocol.

Of 384 patients, 260 received RIC HCT and 124 received hypomethylating therapy. Median follow-up was 34.2 months for the donor group and 26.9 months for the no-donor group.

The two arms were well balanced with respect to age (median 66 years), gender, disease risk [two-thirds of the patients had an intermediate-2 and one third had a high-risk MDS], and response to hypomethylating therapy. The majority of subjects in the donor arm had unrelated donors and more than one-third had a high comorbidity score, Dr. Cutler indicated.

At 3 years, absolute improvement in OS was 21.3% in favor of donor-arm subjects. Leukemia-free survival was also higher in the donor group: 35.8% vs. 20.6% for the no-donor group.

Improvement in OS for patients receiving transplants was seen across all patient subtypes, regardless of age, response to hypomethylating therapy, and IPSS score. “Treatment effects were seen in any subgroup, but particularly in subjects above age 65,” Dr. Cutler stressed.

In an as-treated analysis that excluded subjects who died, the treatment effects were even more pronounced, with an absolute improvement in OS of 31.4% (47.4% vs. 16% for the no-donor arm) and improvement in leukemia-free survival of 28.4% (39.3% vs. 10.9% for the no-donor arm).

In 25 patients in the no-donor arm who subsequently went on to receive alternate donor transplant, the 3-year OS and leukemia-free survival was 58.5%, underscoring the potential value of alternate donor transplant, Dr. Cutler noted.

Dr. Nakamura emphasized that the gains in survival benefits were not seen at the expense of quality of life, as preliminary results showed no difference in quality-of-life measures across those who received donor transplants and those who did not.

Dr. Brunner noted that physicians often highlight the toxicities of transplant as a consideration for whether to proceed, and while there are toxicities specific to transplant that should be considered, in this study it is seen that, even early on, survival is improved in those patients who move toward early transplant. “It also underscores the limitations of current nontransplant treatments for MDS – there is much room to improve,” he said.
 

Role for alternate donors

Dr. Cutler noted that the majority of patients in the no-donor group died without transplantation. “We need to establish the role of alternative donor transplantation in this population,” he said. Dr. Nakamura indicated that mismatched donors and haploidentical donors such as family donors and umbilical cord blood may be alternate donor sources; outcomes from published studies show similar results, he said.

However, Dr. Brunner noted that the study looked only at traditional fully matched donors, leaving open some questions about alternative donor options such as haploidentical donors and umbilical cord blood donation.

“Our experience in other areas of transplant would suggest that these donor sources may be as good as traditional fully matched options, when using newer conditioning and prophylaxis regimens,” Dr. Brunner said.

Dr. Cutler added, “With the increased acceptance of alternate transplant modalities, we need to determine the outcomes associated with these in prospective trials.”

“I think a significant consideration here as well is health equity,” Dr. Brunner said. “Donor options vary according to race and ethnicity and we need to be proactive as a community to ensure that all MDS patients have access to a potentially curative option early in their diagnosis.”

Dr. Cutler reports consultancy for Mesoblast, Generon, Medsenic, Jazz, Kadmon, and Incyte. Dr. Nakamura reports relationships with Magenta Therapeutics, Kyowa-Kirin, Alexion, Merck, NapaJen Pharma, Kadmon Corporation, Celgene, and Viracor. Dr. Fung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Brodsky reports receiving funding from and being on the board/advisory committee for Achillion Pharmaceuticals, consults with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and receives honoraria from UpToDate. Dr. Brunner reports relationships with Biogen, Acceleron Pharma Inc, Celgene/BMS, Forty Seven Inc, Jazz Pharma, Novartis, Takeda, Xcenda, GSK, Janssen, and AstraZeneca.

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

Primary thromboprophylaxis is feasible and worth considering for high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer who are initiating systemic chemotherapy, according to Marc Carrier, MD.

Risk scores can identify patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and treatments that are effective and associated with low bleeding risk are available, Dr. Carrier explained at the biennial summit of the Thrombosis & Hemostasis Societies of North America.

However, caution is advised in patients with certain types of cancer, including some gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancers, because of the possibility of increased major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding risk, he said.
 

VTE and cancer

VTE is relatively rare in the general population, occurring in about 1 or 2 per 1,000 people annually. The risk increases 4.1-fold in patients with cancer, and 6.5-fold in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

“So just putting these numbers together, we’re no longer talking about 1 in 1,000, but 1 in 200, so [this is] something that is very common among cancer patients,” said Dr. Carrier, a professor at the University of Ottawa and chief of the division of hematology at The Ottawa Hospital.

The mortality rate associated with cancer-associated thrombosis is about 9%, comparable to that associated with infection in the cancer outpatient setting, which underscores the importance of educating patients about the signs and symptoms of VTE so they can seek medical treatment quickly if necessary, he added.

It may also be useful to discuss prophylaxis or other ways to prevent venous thromboembolic complications with certain patients, he said, noting that in an observational cohort study of nearly 600 patients at the University of Ottawa, 25% of those initiating chemotherapy were identified as intermediate or high risk using the validated Khorana risk score, and thus would likely benefit from thromboprophylaxis.
 

Risk assessment

The Khorana risk score assesses VTE risk based on cancer site, blood counts, and body mass index. It is simple to use and has been validated in more than 20,000 people in multiple countries, Dr. Carrier said.

In a well-known validation study, Ay et al. showed a VTE complication rate of 10% in patients with a Khorana risk score of 2 or higher who were followed up to 6 months.

“This is huge,” Dr. Carrier stressed. “This is much higher than what we tolerate for all sorts of different populations for which we would recommend anticoagulation or thromboprophylaxis.”

The question is whether the risk score can be helpful in a real-world clinic setting, he said, adding: “I’d like to think the answer to that is yes.”

In the University of Ottawa cohort study, 11% of high-risk patients experienced a VTE complication, compared with 4% of those with lower risk, suggesting that the validation data for the Khorana risk score is not only accurate, it is “actually applicable in real-world practice, and you can use it in your own center,” he said.

Further, recent studies have demonstrated that treatment based on Khorana risk score assessment reduces VTE complications.
 

Prophylaxis options

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has been shown in several studies to be associated with a significant relative VTE risk reduction in patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy – with only a slight, nonsignificant increase in the risk of major bleeding.

However, the absolute benefit was small, and LMWH is “parenteral, relatively costly, and, based on that, although we showed relatively good risk-benefit ratio, it never really got translated to clinical practice,” Dr. Carrier said.

In fact, a 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines update recommended against routine thromboprophylaxis in this setting, but stated that it could be considered in select high-risk patients identified using a validated risk-assessment tool.

The guidelines noted that “individual risk factors such as biomarkers and cancer site don’t reliably identify high-risk patients.”

More recent data provide additional support for risk assessment and treatment based on Khorana risk score of 2 or higher.

The AVERT trial, for which Dr. Carrier was the first author, showed that the direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) apixaban reduced VTE incidence, compared with placebo, in patients with Khorana score of 2 or higher (4.2% vs. 10.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41 overall, and 1.0 vs. 7.3; HR, 0.14 on treatment), and the CASSINI trial showed that another DOAC, rivaroxaban, reduced VTE incidence, compared with placebo, in those with Khorana score of 2 or higher (5.9 vs. 6.7; HR, 0.6 overall, and 2.6 vs. 6.4; HR, 0.40 on treatment). The differences in the on-treatment populations were statistically significant.

The two trials, which included a variety of tumor types, showed similar rates of major bleeding, with an absolute difference of about 1% between treatment and placebo, which was not statistically significant in the on-treatment analyses (HR, 1.89 in AVERT and HR, 1.96 in CASSINI).

A systematic review of these trials showed an overall significant decrease in VTE complication risk with treatment in high-risk patients, and a nonstatistically significant major bleeding risk increase.

Based on these findings, ASCO guidelines were updated in 2020 to state that “routine thromboprophylaxis should not be offered to all patients with cancer. ... However, high-risk outpatients with cancer may be offered thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban or LMWH, providing there are no significant risk factors for bleeding or drug-drug interactions, and after having a full discussion with patients ... to make sure they understand the risk-benefit ratio and the rationale for that particular recommendation,” he said.
 

Real-world implementation

Implementing this approach in the clinic setting requires a practical model, such as the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTEPACC) program, a prospective quality improvement research initiative developed in collaboration with the Jeffords Institute for Quality at the University of Vermont Medical Center and described in a recent report, Dr. Carrier said.

The “Vermont model” is “really a comprehensive model that includes identifying patients with the electronic medical records, gathering the formal education and insight from other health care providers like pharmacists and nurses in order to really come up with personalized care for your patients,” he explained.

In 918 outpatients with cancer who were included in the program, VTE awareness increased from less than 5% before VTEPACC to nearly 82% during the implementation phase and 94.7% after 2 years, with nearly 94% of high-risk patients receiving VTE prophylaxis at that time.

“So we can certainly do that in our own center.” he said. “It’s a matter of coming up with the model and making sure that the patients are seen at the right time.”

Given the high frequency of VTE in patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy, the usefulness of risk scores such as the Khorana risk score for identifying those at high risk, and the availability of safe and effective interventions for reducing risk, “we should probably use the data and incorporate them into clinical practice by implementation of programs for primary prevention,” he said.
 

A word of caution

Caution is warranted, however, when it comes to using DOACs in patients with higher-risk or potentially higher-risk tumor types, he added.

“It’s an important question we are facing as clinicians on a daily basis,” he said, responding to an attendee’s query, as shared by session moderator James Douketis, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., regarding possible bleeding risks in certain genitourinary cancers.

A recent meta-analysis published in Nature, for example, noted that, in the SELECT-D trial, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, most often in bladder and colorectal cancers, and most often at genitourinary and gastrointestinal sites.

Both Dr. Carrier and fellow panelist Michael Streiff, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University and medical director at the Johns Hopkins Hospital Special Coagulation Laboratory, Baltimore, said they approach DOAC use cautiously, but don’t rule it out entirely, in patients with unresected genitourinary tumors that could pose a risk of bleeding.

“It’s worth mentioning and being cautious. In my own personal practice, I’m very careful with unresected urothelial-type tumors or, for example, bladder cancer, for the same reason as [with] unresected luminal GI tumors,” Dr. Carrier said, adding that he’s also mindful that patients with nephropathy were excluded from U.S. DOAC trials because of bleeding risk.

He said he sometimes tries a LMWH challenge first in higher-risk patients, and then might try a DOAC if no bleeding occurs.

“But it certainly is controversial,” he noted.

Dr. Streiff added that he also worries less with genitourinary cancers than with upper GI lesions because “the signals weren’t as big as in GI” cancers, but he noted that “the drugs are going out through the kidneys ... so I’m cautious in those populations.”

“So caution, but not complete exclusion, is the operative management,” Dr. Douketis said, summarizing the panelists’ consensus.

Dr. Carrier reported clinical trial or advisory board participation for Bayer, Pfizer, Servier, Leo Pharma, and/or BMS.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Primary thromboprophylaxis is feasible and worth considering for high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer who are initiating systemic chemotherapy, according to Marc Carrier, MD.

Risk scores can identify patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and treatments that are effective and associated with low bleeding risk are available, Dr. Carrier explained at the biennial summit of the Thrombosis & Hemostasis Societies of North America.

However, caution is advised in patients with certain types of cancer, including some gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancers, because of the possibility of increased major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding risk, he said.
 

VTE and cancer

VTE is relatively rare in the general population, occurring in about 1 or 2 per 1,000 people annually. The risk increases 4.1-fold in patients with cancer, and 6.5-fold in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

“So just putting these numbers together, we’re no longer talking about 1 in 1,000, but 1 in 200, so [this is] something that is very common among cancer patients,” said Dr. Carrier, a professor at the University of Ottawa and chief of the division of hematology at The Ottawa Hospital.

The mortality rate associated with cancer-associated thrombosis is about 9%, comparable to that associated with infection in the cancer outpatient setting, which underscores the importance of educating patients about the signs and symptoms of VTE so they can seek medical treatment quickly if necessary, he added.

It may also be useful to discuss prophylaxis or other ways to prevent venous thromboembolic complications with certain patients, he said, noting that in an observational cohort study of nearly 600 patients at the University of Ottawa, 25% of those initiating chemotherapy were identified as intermediate or high risk using the validated Khorana risk score, and thus would likely benefit from thromboprophylaxis.
 

Risk assessment

The Khorana risk score assesses VTE risk based on cancer site, blood counts, and body mass index. It is simple to use and has been validated in more than 20,000 people in multiple countries, Dr. Carrier said.

In a well-known validation study, Ay et al. showed a VTE complication rate of 10% in patients with a Khorana risk score of 2 or higher who were followed up to 6 months.

“This is huge,” Dr. Carrier stressed. “This is much higher than what we tolerate for all sorts of different populations for which we would recommend anticoagulation or thromboprophylaxis.”

The question is whether the risk score can be helpful in a real-world clinic setting, he said, adding: “I’d like to think the answer to that is yes.”

In the University of Ottawa cohort study, 11% of high-risk patients experienced a VTE complication, compared with 4% of those with lower risk, suggesting that the validation data for the Khorana risk score is not only accurate, it is “actually applicable in real-world practice, and you can use it in your own center,” he said.

Further, recent studies have demonstrated that treatment based on Khorana risk score assessment reduces VTE complications.
 

Prophylaxis options

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has been shown in several studies to be associated with a significant relative VTE risk reduction in patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy – with only a slight, nonsignificant increase in the risk of major bleeding.

However, the absolute benefit was small, and LMWH is “parenteral, relatively costly, and, based on that, although we showed relatively good risk-benefit ratio, it never really got translated to clinical practice,” Dr. Carrier said.

In fact, a 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines update recommended against routine thromboprophylaxis in this setting, but stated that it could be considered in select high-risk patients identified using a validated risk-assessment tool.

The guidelines noted that “individual risk factors such as biomarkers and cancer site don’t reliably identify high-risk patients.”

More recent data provide additional support for risk assessment and treatment based on Khorana risk score of 2 or higher.

The AVERT trial, for which Dr. Carrier was the first author, showed that the direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) apixaban reduced VTE incidence, compared with placebo, in patients with Khorana score of 2 or higher (4.2% vs. 10.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41 overall, and 1.0 vs. 7.3; HR, 0.14 on treatment), and the CASSINI trial showed that another DOAC, rivaroxaban, reduced VTE incidence, compared with placebo, in those with Khorana score of 2 or higher (5.9 vs. 6.7; HR, 0.6 overall, and 2.6 vs. 6.4; HR, 0.40 on treatment). The differences in the on-treatment populations were statistically significant.

The two trials, which included a variety of tumor types, showed similar rates of major bleeding, with an absolute difference of about 1% between treatment and placebo, which was not statistically significant in the on-treatment analyses (HR, 1.89 in AVERT and HR, 1.96 in CASSINI).

A systematic review of these trials showed an overall significant decrease in VTE complication risk with treatment in high-risk patients, and a nonstatistically significant major bleeding risk increase.

Based on these findings, ASCO guidelines were updated in 2020 to state that “routine thromboprophylaxis should not be offered to all patients with cancer. ... However, high-risk outpatients with cancer may be offered thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban or LMWH, providing there are no significant risk factors for bleeding or drug-drug interactions, and after having a full discussion with patients ... to make sure they understand the risk-benefit ratio and the rationale for that particular recommendation,” he said.
 

Real-world implementation

Implementing this approach in the clinic setting requires a practical model, such as the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTEPACC) program, a prospective quality improvement research initiative developed in collaboration with the Jeffords Institute for Quality at the University of Vermont Medical Center and described in a recent report, Dr. Carrier said.

The “Vermont model” is “really a comprehensive model that includes identifying patients with the electronic medical records, gathering the formal education and insight from other health care providers like pharmacists and nurses in order to really come up with personalized care for your patients,” he explained.

In 918 outpatients with cancer who were included in the program, VTE awareness increased from less than 5% before VTEPACC to nearly 82% during the implementation phase and 94.7% after 2 years, with nearly 94% of high-risk patients receiving VTE prophylaxis at that time.

“So we can certainly do that in our own center.” he said. “It’s a matter of coming up with the model and making sure that the patients are seen at the right time.”

Given the high frequency of VTE in patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy, the usefulness of risk scores such as the Khorana risk score for identifying those at high risk, and the availability of safe and effective interventions for reducing risk, “we should probably use the data and incorporate them into clinical practice by implementation of programs for primary prevention,” he said.
 

A word of caution

Caution is warranted, however, when it comes to using DOACs in patients with higher-risk or potentially higher-risk tumor types, he added.

“It’s an important question we are facing as clinicians on a daily basis,” he said, responding to an attendee’s query, as shared by session moderator James Douketis, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., regarding possible bleeding risks in certain genitourinary cancers.

A recent meta-analysis published in Nature, for example, noted that, in the SELECT-D trial, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, most often in bladder and colorectal cancers, and most often at genitourinary and gastrointestinal sites.

Both Dr. Carrier and fellow panelist Michael Streiff, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University and medical director at the Johns Hopkins Hospital Special Coagulation Laboratory, Baltimore, said they approach DOAC use cautiously, but don’t rule it out entirely, in patients with unresected genitourinary tumors that could pose a risk of bleeding.

“It’s worth mentioning and being cautious. In my own personal practice, I’m very careful with unresected urothelial-type tumors or, for example, bladder cancer, for the same reason as [with] unresected luminal GI tumors,” Dr. Carrier said, adding that he’s also mindful that patients with nephropathy were excluded from U.S. DOAC trials because of bleeding risk.

He said he sometimes tries a LMWH challenge first in higher-risk patients, and then might try a DOAC if no bleeding occurs.

“But it certainly is controversial,” he noted.

Dr. Streiff added that he also worries less with genitourinary cancers than with upper GI lesions because “the signals weren’t as big as in GI” cancers, but he noted that “the drugs are going out through the kidneys ... so I’m cautious in those populations.”

“So caution, but not complete exclusion, is the operative management,” Dr. Douketis said, summarizing the panelists’ consensus.

Dr. Carrier reported clinical trial or advisory board participation for Bayer, Pfizer, Servier, Leo Pharma, and/or BMS.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Primary thromboprophylaxis is feasible and worth considering for high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer who are initiating systemic chemotherapy, according to Marc Carrier, MD.

Risk scores can identify patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and treatments that are effective and associated with low bleeding risk are available, Dr. Carrier explained at the biennial summit of the Thrombosis & Hemostasis Societies of North America.

However, caution is advised in patients with certain types of cancer, including some gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancers, because of the possibility of increased major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding risk, he said.
 

VTE and cancer

VTE is relatively rare in the general population, occurring in about 1 or 2 per 1,000 people annually. The risk increases 4.1-fold in patients with cancer, and 6.5-fold in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

“So just putting these numbers together, we’re no longer talking about 1 in 1,000, but 1 in 200, so [this is] something that is very common among cancer patients,” said Dr. Carrier, a professor at the University of Ottawa and chief of the division of hematology at The Ottawa Hospital.

The mortality rate associated with cancer-associated thrombosis is about 9%, comparable to that associated with infection in the cancer outpatient setting, which underscores the importance of educating patients about the signs and symptoms of VTE so they can seek medical treatment quickly if necessary, he added.

It may also be useful to discuss prophylaxis or other ways to prevent venous thromboembolic complications with certain patients, he said, noting that in an observational cohort study of nearly 600 patients at the University of Ottawa, 25% of those initiating chemotherapy were identified as intermediate or high risk using the validated Khorana risk score, and thus would likely benefit from thromboprophylaxis.
 

Risk assessment

The Khorana risk score assesses VTE risk based on cancer site, blood counts, and body mass index. It is simple to use and has been validated in more than 20,000 people in multiple countries, Dr. Carrier said.

In a well-known validation study, Ay et al. showed a VTE complication rate of 10% in patients with a Khorana risk score of 2 or higher who were followed up to 6 months.

“This is huge,” Dr. Carrier stressed. “This is much higher than what we tolerate for all sorts of different populations for which we would recommend anticoagulation or thromboprophylaxis.”

The question is whether the risk score can be helpful in a real-world clinic setting, he said, adding: “I’d like to think the answer to that is yes.”

In the University of Ottawa cohort study, 11% of high-risk patients experienced a VTE complication, compared with 4% of those with lower risk, suggesting that the validation data for the Khorana risk score is not only accurate, it is “actually applicable in real-world practice, and you can use it in your own center,” he said.

Further, recent studies have demonstrated that treatment based on Khorana risk score assessment reduces VTE complications.
 

Prophylaxis options

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has been shown in several studies to be associated with a significant relative VTE risk reduction in patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy – with only a slight, nonsignificant increase in the risk of major bleeding.

However, the absolute benefit was small, and LMWH is “parenteral, relatively costly, and, based on that, although we showed relatively good risk-benefit ratio, it never really got translated to clinical practice,” Dr. Carrier said.

In fact, a 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines update recommended against routine thromboprophylaxis in this setting, but stated that it could be considered in select high-risk patients identified using a validated risk-assessment tool.

The guidelines noted that “individual risk factors such as biomarkers and cancer site don’t reliably identify high-risk patients.”

More recent data provide additional support for risk assessment and treatment based on Khorana risk score of 2 or higher.

The AVERT trial, for which Dr. Carrier was the first author, showed that the direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) apixaban reduced VTE incidence, compared with placebo, in patients with Khorana score of 2 or higher (4.2% vs. 10.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41 overall, and 1.0 vs. 7.3; HR, 0.14 on treatment), and the CASSINI trial showed that another DOAC, rivaroxaban, reduced VTE incidence, compared with placebo, in those with Khorana score of 2 or higher (5.9 vs. 6.7; HR, 0.6 overall, and 2.6 vs. 6.4; HR, 0.40 on treatment). The differences in the on-treatment populations were statistically significant.

The two trials, which included a variety of tumor types, showed similar rates of major bleeding, with an absolute difference of about 1% between treatment and placebo, which was not statistically significant in the on-treatment analyses (HR, 1.89 in AVERT and HR, 1.96 in CASSINI).

A systematic review of these trials showed an overall significant decrease in VTE complication risk with treatment in high-risk patients, and a nonstatistically significant major bleeding risk increase.

Based on these findings, ASCO guidelines were updated in 2020 to state that “routine thromboprophylaxis should not be offered to all patients with cancer. ... However, high-risk outpatients with cancer may be offered thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban or LMWH, providing there are no significant risk factors for bleeding or drug-drug interactions, and after having a full discussion with patients ... to make sure they understand the risk-benefit ratio and the rationale for that particular recommendation,” he said.
 

Real-world implementation

Implementing this approach in the clinic setting requires a practical model, such as the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTEPACC) program, a prospective quality improvement research initiative developed in collaboration with the Jeffords Institute for Quality at the University of Vermont Medical Center and described in a recent report, Dr. Carrier said.

The “Vermont model” is “really a comprehensive model that includes identifying patients with the electronic medical records, gathering the formal education and insight from other health care providers like pharmacists and nurses in order to really come up with personalized care for your patients,” he explained.

In 918 outpatients with cancer who were included in the program, VTE awareness increased from less than 5% before VTEPACC to nearly 82% during the implementation phase and 94.7% after 2 years, with nearly 94% of high-risk patients receiving VTE prophylaxis at that time.

“So we can certainly do that in our own center.” he said. “It’s a matter of coming up with the model and making sure that the patients are seen at the right time.”

Given the high frequency of VTE in patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy, the usefulness of risk scores such as the Khorana risk score for identifying those at high risk, and the availability of safe and effective interventions for reducing risk, “we should probably use the data and incorporate them into clinical practice by implementation of programs for primary prevention,” he said.
 

A word of caution

Caution is warranted, however, when it comes to using DOACs in patients with higher-risk or potentially higher-risk tumor types, he added.

“It’s an important question we are facing as clinicians on a daily basis,” he said, responding to an attendee’s query, as shared by session moderator James Douketis, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., regarding possible bleeding risks in certain genitourinary cancers.

A recent meta-analysis published in Nature, for example, noted that, in the SELECT-D trial, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, most often in bladder and colorectal cancers, and most often at genitourinary and gastrointestinal sites.

Both Dr. Carrier and fellow panelist Michael Streiff, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University and medical director at the Johns Hopkins Hospital Special Coagulation Laboratory, Baltimore, said they approach DOAC use cautiously, but don’t rule it out entirely, in patients with unresected genitourinary tumors that could pose a risk of bleeding.

“It’s worth mentioning and being cautious. In my own personal practice, I’m very careful with unresected urothelial-type tumors or, for example, bladder cancer, for the same reason as [with] unresected luminal GI tumors,” Dr. Carrier said, adding that he’s also mindful that patients with nephropathy were excluded from U.S. DOAC trials because of bleeding risk.

He said he sometimes tries a LMWH challenge first in higher-risk patients, and then might try a DOAC if no bleeding occurs.

“But it certainly is controversial,” he noted.

Dr. Streiff added that he also worries less with genitourinary cancers than with upper GI lesions because “the signals weren’t as big as in GI” cancers, but he noted that “the drugs are going out through the kidneys ... so I’m cautious in those populations.”

“So caution, but not complete exclusion, is the operative management,” Dr. Douketis said, summarizing the panelists’ consensus.

Dr. Carrier reported clinical trial or advisory board participation for Bayer, Pfizer, Servier, Leo Pharma, and/or BMS.

sworcester@mdedge.com

When a patient with cancer develops venous thromboembolism despite anticoagulation, how to help them comes down to clinical judgment, according to hematologist Neil Zakai, MD, associate professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

“Unfortunately,” when it comes to “anticoagulation failure, we are entering an evidence free-zone,” with no large trials to guide management and only a few guiding principles, he said during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

The first thing is to check if there was an inciting incident, such as medical noncompliance, an infection, or an interruption of anticoagulation. Dr. Zakai said he’s even had cancer patients develop heparin-induced thrombocytopenia when switched to enoxaparin from a direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for a procedure.

Once the underlying problem is addressed, patients may be able to continue with their original anticoagulant.

However, cancer progression is the main reason anticoagulation fails. “In general, it is very difficult to control cancer thrombosis if you can’t control cancer progression,” Dr. Zakai said.

In those cases, he steps up anticoagulation. Prophylactic dosing is increased to full treatment dosing, and patients on a DOAC are generally switched to a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).

If patients are already on LMWH once daily, they will be bumped up to twice daily dosing; for instance, enoxaparin 1 mg/kg b.i.d. instead of 1.5 mg/kg q.d. Dr. Zakai said he’s gone as high at 2 or even 2.5 mg/kg to control thrombosis, without excessive bleeding.

In general, anticoagulation for thrombosis prophylaxis continues as long as the cancer is active, and certainly while patients are on hormonal treatments such as tamoxifen, which increases the risk.

Dr. Zakai stressed that both thrombosis and bleeding risk change for cancer patients over time, and treatment needs to keep up.

“I continuously assess the risk and benefit of anticoagulation. At certain times” such as during and for a few months after hospitalization, thrombosis risk increases; at other times, bleeding risk is higher. “You need to actively change your anticoagulation during those periods,” and tailor therapy based on transient risk factors. “People with cancer have peaks and troughs for their risk that we don’t take advantage of,” he said.

Dr. Zakai generally favors apixaban or enoxaparin for prophylaxis, carefully monitoring patients for bleeding and, for the DOAC, drug interactions with antiemetics, dexamethasone, and certain chemotherapy drugs.

He noted a recent trial that found a 59% reduction in venous thromboembolism risk in ambulatory cancer patients with apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily over 6 months, versus placebo, and a 6% absolute reduction, but at the cost of a twofold increase in bleeding risk, with an absolute 1.7% increase.

Dr. Zakai cautioned that patients in trials are selected for higher VTE and lower bleeding risks, so outcomes might “poorly reflect real world populations.” Dr. Zakai did not have any industry disclosures. The conference was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

aotto@mdedge.com

When a patient with cancer develops venous thromboembolism despite anticoagulation, how to help them comes down to clinical judgment, according to hematologist Neil Zakai, MD, associate professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

“Unfortunately,” when it comes to “anticoagulation failure, we are entering an evidence free-zone,” with no large trials to guide management and only a few guiding principles, he said during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

The first thing is to check if there was an inciting incident, such as medical noncompliance, an infection, or an interruption of anticoagulation. Dr. Zakai said he’s even had cancer patients develop heparin-induced thrombocytopenia when switched to enoxaparin from a direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for a procedure.

Once the underlying problem is addressed, patients may be able to continue with their original anticoagulant.

However, cancer progression is the main reason anticoagulation fails. “In general, it is very difficult to control cancer thrombosis if you can’t control cancer progression,” Dr. Zakai said.

In those cases, he steps up anticoagulation. Prophylactic dosing is increased to full treatment dosing, and patients on a DOAC are generally switched to a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).

If patients are already on LMWH once daily, they will be bumped up to twice daily dosing; for instance, enoxaparin 1 mg/kg b.i.d. instead of 1.5 mg/kg q.d. Dr. Zakai said he’s gone as high at 2 or even 2.5 mg/kg to control thrombosis, without excessive bleeding.

In general, anticoagulation for thrombosis prophylaxis continues as long as the cancer is active, and certainly while patients are on hormonal treatments such as tamoxifen, which increases the risk.

Dr. Zakai stressed that both thrombosis and bleeding risk change for cancer patients over time, and treatment needs to keep up.

“I continuously assess the risk and benefit of anticoagulation. At certain times” such as during and for a few months after hospitalization, thrombosis risk increases; at other times, bleeding risk is higher. “You need to actively change your anticoagulation during those periods,” and tailor therapy based on transient risk factors. “People with cancer have peaks and troughs for their risk that we don’t take advantage of,” he said.

Dr. Zakai generally favors apixaban or enoxaparin for prophylaxis, carefully monitoring patients for bleeding and, for the DOAC, drug interactions with antiemetics, dexamethasone, and certain chemotherapy drugs.

He noted a recent trial that found a 59% reduction in venous thromboembolism risk in ambulatory cancer patients with apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily over 6 months, versus placebo, and a 6% absolute reduction, but at the cost of a twofold increase in bleeding risk, with an absolute 1.7% increase.

Dr. Zakai cautioned that patients in trials are selected for higher VTE and lower bleeding risks, so outcomes might “poorly reflect real world populations.” Dr. Zakai did not have any industry disclosures. The conference was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

aotto@mdedge.com

When a patient with cancer develops venous thromboembolism despite anticoagulation, how to help them comes down to clinical judgment, according to hematologist Neil Zakai, MD, associate professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

“Unfortunately,” when it comes to “anticoagulation failure, we are entering an evidence free-zone,” with no large trials to guide management and only a few guiding principles, he said during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

The first thing is to check if there was an inciting incident, such as medical noncompliance, an infection, or an interruption of anticoagulation. Dr. Zakai said he’s even had cancer patients develop heparin-induced thrombocytopenia when switched to enoxaparin from a direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for a procedure.

Once the underlying problem is addressed, patients may be able to continue with their original anticoagulant.

However, cancer progression is the main reason anticoagulation fails. “In general, it is very difficult to control cancer thrombosis if you can’t control cancer progression,” Dr. Zakai said.

In those cases, he steps up anticoagulation. Prophylactic dosing is increased to full treatment dosing, and patients on a DOAC are generally switched to a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).

If patients are already on LMWH once daily, they will be bumped up to twice daily dosing; for instance, enoxaparin 1 mg/kg b.i.d. instead of 1.5 mg/kg q.d. Dr. Zakai said he’s gone as high at 2 or even 2.5 mg/kg to control thrombosis, without excessive bleeding.

In general, anticoagulation for thrombosis prophylaxis continues as long as the cancer is active, and certainly while patients are on hormonal treatments such as tamoxifen, which increases the risk.

Dr. Zakai stressed that both thrombosis and bleeding risk change for cancer patients over time, and treatment needs to keep up.

“I continuously assess the risk and benefit of anticoagulation. At certain times” such as during and for a few months after hospitalization, thrombosis risk increases; at other times, bleeding risk is higher. “You need to actively change your anticoagulation during those periods,” and tailor therapy based on transient risk factors. “People with cancer have peaks and troughs for their risk that we don’t take advantage of,” he said.

Dr. Zakai generally favors apixaban or enoxaparin for prophylaxis, carefully monitoring patients for bleeding and, for the DOAC, drug interactions with antiemetics, dexamethasone, and certain chemotherapy drugs.

He noted a recent trial that found a 59% reduction in venous thromboembolism risk in ambulatory cancer patients with apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily over 6 months, versus placebo, and a 6% absolute reduction, but at the cost of a twofold increase in bleeding risk, with an absolute 1.7% increase.

Dr. Zakai cautioned that patients in trials are selected for higher VTE and lower bleeding risks, so outcomes might “poorly reflect real world populations.” Dr. Zakai did not have any industry disclosures. The conference was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

aotto@mdedge.com

Instead of flying out to San Diego in California and soaking up a bit of sunshine in between listening to new research presentations, hematologists from around the world will be glued to their computer screens next weekend, tuning into the 62nd American Society of Hematology annual meeting.  

Like many other conferences this year, the ASH meeting will be virtual because of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, although the dates remain the same: Dec. 5-8.  

This is the premier hematology event of the year, and the largest hematology conference in the world, with around 3,500 abstracts presented this year, commented Aaron T. Gerds, MD, chair of ASH’s Committee on Communications.
 

Ruxolitinib in chronic GvHD

“One of the things that people come to ASH for is to hear about practice-changing clinical trials, and this year is no exception,” said ASH secretary Robert Brodsky, MD.

In a preview webinar, he highlighted four abstracts that offer opportunities to change practice and revamp the current standards of care.

One clinical trial that is “almost certainly a practice changer,” he said, is the REACH 3 study (abstract 77) of the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib (Jakafi, Incyte) in patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) after a stem cell transplant.

“This has been really hard to treat in patients undergoing allogeneic bone marrow transplants,” said Brodsky. “Steroids are the first-line treatment, but after that, nothing else has shown any improvement, and even steroids don’t work that well.”

There is currently no approved second-line therapy for chronic forms of GvHD, he emphasized. The main endpoint of the trial was overall response rate, which was doubled with ruxolitinib compared to the best available therapy (50% vs 25%).

“This is the first successful phase 3 trial for chronic GvHD,” Brodsky commented.  
 

Transplants for older patients with MDS

Transplant offers the only curative option for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), but typically this option is offered to younger patients because benefits for older adults have not been well-defined, Brodsky noted.

New data from a clinical trial conducted in patients with advanced MDS aged 50-75 years (abstract 75) offers the most definitive evidence to date that allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) can significantly improve outcomes for older adults.  

It’s clear that transplant is the standard of care in younger patients, Brodsky commented, and although there is a trend of offering it to older patients, some are not getting referred and instead are being offered palliative care. “The thinking is that bone marrow transplant would be too toxic in this age group,” he said. “But what is very clear here is that, in an intent-to-treat analysis, there was a significant survival advantage – 48% versus 27% at 3 years for transplantation – and it was seen across all subgroups.”
 

Subcutaneous daratumumab

New data on a subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab (Darzalex, Janssen), which is usually given by intravenous infusion, will be presented from the APOLLO trial (abstract 412) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients who received subcutaneous daratumumab combined with pomalidomide and dexamethasone had a 37% reduction in disease progression or death compared to those who received pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone.

“From previous years we’ve learned that daratumumab has had a major impact on outcomes in multiple myeloma,” said Brodsky. “The nice thing about the subcutaneous formulation is that it can be administered quickly and in an outpatient setting, which is especially important in the COVID era.”  
 

Negative data with tranexamic acid

The fourth abstract highlighted by Brodsky is a negative study, but its findings can help guide clinical practice, he said. The a-TREAT study (abstract 2) showed that, despite being routinely used in the clinical setting, tranexamic acid does not prevent bleeding when administered prophylactically to severely thrombocytopenic patients undergoing treatment for hematologic malignancies.

“They found absolutely no difference in bleeding or need for transfusion,” said Brodsky. “What they did find was more catheter-associated blood clots in the tranexamic acid group. This is a practice changer in that it probably should not be given prophylactically to patients with thrombocytopenia.”
 

‘Very exciting’ news about gene therapy

Brodsky also highlighted several late-breaking abstract that will be presented at the meeting.

In particular, the first data on a gene therapy for hemophilia B (abstract LBA-6) are “very, very exciting,” he said. The HOPE-B trial showed a 96% response rate among patients with hemophilia B who were treated with etranacogene dezaparvovec, an investigational gene therapy composed of an adeno-associated virus serotype 5 (AAV5) vector containing a codon-optimized Padua variant human factor IX.

Brodsky pointed out that this was a large trial with 54 patients, but importantly, it included patients with pre-existing anti-AAV5 neutralizing antibodies. “About 40% of patients have naturally occurring antibodies to AAV5, and they have been excluded from previous trials because it was thought they wouldn’t take the vector,” said Brodsky. “But only one patient didn’t get a response.”

Following a single dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec, Factor IX activity increased into the mild to normal range without the need for prophylactic immunosuppression. Treated patients were able to discontinue prophylaxis and bleeding was controlled in most of the cohort.

“This is a big advance and we are getting very close to the point where gene therapy is going to be standard of care for some forms of hemophilia,” said Brodsky. However, he added that “we will still need to see more patients and have longer follow-up.”

He added that, with time, the technology behind gene therapy will probably become less expensive and more accessible to more patients, which will help become a standard of care.

This is also the hope for the technology behind chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, he added. At present, this cellular therapy is manufactured individually for each patient and is very expensive, but work on “off-the-shelf” products is underway. This topic will be explored during the presidential symposium, entitled, “Universal Donor Solutions in Hematology.”

New data on one of the currently available CAR-T cell products will be presented at the meeting. The phase 2 ZUMA-5 trial showed that axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-Cel) may be a viable option for some patients with high-risk non-Hodgkin lymphoma who have not responded to standard treatments (abstract 700).

At a median follow-up of almost 18 months, 92% of participants achieved an objective response, and 78% achieved a complete response to the treatment. By 12 months, 72% were still in response, and at 17.5 months, 64% were still in response.

“We were very impressed with the magnitude of the responses, and also the durability,” said senior study author Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press release. “I was also struck early on by how favorable the safety profile was compared to what we’ve been seeing in the fast-growing lymphomas, such as large B cell lymphoma.”
 

Race and bloods cancers

ASH president Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, highlighted several abstracts on disparities that will be presented at the meeting. One of these, which is to be presented during the plenary session, is an analysis of patient survival in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (abstract 6).

It found that “self-reported race was the best indicator of survival,” noted Lee.

Overall survival at 3 years was 41% in White patients versus 32% in Black patients, a difference that was highly significant, she noted.

Part of the study also evaluated patients who were all on the same chemotherapy protocol, “so there was no effect of different treatment since they were on therapy determined by the trial,” said Lee.

Black patients were less likely to have normal cytogenetics compared with White patients (38% vs 51%; P = .01) and had a lower frequency of prognostically favorable NPM1 mutations (25% vs 38%; P = .04), but higher frequencies of spliceosome gene mutations (24% vs 12%; P = .009). Therefore, the results showed race was an independent prognosticator of poor survival in AML, aside from established molecular markers.

A special scientific session on race will be held on Dec. 5, Lee noted. While other abstracts consider race from the patient side, this session will focus on the scientist’s side, she explained, and address questions such as: “What are the implications of diversity and racism? And how does that impact scientists who are from underrepresented minorities?” 
 

COVID-19 and blood disorders

Lee also highlighted a study (abstract 215) that analyzed emerging data from the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, which was developed to look at outcomes of COVID-19 infection in patients with underlying blood disorders.

An analysis of data from 250 patients at 74 sites around the world found that overall mortality was 28%. “This supports the emerging consensus that patients with hematologic malignancies experience significant morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection,” say the authors.

“We do need real-world data to see how SARS-CoV-2 is affecting our patients with hematologic diseases or those who don’t have a hematologic disease but who are then infected with the coronavirus and develop a hematologic problem like blood clots,” said Lee.

“More data will be coming in, but this is a good example of trying to harness real-world information to learn things until we have more controlled trials.”
 

‘Fireside chat’ with Fauci

COVID-19 will be on the agenda for a special session billed as a “fireside chat” with Anthony Fauci, MD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

“This will be kicking off our meeting on Saturday morning,” said Lee.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Instead of flying out to San Diego in California and soaking up a bit of sunshine in between listening to new research presentations, hematologists from around the world will be glued to their computer screens next weekend, tuning into the 62nd American Society of Hematology annual meeting.  

Like many other conferences this year, the ASH meeting will be virtual because of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, although the dates remain the same: Dec. 5-8.  

This is the premier hematology event of the year, and the largest hematology conference in the world, with around 3,500 abstracts presented this year, commented Aaron T. Gerds, MD, chair of ASH’s Committee on Communications.
 

Ruxolitinib in chronic GvHD

“One of the things that people come to ASH for is to hear about practice-changing clinical trials, and this year is no exception,” said ASH secretary Robert Brodsky, MD.

In a preview webinar, he highlighted four abstracts that offer opportunities to change practice and revamp the current standards of care.

One clinical trial that is “almost certainly a practice changer,” he said, is the REACH 3 study (abstract 77) of the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib (Jakafi, Incyte) in patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) after a stem cell transplant.

“This has been really hard to treat in patients undergoing allogeneic bone marrow transplants,” said Brodsky. “Steroids are the first-line treatment, but after that, nothing else has shown any improvement, and even steroids don’t work that well.”

There is currently no approved second-line therapy for chronic forms of GvHD, he emphasized. The main endpoint of the trial was overall response rate, which was doubled with ruxolitinib compared to the best available therapy (50% vs 25%).

“This is the first successful phase 3 trial for chronic GvHD,” Brodsky commented.  
 

Transplants for older patients with MDS

Transplant offers the only curative option for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), but typically this option is offered to younger patients because benefits for older adults have not been well-defined, Brodsky noted.

New data from a clinical trial conducted in patients with advanced MDS aged 50-75 years (abstract 75) offers the most definitive evidence to date that allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) can significantly improve outcomes for older adults.  

It’s clear that transplant is the standard of care in younger patients, Brodsky commented, and although there is a trend of offering it to older patients, some are not getting referred and instead are being offered palliative care. “The thinking is that bone marrow transplant would be too toxic in this age group,” he said. “But what is very clear here is that, in an intent-to-treat analysis, there was a significant survival advantage – 48% versus 27% at 3 years for transplantation – and it was seen across all subgroups.”
 

Subcutaneous daratumumab

New data on a subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab (Darzalex, Janssen), which is usually given by intravenous infusion, will be presented from the APOLLO trial (abstract 412) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients who received subcutaneous daratumumab combined with pomalidomide and dexamethasone had a 37% reduction in disease progression or death compared to those who received pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone.

“From previous years we’ve learned that daratumumab has had a major impact on outcomes in multiple myeloma,” said Brodsky. “The nice thing about the subcutaneous formulation is that it can be administered quickly and in an outpatient setting, which is especially important in the COVID era.”  
 

Negative data with tranexamic acid

The fourth abstract highlighted by Brodsky is a negative study, but its findings can help guide clinical practice, he said. The a-TREAT study (abstract 2) showed that, despite being routinely used in the clinical setting, tranexamic acid does not prevent bleeding when administered prophylactically to severely thrombocytopenic patients undergoing treatment for hematologic malignancies.

“They found absolutely no difference in bleeding or need for transfusion,” said Brodsky. “What they did find was more catheter-associated blood clots in the tranexamic acid group. This is a practice changer in that it probably should not be given prophylactically to patients with thrombocytopenia.”
 

‘Very exciting’ news about gene therapy

Brodsky also highlighted several late-breaking abstract that will be presented at the meeting.

In particular, the first data on a gene therapy for hemophilia B (abstract LBA-6) are “very, very exciting,” he said. The HOPE-B trial showed a 96% response rate among patients with hemophilia B who were treated with etranacogene dezaparvovec, an investigational gene therapy composed of an adeno-associated virus serotype 5 (AAV5) vector containing a codon-optimized Padua variant human factor IX.

Brodsky pointed out that this was a large trial with 54 patients, but importantly, it included patients with pre-existing anti-AAV5 neutralizing antibodies. “About 40% of patients have naturally occurring antibodies to AAV5, and they have been excluded from previous trials because it was thought they wouldn’t take the vector,” said Brodsky. “But only one patient didn’t get a response.”

Following a single dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec, Factor IX activity increased into the mild to normal range without the need for prophylactic immunosuppression. Treated patients were able to discontinue prophylaxis and bleeding was controlled in most of the cohort.

“This is a big advance and we are getting very close to the point where gene therapy is going to be standard of care for some forms of hemophilia,” said Brodsky. However, he added that “we will still need to see more patients and have longer follow-up.”

He added that, with time, the technology behind gene therapy will probably become less expensive and more accessible to more patients, which will help become a standard of care.

This is also the hope for the technology behind chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, he added. At present, this cellular therapy is manufactured individually for each patient and is very expensive, but work on “off-the-shelf” products is underway. This topic will be explored during the presidential symposium, entitled, “Universal Donor Solutions in Hematology.”

New data on one of the currently available CAR-T cell products will be presented at the meeting. The phase 2 ZUMA-5 trial showed that axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-Cel) may be a viable option for some patients with high-risk non-Hodgkin lymphoma who have not responded to standard treatments (abstract 700).

At a median follow-up of almost 18 months, 92% of participants achieved an objective response, and 78% achieved a complete response to the treatment. By 12 months, 72% were still in response, and at 17.5 months, 64% were still in response.

“We were very impressed with the magnitude of the responses, and also the durability,” said senior study author Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press release. “I was also struck early on by how favorable the safety profile was compared to what we’ve been seeing in the fast-growing lymphomas, such as large B cell lymphoma.”
 

Race and bloods cancers

ASH president Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, highlighted several abstracts on disparities that will be presented at the meeting. One of these, which is to be presented during the plenary session, is an analysis of patient survival in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (abstract 6).

It found that “self-reported race was the best indicator of survival,” noted Lee.

Overall survival at 3 years was 41% in White patients versus 32% in Black patients, a difference that was highly significant, she noted.

Part of the study also evaluated patients who were all on the same chemotherapy protocol, “so there was no effect of different treatment since they were on therapy determined by the trial,” said Lee.

Black patients were less likely to have normal cytogenetics compared with White patients (38% vs 51%; P = .01) and had a lower frequency of prognostically favorable NPM1 mutations (25% vs 38%; P = .04), but higher frequencies of spliceosome gene mutations (24% vs 12%; P = .009). Therefore, the results showed race was an independent prognosticator of poor survival in AML, aside from established molecular markers.

A special scientific session on race will be held on Dec. 5, Lee noted. While other abstracts consider race from the patient side, this session will focus on the scientist’s side, she explained, and address questions such as: “What are the implications of diversity and racism? And how does that impact scientists who are from underrepresented minorities?” 
 

COVID-19 and blood disorders

Lee also highlighted a study (abstract 215) that analyzed emerging data from the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, which was developed to look at outcomes of COVID-19 infection in patients with underlying blood disorders.

An analysis of data from 250 patients at 74 sites around the world found that overall mortality was 28%. “This supports the emerging consensus that patients with hematologic malignancies experience significant morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection,” say the authors.

“We do need real-world data to see how SARS-CoV-2 is affecting our patients with hematologic diseases or those who don’t have a hematologic disease but who are then infected with the coronavirus and develop a hematologic problem like blood clots,” said Lee.

“More data will be coming in, but this is a good example of trying to harness real-world information to learn things until we have more controlled trials.”
 

‘Fireside chat’ with Fauci

COVID-19 will be on the agenda for a special session billed as a “fireside chat” with Anthony Fauci, MD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

“This will be kicking off our meeting on Saturday morning,” said Lee.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Instead of flying out to San Diego in California and soaking up a bit of sunshine in between listening to new research presentations, hematologists from around the world will be glued to their computer screens next weekend, tuning into the 62nd American Society of Hematology annual meeting.  

Like many other conferences this year, the ASH meeting will be virtual because of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, although the dates remain the same: Dec. 5-8.  

This is the premier hematology event of the year, and the largest hematology conference in the world, with around 3,500 abstracts presented this year, commented Aaron T. Gerds, MD, chair of ASH’s Committee on Communications.
 

Ruxolitinib in chronic GvHD

“One of the things that people come to ASH for is to hear about practice-changing clinical trials, and this year is no exception,” said ASH secretary Robert Brodsky, MD.

In a preview webinar, he highlighted four abstracts that offer opportunities to change practice and revamp the current standards of care.

One clinical trial that is “almost certainly a practice changer,” he said, is the REACH 3 study (abstract 77) of the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib (Jakafi, Incyte) in patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) after a stem cell transplant.

“This has been really hard to treat in patients undergoing allogeneic bone marrow transplants,” said Brodsky. “Steroids are the first-line treatment, but after that, nothing else has shown any improvement, and even steroids don’t work that well.”

There is currently no approved second-line therapy for chronic forms of GvHD, he emphasized. The main endpoint of the trial was overall response rate, which was doubled with ruxolitinib compared to the best available therapy (50% vs 25%).

“This is the first successful phase 3 trial for chronic GvHD,” Brodsky commented.  
 

Transplants for older patients with MDS

Transplant offers the only curative option for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), but typically this option is offered to younger patients because benefits for older adults have not been well-defined, Brodsky noted.

New data from a clinical trial conducted in patients with advanced MDS aged 50-75 years (abstract 75) offers the most definitive evidence to date that allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) can significantly improve outcomes for older adults.  

It’s clear that transplant is the standard of care in younger patients, Brodsky commented, and although there is a trend of offering it to older patients, some are not getting referred and instead are being offered palliative care. “The thinking is that bone marrow transplant would be too toxic in this age group,” he said. “But what is very clear here is that, in an intent-to-treat analysis, there was a significant survival advantage – 48% versus 27% at 3 years for transplantation – and it was seen across all subgroups.”
 

Subcutaneous daratumumab

New data on a subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab (Darzalex, Janssen), which is usually given by intravenous infusion, will be presented from the APOLLO trial (abstract 412) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients who received subcutaneous daratumumab combined with pomalidomide and dexamethasone had a 37% reduction in disease progression or death compared to those who received pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone.

“From previous years we’ve learned that daratumumab has had a major impact on outcomes in multiple myeloma,” said Brodsky. “The nice thing about the subcutaneous formulation is that it can be administered quickly and in an outpatient setting, which is especially important in the COVID era.”  
 

Negative data with tranexamic acid

The fourth abstract highlighted by Brodsky is a negative study, but its findings can help guide clinical practice, he said. The a-TREAT study (abstract 2) showed that, despite being routinely used in the clinical setting, tranexamic acid does not prevent bleeding when administered prophylactically to severely thrombocytopenic patients undergoing treatment for hematologic malignancies.

“They found absolutely no difference in bleeding or need for transfusion,” said Brodsky. “What they did find was more catheter-associated blood clots in the tranexamic acid group. This is a practice changer in that it probably should not be given prophylactically to patients with thrombocytopenia.”
 

‘Very exciting’ news about gene therapy

Brodsky also highlighted several late-breaking abstract that will be presented at the meeting.

In particular, the first data on a gene therapy for hemophilia B (abstract LBA-6) are “very, very exciting,” he said. The HOPE-B trial showed a 96% response rate among patients with hemophilia B who were treated with etranacogene dezaparvovec, an investigational gene therapy composed of an adeno-associated virus serotype 5 (AAV5) vector containing a codon-optimized Padua variant human factor IX.

Brodsky pointed out that this was a large trial with 54 patients, but importantly, it included patients with pre-existing anti-AAV5 neutralizing antibodies. “About 40% of patients have naturally occurring antibodies to AAV5, and they have been excluded from previous trials because it was thought they wouldn’t take the vector,” said Brodsky. “But only one patient didn’t get a response.”

Following a single dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec, Factor IX activity increased into the mild to normal range without the need for prophylactic immunosuppression. Treated patients were able to discontinue prophylaxis and bleeding was controlled in most of the cohort.

“This is a big advance and we are getting very close to the point where gene therapy is going to be standard of care for some forms of hemophilia,” said Brodsky. However, he added that “we will still need to see more patients and have longer follow-up.”

He added that, with time, the technology behind gene therapy will probably become less expensive and more accessible to more patients, which will help become a standard of care.

This is also the hope for the technology behind chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, he added. At present, this cellular therapy is manufactured individually for each patient and is very expensive, but work on “off-the-shelf” products is underway. This topic will be explored during the presidential symposium, entitled, “Universal Donor Solutions in Hematology.”

New data on one of the currently available CAR-T cell products will be presented at the meeting. The phase 2 ZUMA-5 trial showed that axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-Cel) may be a viable option for some patients with high-risk non-Hodgkin lymphoma who have not responded to standard treatments (abstract 700).

At a median follow-up of almost 18 months, 92% of participants achieved an objective response, and 78% achieved a complete response to the treatment. By 12 months, 72% were still in response, and at 17.5 months, 64% were still in response.

“We were very impressed with the magnitude of the responses, and also the durability,” said senior study author Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press release. “I was also struck early on by how favorable the safety profile was compared to what we’ve been seeing in the fast-growing lymphomas, such as large B cell lymphoma.”
 

Race and bloods cancers

ASH president Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, highlighted several abstracts on disparities that will be presented at the meeting. One of these, which is to be presented during the plenary session, is an analysis of patient survival in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (abstract 6).

It found that “self-reported race was the best indicator of survival,” noted Lee.

Overall survival at 3 years was 41% in White patients versus 32% in Black patients, a difference that was highly significant, she noted.

Part of the study also evaluated patients who were all on the same chemotherapy protocol, “so there was no effect of different treatment since they were on therapy determined by the trial,” said Lee.

Black patients were less likely to have normal cytogenetics compared with White patients (38% vs 51%; P = .01) and had a lower frequency of prognostically favorable NPM1 mutations (25% vs 38%; P = .04), but higher frequencies of spliceosome gene mutations (24% vs 12%; P = .009). Therefore, the results showed race was an independent prognosticator of poor survival in AML, aside from established molecular markers.

A special scientific session on race will be held on Dec. 5, Lee noted. While other abstracts consider race from the patient side, this session will focus on the scientist’s side, she explained, and address questions such as: “What are the implications of diversity and racism? And how does that impact scientists who are from underrepresented minorities?” 
 

COVID-19 and blood disorders

Lee also highlighted a study (abstract 215) that analyzed emerging data from the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, which was developed to look at outcomes of COVID-19 infection in patients with underlying blood disorders.

An analysis of data from 250 patients at 74 sites around the world found that overall mortality was 28%. “This supports the emerging consensus that patients with hematologic malignancies experience significant morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection,” say the authors.

“We do need real-world data to see how SARS-CoV-2 is affecting our patients with hematologic diseases or those who don’t have a hematologic disease but who are then infected with the coronavirus and develop a hematologic problem like blood clots,” said Lee.

“More data will be coming in, but this is a good example of trying to harness real-world information to learn things until we have more controlled trials.”
 

‘Fireside chat’ with Fauci

COVID-19 will be on the agenda for a special session billed as a “fireside chat” with Anthony Fauci, MD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

“This will be kicking off our meeting on Saturday morning,” said Lee.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

Patients with hemophilia A or von Willebrand disease undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction had rates of postoperative complications and ACL reinjuries that were not significantly different from those control patients. However, the cost of health care utilization was significantly greater for the hemophilia A and von Willebrand disease patients, according to a large retrospective database study published online in The Knee.

All patients who underwent an ACL reconstruction from 2010 to 2014 in a large commercial database were assessed. Patients with hemophilia A, hemophilia B, and von Willebrand disease were identified. Patient demographics, cost of surgery, blood product use, concomitant injuries, repeat ACL injury, complications, and various operative variables were collected.

A total of 33 patients with hemophilia A, 3 with hemophilia B patients, 63 with von Willebrand disease and 103,478 control patients who had ACL reconstruction were compared, according to Connor Zale, MD, and colleagues at Penn State Hershey (Pa.) Medical Center.
 

Similar outcomes, higher costs

Complications – including length of hospital stay, postoperative hemorrhage within 14 days after surgery, infection rates within 90 days of surgery, lysis of adhesions or manipulation under anesthesia within 90 days of surgery, concomitant injuries to the knee, additional ACL injury within 1 year of surgery, deep-vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism – were not statistically different between the hemophilia/von Willebrand cohorts and the control group, according to the researchers.

However, surgery and postoperative care were costlier in the hemophilia A and von Willebrand cohorts. Total health care utilization within 30 days of ACL reconstruction was significantly more expensive for patients with hemophilia A ($25,982) and those with von Willebrand disease ($16,445), compared with those among controls ($12,887). In addition, the total health care utilization costs within 90 days of ACL reconstruction were significantly higher for patients with hemophilia A ($30,310) and those with von Willebrand disease ($20,355), compared with those among controls ($14,564), with all P values less than .001.

None of the patients with hemophilia A or those with von Willebrand received blood products perioperatively, had a known major hemarthrosis, or were readmitted within 30 or 90 days, the authors noted, adding that this finding differs from previous studies. The authors speculated that, since no blood products were administered and there was no significant difference in postoperative hemorrhage, the patients with hemophilia A were preoperatively optimized for an acceptable prothrombin time and international normalized ratio and/or were more effectively managed postoperatively.

“Many surgeons may be fearful of performing an ACL reconstruction on those with hemophilia A, hemophilia B, and von Willebrand disease due to concerns over risk of a major hemarthrosis and other complications postoperatively. This study observed that hemophilia A and von Willebrand disease patients who underwent an ACL reconstruction had rates of postoperative complications that were not statistically different than those who underwent ACL reconstructions and did not have a known hypocoagulable condition,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zale C et al. Knee. 2020;27(6):1729-34.

Patients with hemophilia A or von Willebrand disease undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction had rates of postoperative complications and ACL reinjuries that were not significantly different from those control patients. However, the cost of health care utilization was significantly greater for the hemophilia A and von Willebrand disease patients, according to a large retrospective database study published online in The Knee.

All patients who underwent an ACL reconstruction from 2010 to 2014 in a large commercial database were assessed. Patients with hemophilia A, hemophilia B, and von Willebrand disease were identified. Patient demographics, cost of surgery, blood product use, concomitant injuries, repeat ACL injury, complications, and various operative variables were collected.

A total of 33 patients with hemophilia A, 3 with hemophilia B patients, 63 with von Willebrand disease and 103,478 control patients who had ACL reconstruction were compared, according to Connor Zale, MD, and colleagues at Penn State Hershey (Pa.) Medical Center.
 

Similar outcomes, higher costs

Complications – including length of hospital stay, postoperative hemorrhage within 14 days after surgery, infection rates within 90 days of surgery, lysis of adhesions or manipulation under anesthesia within 90 days of surgery, concomitant injuries to the knee, additional ACL injury within 1 year of surgery, deep-vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism – were not statistically different between the hemophilia/von Willebrand cohorts and the control group, according to the researchers.

However, surgery and postoperative care were costlier in the hemophilia A and von Willebrand cohorts. Total health care utilization within 30 days of ACL reconstruction was significantly more expensive for patients with hemophilia A ($25,982) and those with von Willebrand disease ($16,445), compared with those among controls ($12,887). In addition, the total health care utilization costs within 90 days of ACL reconstruction were significantly higher for patients with hemophilia A ($30,310) and those with von Willebrand disease ($20,355), compared with those among controls ($14,564), with all P values less than .001.

None of the patients with hemophilia A or those with von Willebrand received blood products perioperatively, had a known major hemarthrosis, or were readmitted within 30 or 90 days, the authors noted, adding that this finding differs from previous studies. The authors speculated that, since no blood products were administered and there was no significant difference in postoperative hemorrhage, the patients with hemophilia A were preoperatively optimized for an acceptable prothrombin time and international normalized ratio and/or were more effectively managed postoperatively.

“Many surgeons may be fearful of performing an ACL reconstruction on those with hemophilia A, hemophilia B, and von Willebrand disease due to concerns over risk of a major hemarthrosis and other complications postoperatively. This study observed that hemophilia A and von Willebrand disease patients who underwent an ACL reconstruction had rates of postoperative complications that were not statistically different than those who underwent ACL reconstructions and did not have a known hypocoagulable condition,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zale C et al. Knee. 2020;27(6):1729-34.

Patients with hemophilia A or von Willebrand disease undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction had rates of postoperative complications and ACL reinjuries that were not significantly different from those control patients. However, the cost of health care utilization was significantly greater for the hemophilia A and von Willebrand disease patients, according to a large retrospective database study published online in The Knee.

All patients who underwent an ACL reconstruction from 2010 to 2014 in a large commercial database were assessed. Patients with hemophilia A, hemophilia B, and von Willebrand disease were identified. Patient demographics, cost of surgery, blood product use, concomitant injuries, repeat ACL injury, complications, and various operative variables were collected.

A total of 33 patients with hemophilia A, 3 with hemophilia B patients, 63 with von Willebrand disease and 103,478 control patients who had ACL reconstruction were compared, according to Connor Zale, MD, and colleagues at Penn State Hershey (Pa.) Medical Center.
 

Similar outcomes, higher costs

Complications – including length of hospital stay, postoperative hemorrhage within 14 days after surgery, infection rates within 90 days of surgery, lysis of adhesions or manipulation under anesthesia within 90 days of surgery, concomitant injuries to the knee, additional ACL injury within 1 year of surgery, deep-vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism – were not statistically different between the hemophilia/von Willebrand cohorts and the control group, according to the researchers.

However, surgery and postoperative care were costlier in the hemophilia A and von Willebrand cohorts. Total health care utilization within 30 days of ACL reconstruction was significantly more expensive for patients with hemophilia A ($25,982) and those with von Willebrand disease ($16,445), compared with those among controls ($12,887). In addition, the total health care utilization costs within 90 days of ACL reconstruction were significantly higher for patients with hemophilia A ($30,310) and those with von Willebrand disease ($20,355), compared with those among controls ($14,564), with all P values less than .001.

None of the patients with hemophilia A or those with von Willebrand received blood products perioperatively, had a known major hemarthrosis, or were readmitted within 30 or 90 days, the authors noted, adding that this finding differs from previous studies. The authors speculated that, since no blood products were administered and there was no significant difference in postoperative hemorrhage, the patients with hemophilia A were preoperatively optimized for an acceptable prothrombin time and international normalized ratio and/or were more effectively managed postoperatively.

“Many surgeons may be fearful of performing an ACL reconstruction on those with hemophilia A, hemophilia B, and von Willebrand disease due to concerns over risk of a major hemarthrosis and other complications postoperatively. This study observed that hemophilia A and von Willebrand disease patients who underwent an ACL reconstruction had rates of postoperative complications that were not statistically different than those who underwent ACL reconstructions and did not have a known hypocoagulable condition,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zale C et al. Knee. 2020;27(6):1729-34.

Factor XI has emerged as a promising target for new anticoagulants, and several strategies for inhibiting the enzyme to reduce stroke, thromboembolism, and bleeding risk are under investigation, according to Jeffrey I. Weitz, MD.

These strategies could pick up where direct-acting oral anticoagulants leave off, he suggested during a presentation at the biennial summit of the Thrombosis & Hemostasis Societies of North America.

“We all know that the direct oral anticoagulants – the DOACs – are an advance over vitamin K antagonists,” said Dr. Weitz, professor of medicine and biochemistry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

Not only are DOACs at least as effective as vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation or for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but they also reduce intracranial bleeding and major bleeding risk in those settings, respectively, and they are more convenient to administer because they can be delivered using fixed doses without the need for coagulation monitoring, he added.

Still, new targets are needed, he said, explaining that, although DOACs moved closer to the goal of attenuating thrombosis without increasing the risk of bleeding, annual rates of major bleeding remain at 2%-3% in the atrial fibrillation population, and rates of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding are about 10%.

“The fear of bleeding leads to underuse of anticoagulants for eligible patients with atrial fibrillation and inappropriate use of low-dose [non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant] regimens, which can leave patients unprotected from thrombotic complications,” he said.
 

Factor XI

That’s where Factor XI (FXI) may come in, Dr. Weitz said.

Current anticoagulants target enzymes, including FXa or thrombin, in the common pathway of coagulation, but the intrinsic pathway at the level of FXI and FXII has attracted attention in recent years.

The intrinsic pathway is activated when blood comes into contact with medical devices like stents, mechanical heart valves, or central venous catheters, but evidence also suggests that it plays a role in clot stabilization and growth, he explained, noting additional evidence of attenuation of thrombosis in mice deficient in FXI or FXII and in animals with FXI or FXII inhibitors.

“There is no bleeding with congenital FXII deficiency, and patients with FXI deficiency rarely have spontaneous bleeding, although they can bleed with surgery or trauma,” he noted. “Therefore, the promise of contact pathway inhibition is that we can attenuate thrombosis with little or no disruption of hemostasis.”

The initiators of the intrinsic pathway are naturally occurring polyphosphates that can activate FXI and FXII, promote platelet activation, and lead to thrombosis. A number of agents are being investigated to target these enzymes – particularly FXI, for which the strongest epidemiological and other evidence of its link with thrombosis exists. He noted that FXI deficiency appears protective against deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and ischemic stroke, whereas high levels are linked with an increased risk of venous and arterial thrombosis.

Investigative strategies include the use of antisense oligonucleotides to reduce hepatic synthesis of FXI, aptamers to bind FXI and block its activity, antibodies to bind FXI and block its activation or activity, and small molecules to bind reversibly to the active site of FXI and block its activity “much like the DOACs block the activity of FXa or thrombin.”

“We have to remember that the DOACs have taken over from vitamin K antagonists, like warfarin, for many indications, and as they go generic their uptake will increase even further,” Dr. Weitz said. “When we compare the FXI inhibitors with existing anticoagulants, we don’t necessarily want to go up against the DOACs – we’re looking for indications where [DOACs] have yet to be tested or may be unsafe.”

Potential indications include the following:

Prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with end-stage renal disease with or without atrial fibrillation.

Provision of a safer platform for antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Secondary stroke prevention.

Prevention or treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Prevention of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters, left ventricular assist devices, or mechanical heart valves.

Agents in development

Of the FXI inhibitors in development, ISIS-FXI_Rx, an antisense oligonucleotide against FXI, is furthest along. In a study published in Blood, ISIS-FXI_Rx produced a dose-dependent and sustained reduction in FXI levels in healthy volunteers, and in a later randomized study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, it significantly reduced the incidence of DVT in patients undergoing voluntary total knee arthroplasty (30.4% with enoxaparin vs. 4.2% with ISIS-FXI_Rx at a dose of 300 mg). Bleeding rates were 8.3% and 2.6%, respectively.

The findings showed the potential for reducing thrombosis without increasing bleeding by targeting FXI, Dr. Weitz said, adding that ISIS-FXIR_x was also evaluated in a small study of patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis and was shown to produce a dose-dependent reduction in FXI levels and to reduce the incidence of category 3 and 4 clotting in the air trap and dialyzer, compared with placebo, when given in addition to heparin.

This suggests that FXI knockdown can attenuate device-associated clotting to a greater extent than heparin alone, Dr. Weitz said.

The FXIa-directed inhibitory antibody osocimab has also been evaluated in both healthy volunteers and in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. In a 2019 study of healthy volunteers, a single IV injection showed a dose-dependent pharmacokinetic profile and produced FXI inhibition for about 1 month, and in the FOXTROT trial published in January in JAMA by Dr. Weitz and colleagues, osocimab was shown to reduce the incidence of symptomatic VTE, asymptomatic DVT, and VTE-related death up to day 10-13 after total knee arthroplasty.

Osocimab at doses ranging from 0.3-1.8 mg/kg given postoperatively or preoperatively were noninferior to enoxaparin (rates of 15.7%-23.7% vs. 26.3%), and osocimab at a preoperative dose of 1.8 mg/kg was superior to both enoxaparin and apixaban (11.5% vs. 26.3% and 14.5%, respectively), he said.

Bleeding rates ranged from 0%-5% with osocimab, compared with 6% with enoxaparin and 2% with apixaban
 

Ongoing studies

Currently ongoing studies of FXI-directed anticoagulation strategies include a study comparing ISIS-FXI_Rx with placebo in 200 patients with end-stage renal disease, a study comparing osocimab with placebo in 600 patients with end-stage renal disease, and a study comparing abelacimab – an antibody that binds to FXI and prevents its activation by either FXIIa or thrombin, with enoxaparin in 700 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, Dr. Weitz said.

Additionally, there is “considerable activity” with small molecule inhibitors of FXIa, including a phase 2, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study looking at the novel JNG-7003/BMS-986177 agent for secondary stroke/transient ischemic attack prevention in 2,500 patients and a phase 2 study comparing it with enoxaparin for postoperative thromboprophylaxis in 1,200 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

Parallel phase 2 studies are also underway to compare the novel BAY-2433334 small molecule inhibitor with placebo for stroke/transient ischemic attack prevention, with apixaban for atrial fibrillation, and for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute MI.

These ongoing trials will help determine the risk-benefit profile of FXI inhibitors he said.

Session comoderator Anne Rose, PharmD, pharmacy coordinator at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, noted that these types of agents have been discussed “for quite some time” and asked whether they will be available for use in clinical practice in the near future.

Dr. Weitz predicted it will be at least a few years. The studies are just now moving to phase 2b and will still need to be evaluated in phase 3 trials and for appropriate new indications, he said.

Dr. Weitz reported research support from Canadian Institutes of Health research, Heart and Stroke Foundation, and Canadian Fund for Innovation, and he is a consultant and/or scientific advisory board member for Anthos, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Portola, Servier , and Thetherex.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Factor XI has emerged as a promising target for new anticoagulants, and several strategies for inhibiting the enzyme to reduce stroke, thromboembolism, and bleeding risk are under investigation, according to Jeffrey I. Weitz, MD.

These strategies could pick up where direct-acting oral anticoagulants leave off, he suggested during a presentation at the biennial summit of the Thrombosis & Hemostasis Societies of North America.

“We all know that the direct oral anticoagulants – the DOACs – are an advance over vitamin K antagonists,” said Dr. Weitz, professor of medicine and biochemistry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

Not only are DOACs at least as effective as vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation or for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but they also reduce intracranial bleeding and major bleeding risk in those settings, respectively, and they are more convenient to administer because they can be delivered using fixed doses without the need for coagulation monitoring, he added.

Still, new targets are needed, he said, explaining that, although DOACs moved closer to the goal of attenuating thrombosis without increasing the risk of bleeding, annual rates of major bleeding remain at 2%-3% in the atrial fibrillation population, and rates of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding are about 10%.

“The fear of bleeding leads to underuse of anticoagulants for eligible patients with atrial fibrillation and inappropriate use of low-dose [non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant] regimens, which can leave patients unprotected from thrombotic complications,” he said.
 

Factor XI

That’s where Factor XI (FXI) may come in, Dr. Weitz said.

Current anticoagulants target enzymes, including FXa or thrombin, in the common pathway of coagulation, but the intrinsic pathway at the level of FXI and FXII has attracted attention in recent years.

The intrinsic pathway is activated when blood comes into contact with medical devices like stents, mechanical heart valves, or central venous catheters, but evidence also suggests that it plays a role in clot stabilization and growth, he explained, noting additional evidence of attenuation of thrombosis in mice deficient in FXI or FXII and in animals with FXI or FXII inhibitors.

“There is no bleeding with congenital FXII deficiency, and patients with FXI deficiency rarely have spontaneous bleeding, although they can bleed with surgery or trauma,” he noted. “Therefore, the promise of contact pathway inhibition is that we can attenuate thrombosis with little or no disruption of hemostasis.”

The initiators of the intrinsic pathway are naturally occurring polyphosphates that can activate FXI and FXII, promote platelet activation, and lead to thrombosis. A number of agents are being investigated to target these enzymes – particularly FXI, for which the strongest epidemiological and other evidence of its link with thrombosis exists. He noted that FXI deficiency appears protective against deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and ischemic stroke, whereas high levels are linked with an increased risk of venous and arterial thrombosis.

Investigative strategies include the use of antisense oligonucleotides to reduce hepatic synthesis of FXI, aptamers to bind FXI and block its activity, antibodies to bind FXI and block its activation or activity, and small molecules to bind reversibly to the active site of FXI and block its activity “much like the DOACs block the activity of FXa or thrombin.”

“We have to remember that the DOACs have taken over from vitamin K antagonists, like warfarin, for many indications, and as they go generic their uptake will increase even further,” Dr. Weitz said. “When we compare the FXI inhibitors with existing anticoagulants, we don’t necessarily want to go up against the DOACs – we’re looking for indications where [DOACs] have yet to be tested or may be unsafe.”

Potential indications include the following:

Prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with end-stage renal disease with or without atrial fibrillation.

Provision of a safer platform for antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Secondary stroke prevention.

Prevention or treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Prevention of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters, left ventricular assist devices, or mechanical heart valves.

Agents in development

Of the FXI inhibitors in development, ISIS-FXI_Rx, an antisense oligonucleotide against FXI, is furthest along. In a study published in Blood, ISIS-FXI_Rx produced a dose-dependent and sustained reduction in FXI levels in healthy volunteers, and in a later randomized study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, it significantly reduced the incidence of DVT in patients undergoing voluntary total knee arthroplasty (30.4% with enoxaparin vs. 4.2% with ISIS-FXI_Rx at a dose of 300 mg). Bleeding rates were 8.3% and 2.6%, respectively.

The findings showed the potential for reducing thrombosis without increasing bleeding by targeting FXI, Dr. Weitz said, adding that ISIS-FXIR_x was also evaluated in a small study of patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis and was shown to produce a dose-dependent reduction in FXI levels and to reduce the incidence of category 3 and 4 clotting in the air trap and dialyzer, compared with placebo, when given in addition to heparin.

This suggests that FXI knockdown can attenuate device-associated clotting to a greater extent than heparin alone, Dr. Weitz said.

The FXIa-directed inhibitory antibody osocimab has also been evaluated in both healthy volunteers and in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. In a 2019 study of healthy volunteers, a single IV injection showed a dose-dependent pharmacokinetic profile and produced FXI inhibition for about 1 month, and in the FOXTROT trial published in January in JAMA by Dr. Weitz and colleagues, osocimab was shown to reduce the incidence of symptomatic VTE, asymptomatic DVT, and VTE-related death up to day 10-13 after total knee arthroplasty.

Osocimab at doses ranging from 0.3-1.8 mg/kg given postoperatively or preoperatively were noninferior to enoxaparin (rates of 15.7%-23.7% vs. 26.3%), and osocimab at a preoperative dose of 1.8 mg/kg was superior to both enoxaparin and apixaban (11.5% vs. 26.3% and 14.5%, respectively), he said.

Bleeding rates ranged from 0%-5% with osocimab, compared with 6% with enoxaparin and 2% with apixaban
 

Ongoing studies

Currently ongoing studies of FXI-directed anticoagulation strategies include a study comparing ISIS-FXI_Rx with placebo in 200 patients with end-stage renal disease, a study comparing osocimab with placebo in 600 patients with end-stage renal disease, and a study comparing abelacimab – an antibody that binds to FXI and prevents its activation by either FXIIa or thrombin, with enoxaparin in 700 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, Dr. Weitz said.

Additionally, there is “considerable activity” with small molecule inhibitors of FXIa, including a phase 2, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study looking at the novel JNG-7003/BMS-986177 agent for secondary stroke/transient ischemic attack prevention in 2,500 patients and a phase 2 study comparing it with enoxaparin for postoperative thromboprophylaxis in 1,200 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

Parallel phase 2 studies are also underway to compare the novel BAY-2433334 small molecule inhibitor with placebo for stroke/transient ischemic attack prevention, with apixaban for atrial fibrillation, and for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute MI.

These ongoing trials will help determine the risk-benefit profile of FXI inhibitors he said.

Session comoderator Anne Rose, PharmD, pharmacy coordinator at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, noted that these types of agents have been discussed “for quite some time” and asked whether they will be available for use in clinical practice in the near future.

Dr. Weitz predicted it will be at least a few years. The studies are just now moving to phase 2b and will still need to be evaluated in phase 3 trials and for appropriate new indications, he said.

Dr. Weitz reported research support from Canadian Institutes of Health research, Heart and Stroke Foundation, and Canadian Fund for Innovation, and he is a consultant and/or scientific advisory board member for Anthos, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Portola, Servier , and Thetherex.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Factor XI has emerged as a promising target for new anticoagulants, and several strategies for inhibiting the enzyme to reduce stroke, thromboembolism, and bleeding risk are under investigation, according to Jeffrey I. Weitz, MD.

These strategies could pick up where direct-acting oral anticoagulants leave off, he suggested during a presentation at the biennial summit of the Thrombosis & Hemostasis Societies of North America.

“We all know that the direct oral anticoagulants – the DOACs – are an advance over vitamin K antagonists,” said Dr. Weitz, professor of medicine and biochemistry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

Not only are DOACs at least as effective as vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation or for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but they also reduce intracranial bleeding and major bleeding risk in those settings, respectively, and they are more convenient to administer because they can be delivered using fixed doses without the need for coagulation monitoring, he added.

Still, new targets are needed, he said, explaining that, although DOACs moved closer to the goal of attenuating thrombosis without increasing the risk of bleeding, annual rates of major bleeding remain at 2%-3% in the atrial fibrillation population, and rates of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding are about 10%.

“The fear of bleeding leads to underuse of anticoagulants for eligible patients with atrial fibrillation and inappropriate use of low-dose [non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant] regimens, which can leave patients unprotected from thrombotic complications,” he said.
 

Factor XI

That’s where Factor XI (FXI) may come in, Dr. Weitz said.

Current anticoagulants target enzymes, including FXa or thrombin, in the common pathway of coagulation, but the intrinsic pathway at the level of FXI and FXII has attracted attention in recent years.

The intrinsic pathway is activated when blood comes into contact with medical devices like stents, mechanical heart valves, or central venous catheters, but evidence also suggests that it plays a role in clot stabilization and growth, he explained, noting additional evidence of attenuation of thrombosis in mice deficient in FXI or FXII and in animals with FXI or FXII inhibitors.

“There is no bleeding with congenital FXII deficiency, and patients with FXI deficiency rarely have spontaneous bleeding, although they can bleed with surgery or trauma,” he noted. “Therefore, the promise of contact pathway inhibition is that we can attenuate thrombosis with little or no disruption of hemostasis.”

The initiators of the intrinsic pathway are naturally occurring polyphosphates that can activate FXI and FXII, promote platelet activation, and lead to thrombosis. A number of agents are being investigated to target these enzymes – particularly FXI, for which the strongest epidemiological and other evidence of its link with thrombosis exists. He noted that FXI deficiency appears protective against deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and ischemic stroke, whereas high levels are linked with an increased risk of venous and arterial thrombosis.

Investigative strategies include the use of antisense oligonucleotides to reduce hepatic synthesis of FXI, aptamers to bind FXI and block its activity, antibodies to bind FXI and block its activation or activity, and small molecules to bind reversibly to the active site of FXI and block its activity “much like the DOACs block the activity of FXa or thrombin.”

“We have to remember that the DOACs have taken over from vitamin K antagonists, like warfarin, for many indications, and as they go generic their uptake will increase even further,” Dr. Weitz said. “When we compare the FXI inhibitors with existing anticoagulants, we don’t necessarily want to go up against the DOACs – we’re looking for indications where [DOACs] have yet to be tested or may be unsafe.”

Potential indications include the following:

Prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with end-stage renal disease with or without atrial fibrillation.

Provision of a safer platform for antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Secondary stroke prevention.

Prevention or treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Prevention of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters, left ventricular assist devices, or mechanical heart valves.

Agents in development

Of the FXI inhibitors in development, ISIS-FXI_Rx, an antisense oligonucleotide against FXI, is furthest along. In a study published in Blood, ISIS-FXI_Rx produced a dose-dependent and sustained reduction in FXI levels in healthy volunteers, and in a later randomized study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, it significantly reduced the incidence of DVT in patients undergoing voluntary total knee arthroplasty (30.4% with enoxaparin vs. 4.2% with ISIS-FXI_Rx at a dose of 300 mg). Bleeding rates were 8.3% and 2.6%, respectively.

The findings showed the potential for reducing thrombosis without increasing bleeding by targeting FXI, Dr. Weitz said, adding that ISIS-FXIR_x was also evaluated in a small study of patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis and was shown to produce a dose-dependent reduction in FXI levels and to reduce the incidence of category 3 and 4 clotting in the air trap and dialyzer, compared with placebo, when given in addition to heparin.

This suggests that FXI knockdown can attenuate device-associated clotting to a greater extent than heparin alone, Dr. Weitz said.

The FXIa-directed inhibitory antibody osocimab has also been evaluated in both healthy volunteers and in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. In a 2019 study of healthy volunteers, a single IV injection showed a dose-dependent pharmacokinetic profile and produced FXI inhibition for about 1 month, and in the FOXTROT trial published in January in JAMA by Dr. Weitz and colleagues, osocimab was shown to reduce the incidence of symptomatic VTE, asymptomatic DVT, and VTE-related death up to day 10-13 after total knee arthroplasty.

Osocimab at doses ranging from 0.3-1.8 mg/kg given postoperatively or preoperatively were noninferior to enoxaparin (rates of 15.7%-23.7% vs. 26.3%), and osocimab at a preoperative dose of 1.8 mg/kg was superior to both enoxaparin and apixaban (11.5% vs. 26.3% and 14.5%, respectively), he said.

Bleeding rates ranged from 0%-5% with osocimab, compared with 6% with enoxaparin and 2% with apixaban
 

Ongoing studies

Currently ongoing studies of FXI-directed anticoagulation strategies include a study comparing ISIS-FXI_Rx with placebo in 200 patients with end-stage renal disease, a study comparing osocimab with placebo in 600 patients with end-stage renal disease, and a study comparing abelacimab – an antibody that binds to FXI and prevents its activation by either FXIIa or thrombin, with enoxaparin in 700 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, Dr. Weitz said.

Additionally, there is “considerable activity” with small molecule inhibitors of FXIa, including a phase 2, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study looking at the novel JNG-7003/BMS-986177 agent for secondary stroke/transient ischemic attack prevention in 2,500 patients and a phase 2 study comparing it with enoxaparin for postoperative thromboprophylaxis in 1,200 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

Parallel phase 2 studies are also underway to compare the novel BAY-2433334 small molecule inhibitor with placebo for stroke/transient ischemic attack prevention, with apixaban for atrial fibrillation, and for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute MI.

These ongoing trials will help determine the risk-benefit profile of FXI inhibitors he said.

Session comoderator Anne Rose, PharmD, pharmacy coordinator at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, noted that these types of agents have been discussed “for quite some time” and asked whether they will be available for use in clinical practice in the near future.

Dr. Weitz predicted it will be at least a few years. The studies are just now moving to phase 2b and will still need to be evaluated in phase 3 trials and for appropriate new indications, he said.

Dr. Weitz reported research support from Canadian Institutes of Health research, Heart and Stroke Foundation, and Canadian Fund for Innovation, and he is a consultant and/or scientific advisory board member for Anthos, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Portola, Servier , and Thetherex.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Dental extractions can cause significant risk of bleeding in hemophilia patients being treated with factor replacements. However, mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of postextraction bleeding in these patients, according to Takahiro Yagyuu, DDS, of the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Japan, and colleagues.

The researchers performed a retrospective analysis of the medical records of hemophilia patients who underwent tooth extraction(s) between April 2006 and April 2019 at a single university hospital in Japan.

They conducted logistic regression analyses to identify risk/protective factors for postextraction bleeding in procedures involving patients receiving factor replacement therapy. Postextraction bleeding was defined as bleeding that could not be stopped by biting down on gauze and required medical treatment between 30 minutes and 14 days after the extraction, according to the report published online on in the British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery.

A total of 130 extractions in 48 patients with hemophilia A and 21 extractions in 7 patients with hemophilia B were performed. Postextraction bleeding events were observed in 9 patients (16.3%) and 12 extractions (7.9%). On average, postextraction bleeding occurred 6 days after intervention and on the fifth postoperative day for extractions, according to the researchers.
 

Benefits of splints

The study found that the use of mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of postextraction bleeding (odds ratio, 0.13; P = .01) in hemophilia patients being treated with clotting factor replacements.

However, other factors in the study cohort, such as age, severity of hemophilia, duration of factor replacement therapy, gingival incision, bone removal, tooth separation, use of absorbable hemostats, wound closure, and the prescription of NSAIDs, were not significantly associated with postextraction bleeding, the researchers added.

“The use of mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of post-extraction bleeding. [In the future], we will conduct a prospective study to investigate the optimal type of splint and splint-wearing period to improve hemostatic management of tooth extraction in hemophilia patients,” the researchers concluded.

One author reported grants and personal fees from Bayer, Bioverativ, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Novo Nordisk, and Shire. A second author teaches a course endowed by Shire Japan. The other authors reported they had no conflicts.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Yagyuu T et al. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.121.

Dental extractions can cause significant risk of bleeding in hemophilia patients being treated with factor replacements. However, mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of postextraction bleeding in these patients, according to Takahiro Yagyuu, DDS, of the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Japan, and colleagues.

The researchers performed a retrospective analysis of the medical records of hemophilia patients who underwent tooth extraction(s) between April 2006 and April 2019 at a single university hospital in Japan.

They conducted logistic regression analyses to identify risk/protective factors for postextraction bleeding in procedures involving patients receiving factor replacement therapy. Postextraction bleeding was defined as bleeding that could not be stopped by biting down on gauze and required medical treatment between 30 minutes and 14 days after the extraction, according to the report published online on in the British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery.

A total of 130 extractions in 48 patients with hemophilia A and 21 extractions in 7 patients with hemophilia B were performed. Postextraction bleeding events were observed in 9 patients (16.3%) and 12 extractions (7.9%). On average, postextraction bleeding occurred 6 days after intervention and on the fifth postoperative day for extractions, according to the researchers.
 

Benefits of splints

The study found that the use of mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of postextraction bleeding (odds ratio, 0.13; P = .01) in hemophilia patients being treated with clotting factor replacements.

However, other factors in the study cohort, such as age, severity of hemophilia, duration of factor replacement therapy, gingival incision, bone removal, tooth separation, use of absorbable hemostats, wound closure, and the prescription of NSAIDs, were not significantly associated with postextraction bleeding, the researchers added.

“The use of mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of post-extraction bleeding. [In the future], we will conduct a prospective study to investigate the optimal type of splint and splint-wearing period to improve hemostatic management of tooth extraction in hemophilia patients,” the researchers concluded.

One author reported grants and personal fees from Bayer, Bioverativ, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Novo Nordisk, and Shire. A second author teaches a course endowed by Shire Japan. The other authors reported they had no conflicts.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Yagyuu T et al. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.121.

Dental extractions can cause significant risk of bleeding in hemophilia patients being treated with factor replacements. However, mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of postextraction bleeding in these patients, according to Takahiro Yagyuu, DDS, of the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Japan, and colleagues.

The researchers performed a retrospective analysis of the medical records of hemophilia patients who underwent tooth extraction(s) between April 2006 and April 2019 at a single university hospital in Japan.

They conducted logistic regression analyses to identify risk/protective factors for postextraction bleeding in procedures involving patients receiving factor replacement therapy. Postextraction bleeding was defined as bleeding that could not be stopped by biting down on gauze and required medical treatment between 30 minutes and 14 days after the extraction, according to the report published online on in the British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery.

A total of 130 extractions in 48 patients with hemophilia A and 21 extractions in 7 patients with hemophilia B were performed. Postextraction bleeding events were observed in 9 patients (16.3%) and 12 extractions (7.9%). On average, postextraction bleeding occurred 6 days after intervention and on the fifth postoperative day for extractions, according to the researchers.
 

Benefits of splints

The study found that the use of mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of postextraction bleeding (odds ratio, 0.13; P = .01) in hemophilia patients being treated with clotting factor replacements.

However, other factors in the study cohort, such as age, severity of hemophilia, duration of factor replacement therapy, gingival incision, bone removal, tooth separation, use of absorbable hemostats, wound closure, and the prescription of NSAIDs, were not significantly associated with postextraction bleeding, the researchers added.

“The use of mouth splints significantly decreased the risk of post-extraction bleeding. [In the future], we will conduct a prospective study to investigate the optimal type of splint and splint-wearing period to improve hemostatic management of tooth extraction in hemophilia patients,” the researchers concluded.

One author reported grants and personal fees from Bayer, Bioverativ, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Novo Nordisk, and Shire. A second author teaches a course endowed by Shire Japan. The other authors reported they had no conflicts.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Yagyuu T et al. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.121.