In an age of changing climate and emerging global pandemics, the ability of residency programs to prepare for and adapt to potential disasters may be paramount in preserving the training of physicians. The current literature regarding residency program disaster preparedness, which focuses predominantly on hurricanes and COVID-19,^1-8 is lacking in recommendations specific to dermatology residency programs. Likewise, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines⁹ do not address dermatology-specific concerns in disaster preparedness or response. Herein, we propose recommendations to mitigate the impact of various types of disasters on dermatology residency programs and their trainees with regard to resident safety and wellness, resident education, and patient care (Table).

Resident Safety and Wellness

Role of the Program Director—The role of the program director is critical, serving as a figure of structure and reassurance.^4,7,10 Once concern of disaster arises, the program director should contact the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) to express concerns about possible disruptions to resident training. The DIO should then contact the ACGME within 10 days to report the disaster and submit a request for emergency (eg, pandemic) or extraordinary circumstances (eg, natural disaster) categorization.^4,9 Program directors should promptly prepare plans for program reconfiguration and resident transfers in alignment with ACGME requirements to maintain evaluation and completion of core competencies of training during disasters.⁹ Program directors should prioritize the safety of trainees during the immediate threat with clear guidelines on sheltering, evacuations, or quarantines; a timeline of program recovery based on communication with residents, faculty, and administration should then be established.^10,11

Communication—Establishing a strong line of communication between program directors and residents is paramount. Collection of emergency noninstitutional contact information, establishment of a centralized website for information dissemination, use of noninstitutional email and proxy servers outside of the location of impact, social media updates, on-site use of 2-way radios, and program-wide conference calls when possible should be strongly considered as part of the disaster response.^2-4,12,13

Resident Accommodations and Mental Health—If training is disrupted, residents should be reassured of continued access to salary, housing, food, or other resources as necessary.^3,4,11 There should be clear contingency plans if residents need to leave the program for extended periods of time due to injury, illness, or personal circumstances. Although relevant in all types of disasters, resident mental health and response to trauma also must be addressed. Access to counseling, morale-building opportunities (eg, resident social events), and screening for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder may help promote well-being among residents following traumatic events.¹⁴

Resident Education

Participation in Disaster Relief—Residents may seek to aid in the disaster response, which may prove challenging in the setting of programs with high patient volume.⁴ In coordination with the ACGME and graduate medical education governing bodies, program directors should consider how residents may fulfill dermatology training requirements in conjunction with disaster relief efforts, such as working in an inpatient setting or providing wound care.¹⁰

Continued Didactic Education—The use of online learning and conference calls for continuing the dermatology curriculum is an efficient means to maintaining resident education when meeting in person poses risks to residents.¹⁵ Projections of microscopy images, clinical photographs, or other instructional materials allow for continued instruction on resident examination, histopathology, and diagnostic skills.

Continued Clinical Training—If the home institution cannot support the operation of dermatology clinics, residents should be guaranteed continued training at other institutions. Agreements with other dermatology programs, community hospitals, or private dermatology practices should be established in advance, with consideration given to the number of residents a program can support, funding transfers, and credentialing requirements.^2,4,5

Prolonged Disruptions—Nonessential departments of medical institutions may cease to function during war or mass casualty disasters, and it may be unsafe to send dermatology residents to other institutions or clinical areas. If the threat is prolonged, programs may need to consider allowing current residents a longer duration of training despite potential overlap with incoming dermatology residents.⁷

Patient Care

Disruptions to Clinic Operations—Regarding threats of violence, dangerous exposures, or natural disasters, there should be clear guidelines on sheltering in the clinical setting or stabilizing patients during a procedure.¹¹ Equipment used by residents such as laptops, microscopes, and treatment devices (eg, lasers) should be stored in weather-safe locations that would not be notably impacted by moisture or structural damage to the clinic building. If electricity or internet access are compromised, paper medical records should be available to residents to continue clinical operations. Electronic health records used by residents should regularly be backed up on remote servers or cloud storage to allow continued access to patient health information if on-site servers are not functional.¹² If disruptions are prolonged, residency program administration should coordinate with the institution to ensure there is adequate supply and storage of medications (eg, lidocaine, botulinum toxin) as well as a continued means of delivering biologic medications to patients and an ability to obtain laboratory or dermatopathology services.

In-Person Appointments vs Telemedicine—There are benefits to both residency training and patient care when physicians are able to perform in-person examinations, biopsies, and in-office treatments.¹⁶ Programs should ensure an adequate supply of personal protective equipment to continue in-office appointments, vaccinations, and medical care if a resident or other members of the team are exposed to an infectious disease.⁷ If in-person appointments are limited or impossible, telemedicine capabilities may still allow residents to meet program requirements.^7,10,15 However, reduced patient volume due to decreased elective visits or procedures may complicate the fulfillment of clinical requirements, which may need to be adjusted in the wake of a disaster.⁷

Use of Immunosuppressive Therapies—Residency programs should address the risks of prescribing immunosuppressive therapies (eg, biologics) during an infectious threat with their residents and encourage trainees to counsel patients on the importance of preventative measures to reduce risks for severe infection.¹⁷

Final Thoughts

Disasters often are unpredictable. Dermatology residency programs will not be immune to the future impacts of climate change, violent threats, or emerging pandemics. Lessons from prior natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic have made it clear that program directors need to be adaptable. If they plan proactively, comprehensive disaster preparedness can help to maintain high-quality training of dermatology residents in the face of extraordinary and challenging circumstances, promoting the resiliency and sustainability of graduate medical education.

In an age of changing climate and emerging global pandemics, the ability of residency programs to prepare for and adapt to potential disasters may be paramount in preserving the training of physicians. The current literature regarding residency program disaster preparedness, which focuses predominantly on hurricanes and COVID-19,^1-8 is lacking in recommendations specific to dermatology residency programs. Likewise, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines⁹ do not address dermatology-specific concerns in disaster preparedness or response. Herein, we propose recommendations to mitigate the impact of various types of disasters on dermatology residency programs and their trainees with regard to resident safety and wellness, resident education, and patient care (Table).

Resident Safety and Wellness

Role of the Program Director—The role of the program director is critical, serving as a figure of structure and reassurance.^4,7,10 Once concern of disaster arises, the program director should contact the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) to express concerns about possible disruptions to resident training. The DIO should then contact the ACGME within 10 days to report the disaster and submit a request for emergency (eg, pandemic) or extraordinary circumstances (eg, natural disaster) categorization.^4,9 Program directors should promptly prepare plans for program reconfiguration and resident transfers in alignment with ACGME requirements to maintain evaluation and completion of core competencies of training during disasters.⁹ Program directors should prioritize the safety of trainees during the immediate threat with clear guidelines on sheltering, evacuations, or quarantines; a timeline of program recovery based on communication with residents, faculty, and administration should then be established.^10,11

Communication—Establishing a strong line of communication between program directors and residents is paramount. Collection of emergency noninstitutional contact information, establishment of a centralized website for information dissemination, use of noninstitutional email and proxy servers outside of the location of impact, social media updates, on-site use of 2-way radios, and program-wide conference calls when possible should be strongly considered as part of the disaster response.^2-4,12,13

Resident Accommodations and Mental Health—If training is disrupted, residents should be reassured of continued access to salary, housing, food, or other resources as necessary.^3,4,11 There should be clear contingency plans if residents need to leave the program for extended periods of time due to injury, illness, or personal circumstances. Although relevant in all types of disasters, resident mental health and response to trauma also must be addressed. Access to counseling, morale-building opportunities (eg, resident social events), and screening for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder may help promote well-being among residents following traumatic events.¹⁴

Resident Education

Participation in Disaster Relief—Residents may seek to aid in the disaster response, which may prove challenging in the setting of programs with high patient volume.⁴ In coordination with the ACGME and graduate medical education governing bodies, program directors should consider how residents may fulfill dermatology training requirements in conjunction with disaster relief efforts, such as working in an inpatient setting or providing wound care.¹⁰

Continued Didactic Education—The use of online learning and conference calls for continuing the dermatology curriculum is an efficient means to maintaining resident education when meeting in person poses risks to residents.¹⁵ Projections of microscopy images, clinical photographs, or other instructional materials allow for continued instruction on resident examination, histopathology, and diagnostic skills.

Continued Clinical Training—If the home institution cannot support the operation of dermatology clinics, residents should be guaranteed continued training at other institutions. Agreements with other dermatology programs, community hospitals, or private dermatology practices should be established in advance, with consideration given to the number of residents a program can support, funding transfers, and credentialing requirements.^2,4,5

Prolonged Disruptions—Nonessential departments of medical institutions may cease to function during war or mass casualty disasters, and it may be unsafe to send dermatology residents to other institutions or clinical areas. If the threat is prolonged, programs may need to consider allowing current residents a longer duration of training despite potential overlap with incoming dermatology residents.⁷

Patient Care

Disruptions to Clinic Operations—Regarding threats of violence, dangerous exposures, or natural disasters, there should be clear guidelines on sheltering in the clinical setting or stabilizing patients during a procedure.¹¹ Equipment used by residents such as laptops, microscopes, and treatment devices (eg, lasers) should be stored in weather-safe locations that would not be notably impacted by moisture or structural damage to the clinic building. If electricity or internet access are compromised, paper medical records should be available to residents to continue clinical operations. Electronic health records used by residents should regularly be backed up on remote servers or cloud storage to allow continued access to patient health information if on-site servers are not functional.¹² If disruptions are prolonged, residency program administration should coordinate with the institution to ensure there is adequate supply and storage of medications (eg, lidocaine, botulinum toxin) as well as a continued means of delivering biologic medications to patients and an ability to obtain laboratory or dermatopathology services.

In-Person Appointments vs Telemedicine—There are benefits to both residency training and patient care when physicians are able to perform in-person examinations, biopsies, and in-office treatments.¹⁶ Programs should ensure an adequate supply of personal protective equipment to continue in-office appointments, vaccinations, and medical care if a resident or other members of the team are exposed to an infectious disease.⁷ If in-person appointments are limited or impossible, telemedicine capabilities may still allow residents to meet program requirements.^7,10,15 However, reduced patient volume due to decreased elective visits or procedures may complicate the fulfillment of clinical requirements, which may need to be adjusted in the wake of a disaster.⁷

Use of Immunosuppressive Therapies—Residency programs should address the risks of prescribing immunosuppressive therapies (eg, biologics) during an infectious threat with their residents and encourage trainees to counsel patients on the importance of preventative measures to reduce risks for severe infection.¹⁷

Final Thoughts

Disasters often are unpredictable. Dermatology residency programs will not be immune to the future impacts of climate change, violent threats, or emerging pandemics. Lessons from prior natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic have made it clear that program directors need to be adaptable. If they plan proactively, comprehensive disaster preparedness can help to maintain high-quality training of dermatology residents in the face of extraordinary and challenging circumstances, promoting the resiliency and sustainability of graduate medical education.

In an age of changing climate and emerging global pandemics, the ability of residency programs to prepare for and adapt to potential disasters may be paramount in preserving the training of physicians. The current literature regarding residency program disaster preparedness, which focuses predominantly on hurricanes and COVID-19,^1-8 is lacking in recommendations specific to dermatology residency programs. Likewise, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines⁹ do not address dermatology-specific concerns in disaster preparedness or response. Herein, we propose recommendations to mitigate the impact of various types of disasters on dermatology residency programs and their trainees with regard to resident safety and wellness, resident education, and patient care (Table).

Resident Safety and Wellness

Role of the Program Director—The role of the program director is critical, serving as a figure of structure and reassurance.^4,7,10 Once concern of disaster arises, the program director should contact the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) to express concerns about possible disruptions to resident training. The DIO should then contact the ACGME within 10 days to report the disaster and submit a request for emergency (eg, pandemic) or extraordinary circumstances (eg, natural disaster) categorization.^4,9 Program directors should promptly prepare plans for program reconfiguration and resident transfers in alignment with ACGME requirements to maintain evaluation and completion of core competencies of training during disasters.⁹ Program directors should prioritize the safety of trainees during the immediate threat with clear guidelines on sheltering, evacuations, or quarantines; a timeline of program recovery based on communication with residents, faculty, and administration should then be established.^10,11

Communication—Establishing a strong line of communication between program directors and residents is paramount. Collection of emergency noninstitutional contact information, establishment of a centralized website for information dissemination, use of noninstitutional email and proxy servers outside of the location of impact, social media updates, on-site use of 2-way radios, and program-wide conference calls when possible should be strongly considered as part of the disaster response.^2-4,12,13

Resident Accommodations and Mental Health—If training is disrupted, residents should be reassured of continued access to salary, housing, food, or other resources as necessary.^3,4,11 There should be clear contingency plans if residents need to leave the program for extended periods of time due to injury, illness, or personal circumstances. Although relevant in all types of disasters, resident mental health and response to trauma also must be addressed. Access to counseling, morale-building opportunities (eg, resident social events), and screening for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder may help promote well-being among residents following traumatic events.¹⁴

Resident Education

Participation in Disaster Relief—Residents may seek to aid in the disaster response, which may prove challenging in the setting of programs with high patient volume.⁴ In coordination with the ACGME and graduate medical education governing bodies, program directors should consider how residents may fulfill dermatology training requirements in conjunction with disaster relief efforts, such as working in an inpatient setting or providing wound care.¹⁰

Continued Didactic Education—The use of online learning and conference calls for continuing the dermatology curriculum is an efficient means to maintaining resident education when meeting in person poses risks to residents.¹⁵ Projections of microscopy images, clinical photographs, or other instructional materials allow for continued instruction on resident examination, histopathology, and diagnostic skills.

Continued Clinical Training—If the home institution cannot support the operation of dermatology clinics, residents should be guaranteed continued training at other institutions. Agreements with other dermatology programs, community hospitals, or private dermatology practices should be established in advance, with consideration given to the number of residents a program can support, funding transfers, and credentialing requirements.^2,4,5

Prolonged Disruptions—Nonessential departments of medical institutions may cease to function during war or mass casualty disasters, and it may be unsafe to send dermatology residents to other institutions or clinical areas. If the threat is prolonged, programs may need to consider allowing current residents a longer duration of training despite potential overlap with incoming dermatology residents.⁷

Patient Care

Disruptions to Clinic Operations—Regarding threats of violence, dangerous exposures, or natural disasters, there should be clear guidelines on sheltering in the clinical setting or stabilizing patients during a procedure.¹¹ Equipment used by residents such as laptops, microscopes, and treatment devices (eg, lasers) should be stored in weather-safe locations that would not be notably impacted by moisture or structural damage to the clinic building. If electricity or internet access are compromised, paper medical records should be available to residents to continue clinical operations. Electronic health records used by residents should regularly be backed up on remote servers or cloud storage to allow continued access to patient health information if on-site servers are not functional.¹² If disruptions are prolonged, residency program administration should coordinate with the institution to ensure there is adequate supply and storage of medications (eg, lidocaine, botulinum toxin) as well as a continued means of delivering biologic medications to patients and an ability to obtain laboratory or dermatopathology services.

In-Person Appointments vs Telemedicine—There are benefits to both residency training and patient care when physicians are able to perform in-person examinations, biopsies, and in-office treatments.¹⁶ Programs should ensure an adequate supply of personal protective equipment to continue in-office appointments, vaccinations, and medical care if a resident or other members of the team are exposed to an infectious disease.⁷ If in-person appointments are limited or impossible, telemedicine capabilities may still allow residents to meet program requirements.^7,10,15 However, reduced patient volume due to decreased elective visits or procedures may complicate the fulfillment of clinical requirements, which may need to be adjusted in the wake of a disaster.⁷

Use of Immunosuppressive Therapies—Residency programs should address the risks of prescribing immunosuppressive therapies (eg, biologics) during an infectious threat with their residents and encourage trainees to counsel patients on the importance of preventative measures to reduce risks for severe infection.¹⁷

Final Thoughts

Disasters often are unpredictable. Dermatology residency programs will not be immune to the future impacts of climate change, violent threats, or emerging pandemics. Lessons from prior natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic have made it clear that program directors need to be adaptable. If they plan proactively, comprehensive disaster preparedness can help to maintain high-quality training of dermatology residents in the face of extraordinary and challenging circumstances, promoting the resiliency and sustainability of graduate medical education.

Practice Gap

A male patient presented with 2 concerning lesions, which histopathology revealed were invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the right medial chest and SCC in situ on the right upper scapular region. Both were treated with wide local excision; margins were clear in our office the same day.

This case highlighted a practice gap in postoperative care. Two factors posed a challenge to proper postoperative wound care for our patient:

• Because of the high risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the patient hoped to limit exposure by avoiding an office visit to remove the bandage.

• The patient did not have someone at home to serve as an immediate support system, which made it impossible for him to rely on others for postoperative wound care.

Previously, the patient had to ask a friend to remove a bandage for melanoma in situ on the inner aspect of the left upper arm. Therefore, after this procedure, the patient asked if the bandage could be fashioned in a manner that would allow him to remove it without assistance (Figure 1).

Technique

In constructing a bandage that is easier to remove, some necessary pressure that is provided by the bandage often is sacrificed by making it looser. Considering that our patient had moderate bleeding during the procedure—in part because he took low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d)—it was important to maintain firm pressure under the bandage postoperatively to help prevent untoward bleeding. Furthermore, because of the location of the treated site and the patient’s limited range of motion, it was not feasible for him to reach the area on the scapula and remove the bandage.¹

For easy self-removal, we designed a bandage with a pull tab that was within the patient’s reach. Suitable materials for the pull tab bandage included surgical tape, bandaging tape with adequate stretch, sterile nonadhesive gauze, fenestrated surgical gauze, and a topical emollient such as petroleum jelly or antibacterial ointment.

To clean the site and decrease the amount of oil that would reduce the effectiveness of the adhesive, the wound was prepared with 70% alcohol. The site was then treated with petroleum jelly.

Next, we designed 2 pull tab bandage prototypes that allowed easy self-removal. For both prototypes, sterile nonadhesive gauze was applied to the wound along with folded and fenestrated gauze, which provided pressure. We used prototype #1 in our patient, and prototype #2 was demonstrated as an option.

Prototype #1—We created 2 tabs—each 2-feet long—using bandaging tape that was folded on itself once horizontally (Figure 2). The tabs were aligned on either side of the wound, the tops of which sat approximately 2 inches above the top of the first layer of adhesive bandage. An initial layer of adhesive surgical dressing was applied to cover the wound; 1 inch of the dressing was left exposed on the top of each tab. In addition, there were 2 “feet” running on the bottom.

The tops of the tabs were folded back over the adhesive tape, creating a type of “hook.” An additional final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure on the surgical site.

The patient was instructed to remove the bandage 2 days after the procedure. The outcome was qualified through a 3-day postoperative telephone call. The patient was asked about postoperative pain and his level of satisfaction with treatment. He was asked if he had any changes such as bleeding, swelling, signs of infection, or increased pain in the days after surgery or perceived postoperative complications, such as irritation. We asked the patient about the relative ease of removing the bandage and if removal was painful. He reported that the bandage was easy to remove, and that doing so was not painful; furthermore, he did not have problems with the bandage or healing and did not experience any medical changes. He found the bandage to be comfortable. The patient stated that the hanging feet of the prototype #1 bandage were not bothersome and were sturdy for the time that the bandage was on.

Prototype #2—We prepared a bandage using surgical packing as the tab (Figure 3). The packing was slowly placed around the site, which was already covered with nonadhesive gauze and fenestrated surgical gauze, with adequate spacing between each loop (for a total of 3 loops), 1 of which crossed over the third loop so that the adhesive bandaging tape could be removed easily. This allowed for a single tab that could be removed by a single pull. A final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure, similar to prototype #1. The same postoperative protocol was employed to provide a consistent standard of care. We recommend use of this prototype when surgical tape is not available, and surgical packing can be used as a substitute.

Practice Implications

Patients have a better appreciation for avoiding excess visits to medical offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection is greater when patients who lack a support system must return to the office for aftercare or to have a bandage removed. Although protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccine alleviates concern, many patients have realized the benefits of only visiting medical offices in person when necessary.

The concept of pull tab bandages that can be removed by the patient at home has other applications. For example, patients who travel a long distance to see their physician will benefit from easier aftercare and avoid additional follow-up visits when provided with a self-removable bandage.

Practice Gap

A male patient presented with 2 concerning lesions, which histopathology revealed were invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the right medial chest and SCC in situ on the right upper scapular region. Both were treated with wide local excision; margins were clear in our office the same day.

This case highlighted a practice gap in postoperative care. Two factors posed a challenge to proper postoperative wound care for our patient:

• Because of the high risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the patient hoped to limit exposure by avoiding an office visit to remove the bandage.

• The patient did not have someone at home to serve as an immediate support system, which made it impossible for him to rely on others for postoperative wound care.

Previously, the patient had to ask a friend to remove a bandage for melanoma in situ on the inner aspect of the left upper arm. Therefore, after this procedure, the patient asked if the bandage could be fashioned in a manner that would allow him to remove it without assistance (Figure 1).

Technique

In constructing a bandage that is easier to remove, some necessary pressure that is provided by the bandage often is sacrificed by making it looser. Considering that our patient had moderate bleeding during the procedure—in part because he took low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d)—it was important to maintain firm pressure under the bandage postoperatively to help prevent untoward bleeding. Furthermore, because of the location of the treated site and the patient’s limited range of motion, it was not feasible for him to reach the area on the scapula and remove the bandage.¹

For easy self-removal, we designed a bandage with a pull tab that was within the patient’s reach. Suitable materials for the pull tab bandage included surgical tape, bandaging tape with adequate stretch, sterile nonadhesive gauze, fenestrated surgical gauze, and a topical emollient such as petroleum jelly or antibacterial ointment.

To clean the site and decrease the amount of oil that would reduce the effectiveness of the adhesive, the wound was prepared with 70% alcohol. The site was then treated with petroleum jelly.

Next, we designed 2 pull tab bandage prototypes that allowed easy self-removal. For both prototypes, sterile nonadhesive gauze was applied to the wound along with folded and fenestrated gauze, which provided pressure. We used prototype #1 in our patient, and prototype #2 was demonstrated as an option.

Prototype #1—We created 2 tabs—each 2-feet long—using bandaging tape that was folded on itself once horizontally (Figure 2). The tabs were aligned on either side of the wound, the tops of which sat approximately 2 inches above the top of the first layer of adhesive bandage. An initial layer of adhesive surgical dressing was applied to cover the wound; 1 inch of the dressing was left exposed on the top of each tab. In addition, there were 2 “feet” running on the bottom.

The tops of the tabs were folded back over the adhesive tape, creating a type of “hook.” An additional final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure on the surgical site.

The patient was instructed to remove the bandage 2 days after the procedure. The outcome was qualified through a 3-day postoperative telephone call. The patient was asked about postoperative pain and his level of satisfaction with treatment. He was asked if he had any changes such as bleeding, swelling, signs of infection, or increased pain in the days after surgery or perceived postoperative complications, such as irritation. We asked the patient about the relative ease of removing the bandage and if removal was painful. He reported that the bandage was easy to remove, and that doing so was not painful; furthermore, he did not have problems with the bandage or healing and did not experience any medical changes. He found the bandage to be comfortable. The patient stated that the hanging feet of the prototype #1 bandage were not bothersome and were sturdy for the time that the bandage was on.

Prototype #2—We prepared a bandage using surgical packing as the tab (Figure 3). The packing was slowly placed around the site, which was already covered with nonadhesive gauze and fenestrated surgical gauze, with adequate spacing between each loop (for a total of 3 loops), 1 of which crossed over the third loop so that the adhesive bandaging tape could be removed easily. This allowed for a single tab that could be removed by a single pull. A final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure, similar to prototype #1. The same postoperative protocol was employed to provide a consistent standard of care. We recommend use of this prototype when surgical tape is not available, and surgical packing can be used as a substitute.

Practice Implications

Patients have a better appreciation for avoiding excess visits to medical offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection is greater when patients who lack a support system must return to the office for aftercare or to have a bandage removed. Although protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccine alleviates concern, many patients have realized the benefits of only visiting medical offices in person when necessary.

The concept of pull tab bandages that can be removed by the patient at home has other applications. For example, patients who travel a long distance to see their physician will benefit from easier aftercare and avoid additional follow-up visits when provided with a self-removable bandage.

Practice Gap

A male patient presented with 2 concerning lesions, which histopathology revealed were invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the right medial chest and SCC in situ on the right upper scapular region. Both were treated with wide local excision; margins were clear in our office the same day.

This case highlighted a practice gap in postoperative care. Two factors posed a challenge to proper postoperative wound care for our patient:

• Because of the high risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the patient hoped to limit exposure by avoiding an office visit to remove the bandage.

• The patient did not have someone at home to serve as an immediate support system, which made it impossible for him to rely on others for postoperative wound care.

Previously, the patient had to ask a friend to remove a bandage for melanoma in situ on the inner aspect of the left upper arm. Therefore, after this procedure, the patient asked if the bandage could be fashioned in a manner that would allow him to remove it without assistance (Figure 1).

Technique

In constructing a bandage that is easier to remove, some necessary pressure that is provided by the bandage often is sacrificed by making it looser. Considering that our patient had moderate bleeding during the procedure—in part because he took low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d)—it was important to maintain firm pressure under the bandage postoperatively to help prevent untoward bleeding. Furthermore, because of the location of the treated site and the patient’s limited range of motion, it was not feasible for him to reach the area on the scapula and remove the bandage.¹

For easy self-removal, we designed a bandage with a pull tab that was within the patient’s reach. Suitable materials for the pull tab bandage included surgical tape, bandaging tape with adequate stretch, sterile nonadhesive gauze, fenestrated surgical gauze, and a topical emollient such as petroleum jelly or antibacterial ointment.

To clean the site and decrease the amount of oil that would reduce the effectiveness of the adhesive, the wound was prepared with 70% alcohol. The site was then treated with petroleum jelly.

Next, we designed 2 pull tab bandage prototypes that allowed easy self-removal. For both prototypes, sterile nonadhesive gauze was applied to the wound along with folded and fenestrated gauze, which provided pressure. We used prototype #1 in our patient, and prototype #2 was demonstrated as an option.

Prototype #1—We created 2 tabs—each 2-feet long—using bandaging tape that was folded on itself once horizontally (Figure 2). The tabs were aligned on either side of the wound, the tops of which sat approximately 2 inches above the top of the first layer of adhesive bandage. An initial layer of adhesive surgical dressing was applied to cover the wound; 1 inch of the dressing was left exposed on the top of each tab. In addition, there were 2 “feet” running on the bottom.

The tops of the tabs were folded back over the adhesive tape, creating a type of “hook.” An additional final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure on the surgical site.

The patient was instructed to remove the bandage 2 days after the procedure. The outcome was qualified through a 3-day postoperative telephone call. The patient was asked about postoperative pain and his level of satisfaction with treatment. He was asked if he had any changes such as bleeding, swelling, signs of infection, or increased pain in the days after surgery or perceived postoperative complications, such as irritation. We asked the patient about the relative ease of removing the bandage and if removal was painful. He reported that the bandage was easy to remove, and that doing so was not painful; furthermore, he did not have problems with the bandage or healing and did not experience any medical changes. He found the bandage to be comfortable. The patient stated that the hanging feet of the prototype #1 bandage were not bothersome and were sturdy for the time that the bandage was on.

Prototype #2—We prepared a bandage using surgical packing as the tab (Figure 3). The packing was slowly placed around the site, which was already covered with nonadhesive gauze and fenestrated surgical gauze, with adequate spacing between each loop (for a total of 3 loops), 1 of which crossed over the third loop so that the adhesive bandaging tape could be removed easily. This allowed for a single tab that could be removed by a single pull. A final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure, similar to prototype #1. The same postoperative protocol was employed to provide a consistent standard of care. We recommend use of this prototype when surgical tape is not available, and surgical packing can be used as a substitute.

Practice Implications

Patients have a better appreciation for avoiding excess visits to medical offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection is greater when patients who lack a support system must return to the office for aftercare or to have a bandage removed. Although protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccine alleviates concern, many patients have realized the benefits of only visiting medical offices in person when necessary.

The concept of pull tab bandages that can be removed by the patient at home has other applications. For example, patients who travel a long distance to see their physician will benefit from easier aftercare and avoid additional follow-up visits when provided with a self-removable bandage.

Click to view more from Gastroenterology Data Trends 2022.

Click to view more from Gastroenterology Data Trends 2022.

Click to view more from Gastroenterology Data Trends 2022.

New COVID-19 cases rose among U.S. children for the second consecutive week, while hospitals saw signs of renewed activity on the part of SARS-CoV-2.

The total for new cases reported during the week of Oct. 28 to Nov. 3, while still low at just under 30,000, was 21% higher than the previous week and 31% higher than 2 weeks ago (Oct. 14-20), when the count fell to its lowest level in more than a year, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their joint report.

The trend is discernible, however, when looking at hospitalizations of children with confirmed COVID. The rate of new admissions of children aged 0-17 years was 0.16 per 100,000 population as late as Oct. 23 but ticked up a notch after that and has been 0.17 per 100,000 since, according to the CDC. As with the ED rate, hospitalizations had been steadily declining since late August.

Vaccine initiation continues to slow

During the week of Oct. 27 to Nov. 2, about 30,000 children under 5 years of age received their initial COVID vaccination. A month earlier (Sept. 29 to Oct. 5), that number was about 40,000. A month before that, about 53,000 children aged 0-5 years received their initial dose, the AAP said in a separate vaccination report based on CDC data.

All of that reduced interest adds up to 7.4% of the age group having received at least one dose and just 3.2% being fully vaccinated as of Nov. 2. Among children aged 5-11 years, the corresponding vaccination rates are 38.9% and 31.8%, while those aged 12-17 years are at 71.3% and 61.1%, the CDC said.

Looking at just the first 20 weeks of the vaccination experience for each age group shows that 1.6 million children under 5 years of age had received at least an initial dose, compared with 8.1 million children aged 5-11 years and 8.1 million children aged 12-15, the AAP said.

New COVID-19 cases rose among U.S. children for the second consecutive week, while hospitals saw signs of renewed activity on the part of SARS-CoV-2.

The total for new cases reported during the week of Oct. 28 to Nov. 3, while still low at just under 30,000, was 21% higher than the previous week and 31% higher than 2 weeks ago (Oct. 14-20), when the count fell to its lowest level in more than a year, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their joint report.

The trend is discernible, however, when looking at hospitalizations of children with confirmed COVID. The rate of new admissions of children aged 0-17 years was 0.16 per 100,000 population as late as Oct. 23 but ticked up a notch after that and has been 0.17 per 100,000 since, according to the CDC. As with the ED rate, hospitalizations had been steadily declining since late August.

Vaccine initiation continues to slow

During the week of Oct. 27 to Nov. 2, about 30,000 children under 5 years of age received their initial COVID vaccination. A month earlier (Sept. 29 to Oct. 5), that number was about 40,000. A month before that, about 53,000 children aged 0-5 years received their initial dose, the AAP said in a separate vaccination report based on CDC data.

All of that reduced interest adds up to 7.4% of the age group having received at least one dose and just 3.2% being fully vaccinated as of Nov. 2. Among children aged 5-11 years, the corresponding vaccination rates are 38.9% and 31.8%, while those aged 12-17 years are at 71.3% and 61.1%, the CDC said.

Looking at just the first 20 weeks of the vaccination experience for each age group shows that 1.6 million children under 5 years of age had received at least an initial dose, compared with 8.1 million children aged 5-11 years and 8.1 million children aged 12-15, the AAP said.

New COVID-19 cases rose among U.S. children for the second consecutive week, while hospitals saw signs of renewed activity on the part of SARS-CoV-2.

The total for new cases reported during the week of Oct. 28 to Nov. 3, while still low at just under 30,000, was 21% higher than the previous week and 31% higher than 2 weeks ago (Oct. 14-20), when the count fell to its lowest level in more than a year, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their joint report.

The trend is discernible, however, when looking at hospitalizations of children with confirmed COVID. The rate of new admissions of children aged 0-17 years was 0.16 per 100,000 population as late as Oct. 23 but ticked up a notch after that and has been 0.17 per 100,000 since, according to the CDC. As with the ED rate, hospitalizations had been steadily declining since late August.

Vaccine initiation continues to slow

During the week of Oct. 27 to Nov. 2, about 30,000 children under 5 years of age received their initial COVID vaccination. A month earlier (Sept. 29 to Oct. 5), that number was about 40,000. A month before that, about 53,000 children aged 0-5 years received their initial dose, the AAP said in a separate vaccination report based on CDC data.

All of that reduced interest adds up to 7.4% of the age group having received at least one dose and just 3.2% being fully vaccinated as of Nov. 2. Among children aged 5-11 years, the corresponding vaccination rates are 38.9% and 31.8%, while those aged 12-17 years are at 71.3% and 61.1%, the CDC said.

Looking at just the first 20 weeks of the vaccination experience for each age group shows that 1.6 million children under 5 years of age had received at least an initial dose, compared with 8.1 million children aged 5-11 years and 8.1 million children aged 12-15, the AAP said.

While nearly a quarter of patients with schizophrenia are reported to have primary treatment resistance, clozapine, known as the most effective antipsychotic for treatment-resistant schizophrenia – but burdened by concerns of side effects – remains significantly underprescribed, and when it is used, the drug is often delayed by several crucial years, reducing chances of efficacy.

“Despite being the only pharmacological therapy approved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is underutilized globally, even in developed countries, where only about 30% of patients who would benefit from the drug receive it,” said John M. Kane, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, N.Y., in a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Clozapine, a tricyclic dibenzodiazepine available in branded and various generic versions, is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a third-line therapy for severe, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, with studies showing benefits exceeding those of any other antipsychotics for the indication.

But while recommendations suggest use after a trial of two or more antipsychotics, with at least one being an atypical antipsychotic, one recent review finds delays in clozapine commencement ranging from 19.3 weeks to 5.5 years, and the duration of illness prior to clozapine use ranging from 1.1 to 9.7 years.
 

Blood monitoring, side effects

The key deterrents preventing many clinicians and patients from trying clozapine sooner are the drug’s safety and tolerability profiles, and notably the requirement of regular blood testing due to an increased risk of agranulocytosis.

Specifically, the blood testing is required every week for 6 months, then every other week for the next 6 months, and then once a month after that; however, “many of us think that that’s excessive at this point in time,” Dr. Kane noted.

Various other potential side effects are also of concern, including myocarditis, seizures, constipation, arrhythmia, hypersalivation, pneumonia, and metabolic symptoms including diabetes.

In terms of the common strategies that clinicians turn to when patients fail to respond to their current antipsychotic, including increasing doses, combining agents, or treatment switching, “none of the strategies likely rival clozapine in terms of efficacy,” Dr. Kane said.

Regarding higher dosing: “There is very little data suggesting that higher doses of antipsychotic drugs will work when the moderate or recommended dose has not worked,” he said.

Combination therapy strategies may provide benefits, but “they’re not a substitute for clozapine,” Dr. Kane added, noting that the combinations that do appear to be the most effective involve clozapine.

And regarding drug switching, studies suggest the likelihood of response in switching from one drug to another is “actually very low,” Dr. Kane added.

Clozapine also doesn’t work for all – the response rate runs between about 30% and 60%, Dr. Kane said, but when it is effective, the benefits can be profound.

“There are some patients who have a very pronounced response to clozapine – some patients describe it as life-changing,” he said.
 

Treatment delays reduce efficacy

Importantly, the delays before receiving clozapine are not inconsequential – data show that each outpatient antipsychotic trial prior to clozapine reduces the likelihood of response by 8%-11%, and each hospital admission further reduces the likelihood of response by 4%-8%, underscoring the need to identify treatment resistance as early as possible, Dr. Kane said.

“It’s critically important to try to identify treatment resistance earlier than we usually do because if we can get it under control sooner, we have a better chance of improving the patient’s outcome, and this has been shown in a number of studies,” he said.

“The longer you wait, the less likely you are to see a good response even to clozapine.”

Despite the concerns about clozapine, Dr. Kane notes that even the blood monitoring does not appear to be a big complaint for patients, especially they are improving.

“In our experience, the patients who benefit from clozapine don’t really have a problem with the monitoring,” he said.

“In fact, patients who benefit from clozapine are much more adherent to the medication than other patients that we see, which is understandable, because if you feel you’re really getting a benefit from medicine, you’re going to be much more motivated to take it even if it has side effects.”

A recent systematic review of 13 studies and 1,487 patients backs that up, concluding that “patients generally have a favorable experience when being treated with clozapine,” with the caveat that “conclusions are limited by the risk of bias, particularly survivorship bias.”

Preference for clozapine over other antipsychotic medications was reported by 54%-86% of patients in the review, with specific improvements in mood (11%-78%) and cognition (5%-68%).
 

Clinicians the biggest ‘obstacle’

Dr. Kane notes that an important factor in underutilization could indeed be the manner in which clinicians discuss clozapine with their patients – often opening the discussion by focusing on the negative aspects that, without the context of the potential benefits, can be deal-breakers for patient from the start.

“The clinicians in my opinion are really the obstacle,” Dr. Kane said. “What we always hear from clinicians is ‘I can’t do it because the patient refuses, or the patient doesn’t like the side effects’.”

Dr. Kane notes that most side effects can indeed be managed – regarding the risk for metabolic syndrome, for instance, he recommends that patients should be given metformin from the beginning when they’re started on clozapine.

He adds that in most cases, a 3-month trial is enough to answer the question of whether clozapine is working or not.

“Three months is a good trial, but it may not even tell you the total response to clozapine because that may actually accrue over time,” he said. “We’ve seen patients who actually get better and better beyond 3 months.”

Not offering the drug to patients, however, is doing them a serious disservice, Dr. Kane added.

“What I tell patients and families is that it would be a shame to miss this opportunity for a potential treatment that could be life-changing,” he said. “Does it have potential side effects? Yes. Do you have to get blood tests? Yes. And I can’t tell by evaluating a patient’s history or examining that patient whether or not they’re going to be a good responder. But would you really want to miss an opportunity to find that out?”

“To me the argument is – let’s try this drug for 3 months and see what effect it has, and at that point you’ll be in a much better position to make a decision about the benefits versus risk,” Dr. Kane said.
 

The only FDA-approved drug for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

Remarkably, clozapine isn’t just the only drug to currently have approval from the FDA for treatment-resistant schizophrenia – it has been for the last 3 decades.

“There have been attempts to develop medications with similar efficacy, but they have not succeeded,” Dr. Kane said in an interview. “We are still uncertain as to what accounts for clozapine’s unique qualities.”

Yet, with treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients representing some of the most dire mental illness cases clinicians may face, the need for better treatment decisions – and additional options – is pressing, Dr. Kane said.

“[The lack of any other drugs] is a big embarrassment to our field, in my opinion,” he said. “I’m a big proponent of clozapine, but we should have found another substance by now that could substitute for clozapine, which obviously has a lot of side effects and is not the easiest drug to use.”

Dr. Kane reported relationships either as a speaker or consultant/advisory board member and/or receives research grant support from Alkermes, Allergan, Click Therapeutics, Dainippon Sumitomo, H. Lundbeck, HLS Therapeutics, Indivior, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Johnson & Johnson, LB Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Minerva, Neurocrine, Neumora Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka, Reviva, Roche, Saladax, Sunovion, Takeda, and Teva. Dr. Kane receives non-mutual funds stock ownership/stock options from LB Pharmaceuticals, Vanguard Research Group, and North Shore Therapeutics, and receives patent holder/royalties paid by UpToDate.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

While nearly a quarter of patients with schizophrenia are reported to have primary treatment resistance, clozapine, known as the most effective antipsychotic for treatment-resistant schizophrenia – but burdened by concerns of side effects – remains significantly underprescribed, and when it is used, the drug is often delayed by several crucial years, reducing chances of efficacy.

“Despite being the only pharmacological therapy approved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is underutilized globally, even in developed countries, where only about 30% of patients who would benefit from the drug receive it,” said John M. Kane, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, N.Y., in a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Clozapine, a tricyclic dibenzodiazepine available in branded and various generic versions, is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a third-line therapy for severe, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, with studies showing benefits exceeding those of any other antipsychotics for the indication.

But while recommendations suggest use after a trial of two or more antipsychotics, with at least one being an atypical antipsychotic, one recent review finds delays in clozapine commencement ranging from 19.3 weeks to 5.5 years, and the duration of illness prior to clozapine use ranging from 1.1 to 9.7 years.
 

Blood monitoring, side effects

The key deterrents preventing many clinicians and patients from trying clozapine sooner are the drug’s safety and tolerability profiles, and notably the requirement of regular blood testing due to an increased risk of agranulocytosis.

Specifically, the blood testing is required every week for 6 months, then every other week for the next 6 months, and then once a month after that; however, “many of us think that that’s excessive at this point in time,” Dr. Kane noted.

Various other potential side effects are also of concern, including myocarditis, seizures, constipation, arrhythmia, hypersalivation, pneumonia, and metabolic symptoms including diabetes.

In terms of the common strategies that clinicians turn to when patients fail to respond to their current antipsychotic, including increasing doses, combining agents, or treatment switching, “none of the strategies likely rival clozapine in terms of efficacy,” Dr. Kane said.

Regarding higher dosing: “There is very little data suggesting that higher doses of antipsychotic drugs will work when the moderate or recommended dose has not worked,” he said.

Combination therapy strategies may provide benefits, but “they’re not a substitute for clozapine,” Dr. Kane added, noting that the combinations that do appear to be the most effective involve clozapine.

And regarding drug switching, studies suggest the likelihood of response in switching from one drug to another is “actually very low,” Dr. Kane added.

Clozapine also doesn’t work for all – the response rate runs between about 30% and 60%, Dr. Kane said, but when it is effective, the benefits can be profound.

“There are some patients who have a very pronounced response to clozapine – some patients describe it as life-changing,” he said.
 

Treatment delays reduce efficacy

Importantly, the delays before receiving clozapine are not inconsequential – data show that each outpatient antipsychotic trial prior to clozapine reduces the likelihood of response by 8%-11%, and each hospital admission further reduces the likelihood of response by 4%-8%, underscoring the need to identify treatment resistance as early as possible, Dr. Kane said.

“It’s critically important to try to identify treatment resistance earlier than we usually do because if we can get it under control sooner, we have a better chance of improving the patient’s outcome, and this has been shown in a number of studies,” he said.

“The longer you wait, the less likely you are to see a good response even to clozapine.”

Despite the concerns about clozapine, Dr. Kane notes that even the blood monitoring does not appear to be a big complaint for patients, especially they are improving.

“In our experience, the patients who benefit from clozapine don’t really have a problem with the monitoring,” he said.

“In fact, patients who benefit from clozapine are much more adherent to the medication than other patients that we see, which is understandable, because if you feel you’re really getting a benefit from medicine, you’re going to be much more motivated to take it even if it has side effects.”

A recent systematic review of 13 studies and 1,487 patients backs that up, concluding that “patients generally have a favorable experience when being treated with clozapine,” with the caveat that “conclusions are limited by the risk of bias, particularly survivorship bias.”

Preference for clozapine over other antipsychotic medications was reported by 54%-86% of patients in the review, with specific improvements in mood (11%-78%) and cognition (5%-68%).
 

Clinicians the biggest ‘obstacle’

Dr. Kane notes that an important factor in underutilization could indeed be the manner in which clinicians discuss clozapine with their patients – often opening the discussion by focusing on the negative aspects that, without the context of the potential benefits, can be deal-breakers for patient from the start.

“The clinicians in my opinion are really the obstacle,” Dr. Kane said. “What we always hear from clinicians is ‘I can’t do it because the patient refuses, or the patient doesn’t like the side effects’.”

Dr. Kane notes that most side effects can indeed be managed – regarding the risk for metabolic syndrome, for instance, he recommends that patients should be given metformin from the beginning when they’re started on clozapine.

He adds that in most cases, a 3-month trial is enough to answer the question of whether clozapine is working or not.

“Three months is a good trial, but it may not even tell you the total response to clozapine because that may actually accrue over time,” he said. “We’ve seen patients who actually get better and better beyond 3 months.”

Not offering the drug to patients, however, is doing them a serious disservice, Dr. Kane added.

“What I tell patients and families is that it would be a shame to miss this opportunity for a potential treatment that could be life-changing,” he said. “Does it have potential side effects? Yes. Do you have to get blood tests? Yes. And I can’t tell by evaluating a patient’s history or examining that patient whether or not they’re going to be a good responder. But would you really want to miss an opportunity to find that out?”

“To me the argument is – let’s try this drug for 3 months and see what effect it has, and at that point you’ll be in a much better position to make a decision about the benefits versus risk,” Dr. Kane said.
 

The only FDA-approved drug for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

Remarkably, clozapine isn’t just the only drug to currently have approval from the FDA for treatment-resistant schizophrenia – it has been for the last 3 decades.

“There have been attempts to develop medications with similar efficacy, but they have not succeeded,” Dr. Kane said in an interview. “We are still uncertain as to what accounts for clozapine’s unique qualities.”

Yet, with treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients representing some of the most dire mental illness cases clinicians may face, the need for better treatment decisions – and additional options – is pressing, Dr. Kane said.

“[The lack of any other drugs] is a big embarrassment to our field, in my opinion,” he said. “I’m a big proponent of clozapine, but we should have found another substance by now that could substitute for clozapine, which obviously has a lot of side effects and is not the easiest drug to use.”

Dr. Kane reported relationships either as a speaker or consultant/advisory board member and/or receives research grant support from Alkermes, Allergan, Click Therapeutics, Dainippon Sumitomo, H. Lundbeck, HLS Therapeutics, Indivior, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Johnson & Johnson, LB Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Minerva, Neurocrine, Neumora Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka, Reviva, Roche, Saladax, Sunovion, Takeda, and Teva. Dr. Kane receives non-mutual funds stock ownership/stock options from LB Pharmaceuticals, Vanguard Research Group, and North Shore Therapeutics, and receives patent holder/royalties paid by UpToDate.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

While nearly a quarter of patients with schizophrenia are reported to have primary treatment resistance, clozapine, known as the most effective antipsychotic for treatment-resistant schizophrenia – but burdened by concerns of side effects – remains significantly underprescribed, and when it is used, the drug is often delayed by several crucial years, reducing chances of efficacy.

“Despite being the only pharmacological therapy approved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is underutilized globally, even in developed countries, where only about 30% of patients who would benefit from the drug receive it,” said John M. Kane, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, N.Y., in a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Clozapine, a tricyclic dibenzodiazepine available in branded and various generic versions, is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a third-line therapy for severe, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, with studies showing benefits exceeding those of any other antipsychotics for the indication.

But while recommendations suggest use after a trial of two or more antipsychotics, with at least one being an atypical antipsychotic, one recent review finds delays in clozapine commencement ranging from 19.3 weeks to 5.5 years, and the duration of illness prior to clozapine use ranging from 1.1 to 9.7 years.
 

Blood monitoring, side effects

The key deterrents preventing many clinicians and patients from trying clozapine sooner are the drug’s safety and tolerability profiles, and notably the requirement of regular blood testing due to an increased risk of agranulocytosis.

Specifically, the blood testing is required every week for 6 months, then every other week for the next 6 months, and then once a month after that; however, “many of us think that that’s excessive at this point in time,” Dr. Kane noted.

Various other potential side effects are also of concern, including myocarditis, seizures, constipation, arrhythmia, hypersalivation, pneumonia, and metabolic symptoms including diabetes.

In terms of the common strategies that clinicians turn to when patients fail to respond to their current antipsychotic, including increasing doses, combining agents, or treatment switching, “none of the strategies likely rival clozapine in terms of efficacy,” Dr. Kane said.

Regarding higher dosing: “There is very little data suggesting that higher doses of antipsychotic drugs will work when the moderate or recommended dose has not worked,” he said.

Combination therapy strategies may provide benefits, but “they’re not a substitute for clozapine,” Dr. Kane added, noting that the combinations that do appear to be the most effective involve clozapine.

And regarding drug switching, studies suggest the likelihood of response in switching from one drug to another is “actually very low,” Dr. Kane added.

Clozapine also doesn’t work for all – the response rate runs between about 30% and 60%, Dr. Kane said, but when it is effective, the benefits can be profound.

“There are some patients who have a very pronounced response to clozapine – some patients describe it as life-changing,” he said.
 

Treatment delays reduce efficacy

Importantly, the delays before receiving clozapine are not inconsequential – data show that each outpatient antipsychotic trial prior to clozapine reduces the likelihood of response by 8%-11%, and each hospital admission further reduces the likelihood of response by 4%-8%, underscoring the need to identify treatment resistance as early as possible, Dr. Kane said.

“It’s critically important to try to identify treatment resistance earlier than we usually do because if we can get it under control sooner, we have a better chance of improving the patient’s outcome, and this has been shown in a number of studies,” he said.

“The longer you wait, the less likely you are to see a good response even to clozapine.”

Despite the concerns about clozapine, Dr. Kane notes that even the blood monitoring does not appear to be a big complaint for patients, especially they are improving.

“In our experience, the patients who benefit from clozapine don’t really have a problem with the monitoring,” he said.

“In fact, patients who benefit from clozapine are much more adherent to the medication than other patients that we see, which is understandable, because if you feel you’re really getting a benefit from medicine, you’re going to be much more motivated to take it even if it has side effects.”

A recent systematic review of 13 studies and 1,487 patients backs that up, concluding that “patients generally have a favorable experience when being treated with clozapine,” with the caveat that “conclusions are limited by the risk of bias, particularly survivorship bias.”

Preference for clozapine over other antipsychotic medications was reported by 54%-86% of patients in the review, with specific improvements in mood (11%-78%) and cognition (5%-68%).
 

Clinicians the biggest ‘obstacle’

Dr. Kane notes that an important factor in underutilization could indeed be the manner in which clinicians discuss clozapine with their patients – often opening the discussion by focusing on the negative aspects that, without the context of the potential benefits, can be deal-breakers for patient from the start.

“The clinicians in my opinion are really the obstacle,” Dr. Kane said. “What we always hear from clinicians is ‘I can’t do it because the patient refuses, or the patient doesn’t like the side effects’.”

Dr. Kane notes that most side effects can indeed be managed – regarding the risk for metabolic syndrome, for instance, he recommends that patients should be given metformin from the beginning when they’re started on clozapine.

He adds that in most cases, a 3-month trial is enough to answer the question of whether clozapine is working or not.

“Three months is a good trial, but it may not even tell you the total response to clozapine because that may actually accrue over time,” he said. “We’ve seen patients who actually get better and better beyond 3 months.”

Not offering the drug to patients, however, is doing them a serious disservice, Dr. Kane added.

“What I tell patients and families is that it would be a shame to miss this opportunity for a potential treatment that could be life-changing,” he said. “Does it have potential side effects? Yes. Do you have to get blood tests? Yes. And I can’t tell by evaluating a patient’s history or examining that patient whether or not they’re going to be a good responder. But would you really want to miss an opportunity to find that out?”

“To me the argument is – let’s try this drug for 3 months and see what effect it has, and at that point you’ll be in a much better position to make a decision about the benefits versus risk,” Dr. Kane said.
 

The only FDA-approved drug for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

Remarkably, clozapine isn’t just the only drug to currently have approval from the FDA for treatment-resistant schizophrenia – it has been for the last 3 decades.

“There have been attempts to develop medications with similar efficacy, but they have not succeeded,” Dr. Kane said in an interview. “We are still uncertain as to what accounts for clozapine’s unique qualities.”

Yet, with treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients representing some of the most dire mental illness cases clinicians may face, the need for better treatment decisions – and additional options – is pressing, Dr. Kane said.

“[The lack of any other drugs] is a big embarrassment to our field, in my opinion,” he said. “I’m a big proponent of clozapine, but we should have found another substance by now that could substitute for clozapine, which obviously has a lot of side effects and is not the easiest drug to use.”

Dr. Kane reported relationships either as a speaker or consultant/advisory board member and/or receives research grant support from Alkermes, Allergan, Click Therapeutics, Dainippon Sumitomo, H. Lundbeck, HLS Therapeutics, Indivior, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Johnson & Johnson, LB Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Minerva, Neurocrine, Neumora Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka, Reviva, Roche, Saladax, Sunovion, Takeda, and Teva. Dr. Kane receives non-mutual funds stock ownership/stock options from LB Pharmaceuticals, Vanguard Research Group, and North Shore Therapeutics, and receives patent holder/royalties paid by UpToDate.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Pediatric Chest Medicine Section

CPAP for pediatric OSA: “Off-label” use

Pediatric providers are well aware of the “off-label” uses of medications/devices. While it’s not a stretch to apply “adult” diagnostic and therapeutic criteria to older adolescents, more careful consideration is needed for our younger patients. Typically, adenotonsillectomy is first-line treatment for pediatric OSA, but CPAP can be essential for those for whom surgical intervention is not an option, not an option yet, or has been insufficient (residual OSA). Unfortunately, standard CPAP devices are not approved for use in children, and often have a minimum weight requirement of 30 kg. There are respiratory assist devices and home mechanical ventilators that are approved for use in pediatric patients (minimum weight 13 kg or 5 kg) and designed for more complex ventilatory support, and that also are capable of providing continuous pressure. Alternatively, pediatric providers may proceed with the “off-label” use of simpler CPAP-only medical devices and face obstacles in attaining insurance approval. The recent American Academy of Sleep Medicine position statement (Amos, et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18[8]:2041-3) acknowledges that CPAP therapy can be safe and effective when management is guided by a pediatric specialist and is typically initiated in a monitored setting (inpatient or polysomnogram). The authors bring up excellent points regarding unique considerations for pediatric CPAP therapy, including the need for desensitization and facial development monitoring, lack of technical/software designed for younger/smaller patients, and limited published data (small and diverse cohorts). Ultimately, evaluation of effectiveness and safety, while distinct, must both be seriously considered in this risk-benefit analysis of care.

Pallavi P. Patwari, MD, FAAP, FAASM

Member-at-Large

Pediatric Chest Medicine Section

CPAP for pediatric OSA: “Off-label” use

Pediatric providers are well aware of the “off-label” uses of medications/devices. While it’s not a stretch to apply “adult” diagnostic and therapeutic criteria to older adolescents, more careful consideration is needed for our younger patients. Typically, adenotonsillectomy is first-line treatment for pediatric OSA, but CPAP can be essential for those for whom surgical intervention is not an option, not an option yet, or has been insufficient (residual OSA). Unfortunately, standard CPAP devices are not approved for use in children, and often have a minimum weight requirement of 30 kg. There are respiratory assist devices and home mechanical ventilators that are approved for use in pediatric patients (minimum weight 13 kg or 5 kg) and designed for more complex ventilatory support, and that also are capable of providing continuous pressure. Alternatively, pediatric providers may proceed with the “off-label” use of simpler CPAP-only medical devices and face obstacles in attaining insurance approval. The recent American Academy of Sleep Medicine position statement (Amos, et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18[8]:2041-3) acknowledges that CPAP therapy can be safe and effective when management is guided by a pediatric specialist and is typically initiated in a monitored setting (inpatient or polysomnogram). The authors bring up excellent points regarding unique considerations for pediatric CPAP therapy, including the need for desensitization and facial development monitoring, lack of technical/software designed for younger/smaller patients, and limited published data (small and diverse cohorts). Ultimately, evaluation of effectiveness and safety, while distinct, must both be seriously considered in this risk-benefit analysis of care.

Pallavi P. Patwari, MD, FAAP, FAASM

Member-at-Large

Pediatric Chest Medicine Section

CPAP for pediatric OSA: “Off-label” use

Pediatric providers are well aware of the “off-label” uses of medications/devices. While it’s not a stretch to apply “adult” diagnostic and therapeutic criteria to older adolescents, more careful consideration is needed for our younger patients. Typically, adenotonsillectomy is first-line treatment for pediatric OSA, but CPAP can be essential for those for whom surgical intervention is not an option, not an option yet, or has been insufficient (residual OSA). Unfortunately, standard CPAP devices are not approved for use in children, and often have a minimum weight requirement of 30 kg. There are respiratory assist devices and home mechanical ventilators that are approved for use in pediatric patients (minimum weight 13 kg or 5 kg) and designed for more complex ventilatory support, and that also are capable of providing continuous pressure. Alternatively, pediatric providers may proceed with the “off-label” use of simpler CPAP-only medical devices and face obstacles in attaining insurance approval. The recent American Academy of Sleep Medicine position statement (Amos, et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18[8]:2041-3) acknowledges that CPAP therapy can be safe and effective when management is guided by a pediatric specialist and is typically initiated in a monitored setting (inpatient or polysomnogram). The authors bring up excellent points regarding unique considerations for pediatric CPAP therapy, including the need for desensitization and facial development monitoring, lack of technical/software designed for younger/smaller patients, and limited published data (small and diverse cohorts). Ultimately, evaluation of effectiveness and safety, while distinct, must both be seriously considered in this risk-benefit analysis of care.

Pallavi P. Patwari, MD, FAAP, FAASM

Member-at-Large

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

To ensure continuity of care for patients taking clozapine, the Food and Drug Administration will temporarily exercise “enforcement discretion” with respect to certain clozapine risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program requirements.

In a Nov. 2 notice on its website, the FDA said it is aware that health care professionals and patients continue to experience ongoing difficulties with the clozapine REMS program, including issues with patient access to clozapine following discharge from inpatient care.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

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

To ensure continuity of care for patients taking clozapine, the Food and Drug Administration will temporarily exercise “enforcement discretion” with respect to certain clozapine risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program requirements.

In a Nov. 2 notice on its website, the FDA said it is aware that health care professionals and patients continue to experience ongoing difficulties with the clozapine REMS program, including issues with patient access to clozapine following discharge from inpatient care.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

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

To ensure continuity of care for patients taking clozapine, the Food and Drug Administration will temporarily exercise “enforcement discretion” with respect to certain clozapine risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program requirements.

In a Nov. 2 notice on its website, the FDA said it is aware that health care professionals and patients continue to experience ongoing difficulties with the clozapine REMS program, including issues with patient access to clozapine following discharge from inpatient care.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

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

Noninvasive cosmetic treatments have been available for several years, but in the clinical experience of Jean Carruthers, MD, men have been slow to embrace them with the same gusto as women.

However, this could be changing as millennials – who tend to be more proactive about efforts to prevent skin aging – are getting older.

At a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Dr. Carruthers referred to the results of an online survey of 600 men aged 30-65 years conducted by Jared Jagdeo, MD, and colleagues in 2016, to gauge attitudes toward age-related changes of their facial features and their preferences for prioritizing treatment. The top five barriers to treatment cited by the respondents were: “I don’t think I need it yet” (47%); “concerned about safety/side effects” (46%); “concerned about injecting a foreign substance into my body” (45%); “cost” (42%), and “concerned my face won’t look natural” (41%).

“Since then, millennials took over as the largest portion of our workforce in North America,” said Dr. Carruthers who, with her husband, Alastair Carruthers, MD, pioneered the cosmetic use of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox). “Millennials are interested in how they look and how to keep their aesthetic the best it can possibly be,” she said, so there may be “a generational aspect to this.”

Another factor that may affect the uptake of cosmetic procedures among men is the number of hours they spend gazing at their own image on a computer screen. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, men have spent an increasing number of hours on video-conferencing calls via Zoom and other platforms, causing them to rethink how they view their appearance, Dr. Carruthers added. “Zoom dysmorphia” is the term that describes the phenomenon that developed during the pandemic where more patients expressed a desire to make changes to their appearance, including nose jobs and smoothing out forehead wrinkles.

“When we’re on a Zoom call, we’re spending 40% of our time looking at ourselves,” said Dr. Carruthers, clinical professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “This would hint that the looking glass is not as powerful as the computer screen to motivate men” to pursue aesthetic treatments.

According to data from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the top 5 cosmetic surgical procedures performed in men in 2020 were nose shaping, eyelid surgery, cheek implants, liposuction, and ear surgery. The top 5 minimally-invasive procedures in men were botulinum toxin type A, followed by laser skin resurfacing, laser hair removal, soft tissue fillers, and microdermabrasion.

Why might men consider an injectable instead of surgery? Dr. Carruthers asked. “According to the 2016 survey by Dr. Jagdeo and colleagues, it’s to appear more youthful and to appear good for their age.”

From a clinical standpoint, success comes from understanding the subtle differences between treating men and women, she added.

In a 2022 article about optimizing skin tightening in aesthetics in men, Christian A. Albornoz, MD, and colleagues noted that in contrast to women, men “tend to have higher levels of collagen density and greater skin thickness, but these begin to decrease earlier on. They can also more frequently have severe photodamage”.

In another article published in 2018, Terrence Keaney, MD, and colleagues reviewed the objective data available on male aging and aesthetics. They stated that a “communication gap exists for men, as evidenced by the lack of information available online or by word of mouth about injectable treatments” and concluded that “educating men about available aesthetic treatments and about the safety and side effects associated with each treatment, as well as addressing concerns about their treatment results looking natural, are key considerations.”

That sentiment resonates with Dr. Carruthers. Part of the reason why men have not sought cosmetic treatments along with their female partners and friends seeking cosmetic treatments “is that they haven’t had anything in their cup,” she said. “Maybe this is something we need to think about, to try and help men come in and enjoy the positive benefits of aesthetic, noninvasive cosmetic treatments.”

The course was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Wellman Center for Photomedicine.

Dr. Carruthers disclosed that she is a consultant and researcher for Alastin, Appiell, Allergan Aesthetics, Avari Medical, Bonti, Evolus, Fount Bio, Jeune Aesthetics, Merz, and Revance Biopharma.

Noninvasive cosmetic treatments have been available for several years, but in the clinical experience of Jean Carruthers, MD, men have been slow to embrace them with the same gusto as women.

However, this could be changing as millennials – who tend to be more proactive about efforts to prevent skin aging – are getting older.

At a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Dr. Carruthers referred to the results of an online survey of 600 men aged 30-65 years conducted by Jared Jagdeo, MD, and colleagues in 2016, to gauge attitudes toward age-related changes of their facial features and their preferences for prioritizing treatment. The top five barriers to treatment cited by the respondents were: “I don’t think I need it yet” (47%); “concerned about safety/side effects” (46%); “concerned about injecting a foreign substance into my body” (45%); “cost” (42%), and “concerned my face won’t look natural” (41%).

“Since then, millennials took over as the largest portion of our workforce in North America,” said Dr. Carruthers who, with her husband, Alastair Carruthers, MD, pioneered the cosmetic use of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox). “Millennials are interested in how they look and how to keep their aesthetic the best it can possibly be,” she said, so there may be “a generational aspect to this.”

Another factor that may affect the uptake of cosmetic procedures among men is the number of hours they spend gazing at their own image on a computer screen. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, men have spent an increasing number of hours on video-conferencing calls via Zoom and other platforms, causing them to rethink how they view their appearance, Dr. Carruthers added. “Zoom dysmorphia” is the term that describes the phenomenon that developed during the pandemic where more patients expressed a desire to make changes to their appearance, including nose jobs and smoothing out forehead wrinkles.

“When we’re on a Zoom call, we’re spending 40% of our time looking at ourselves,” said Dr. Carruthers, clinical professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “This would hint that the looking glass is not as powerful as the computer screen to motivate men” to pursue aesthetic treatments.

According to data from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the top 5 cosmetic surgical procedures performed in men in 2020 were nose shaping, eyelid surgery, cheek implants, liposuction, and ear surgery. The top 5 minimally-invasive procedures in men were botulinum toxin type A, followed by laser skin resurfacing, laser hair removal, soft tissue fillers, and microdermabrasion.

Why might men consider an injectable instead of surgery? Dr. Carruthers asked. “According to the 2016 survey by Dr. Jagdeo and colleagues, it’s to appear more youthful and to appear good for their age.”

From a clinical standpoint, success comes from understanding the subtle differences between treating men and women, she added.

In a 2022 article about optimizing skin tightening in aesthetics in men, Christian A. Albornoz, MD, and colleagues noted that in contrast to women, men “tend to have higher levels of collagen density and greater skin thickness, but these begin to decrease earlier on. They can also more frequently have severe photodamage”.

In another article published in 2018, Terrence Keaney, MD, and colleagues reviewed the objective data available on male aging and aesthetics. They stated that a “communication gap exists for men, as evidenced by the lack of information available online or by word of mouth about injectable treatments” and concluded that “educating men about available aesthetic treatments and about the safety and side effects associated with each treatment, as well as addressing concerns about their treatment results looking natural, are key considerations.”

That sentiment resonates with Dr. Carruthers. Part of the reason why men have not sought cosmetic treatments along with their female partners and friends seeking cosmetic treatments “is that they haven’t had anything in their cup,” she said. “Maybe this is something we need to think about, to try and help men come in and enjoy the positive benefits of aesthetic, noninvasive cosmetic treatments.”

The course was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Wellman Center for Photomedicine.

Dr. Carruthers disclosed that she is a consultant and researcher for Alastin, Appiell, Allergan Aesthetics, Avari Medical, Bonti, Evolus, Fount Bio, Jeune Aesthetics, Merz, and Revance Biopharma.

Noninvasive cosmetic treatments have been available for several years, but in the clinical experience of Jean Carruthers, MD, men have been slow to embrace them with the same gusto as women.

However, this could be changing as millennials – who tend to be more proactive about efforts to prevent skin aging – are getting older.

At a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Dr. Carruthers referred to the results of an online survey of 600 men aged 30-65 years conducted by Jared Jagdeo, MD, and colleagues in 2016, to gauge attitudes toward age-related changes of their facial features and their preferences for prioritizing treatment. The top five barriers to treatment cited by the respondents were: “I don’t think I need it yet” (47%); “concerned about safety/side effects” (46%); “concerned about injecting a foreign substance into my body” (45%); “cost” (42%), and “concerned my face won’t look natural” (41%).

“Since then, millennials took over as the largest portion of our workforce in North America,” said Dr. Carruthers who, with her husband, Alastair Carruthers, MD, pioneered the cosmetic use of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox). “Millennials are interested in how they look and how to keep their aesthetic the best it can possibly be,” she said, so there may be “a generational aspect to this.”

Another factor that may affect the uptake of cosmetic procedures among men is the number of hours they spend gazing at their own image on a computer screen. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, men have spent an increasing number of hours on video-conferencing calls via Zoom and other platforms, causing them to rethink how they view their appearance, Dr. Carruthers added. “Zoom dysmorphia” is the term that describes the phenomenon that developed during the pandemic where more patients expressed a desire to make changes to their appearance, including nose jobs and smoothing out forehead wrinkles.

“When we’re on a Zoom call, we’re spending 40% of our time looking at ourselves,” said Dr. Carruthers, clinical professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “This would hint that the looking glass is not as powerful as the computer screen to motivate men” to pursue aesthetic treatments.

According to data from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the top 5 cosmetic surgical procedures performed in men in 2020 were nose shaping, eyelid surgery, cheek implants, liposuction, and ear surgery. The top 5 minimally-invasive procedures in men were botulinum toxin type A, followed by laser skin resurfacing, laser hair removal, soft tissue fillers, and microdermabrasion.

Why might men consider an injectable instead of surgery? Dr. Carruthers asked. “According to the 2016 survey by Dr. Jagdeo and colleagues, it’s to appear more youthful and to appear good for their age.”

From a clinical standpoint, success comes from understanding the subtle differences between treating men and women, she added.

In a 2022 article about optimizing skin tightening in aesthetics in men, Christian A. Albornoz, MD, and colleagues noted that in contrast to women, men “tend to have higher levels of collagen density and greater skin thickness, but these begin to decrease earlier on. They can also more frequently have severe photodamage”.

In another article published in 2018, Terrence Keaney, MD, and colleagues reviewed the objective data available on male aging and aesthetics. They stated that a “communication gap exists for men, as evidenced by the lack of information available online or by word of mouth about injectable treatments” and concluded that “educating men about available aesthetic treatments and about the safety and side effects associated with each treatment, as well as addressing concerns about their treatment results looking natural, are key considerations.”

That sentiment resonates with Dr. Carruthers. Part of the reason why men have not sought cosmetic treatments along with their female partners and friends seeking cosmetic treatments “is that they haven’t had anything in their cup,” she said. “Maybe this is something we need to think about, to try and help men come in and enjoy the positive benefits of aesthetic, noninvasive cosmetic treatments.”

The course was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Wellman Center for Photomedicine.

Dr. Carruthers disclosed that she is a consultant and researcher for Alastin, Appiell, Allergan Aesthetics, Avari Medical, Bonti, Evolus, Fount Bio, Jeune Aesthetics, Merz, and Revance Biopharma.

Vaccination campaigns in more than 80 nations have successfully reduced the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen. That’s the good news.
 

Less good is the news that no countries are on track to meet the goals for HBV eradication by 2030 or 2050, and only 11 countries are on track to achieve all absolute or relative targets for hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination, reported Sarah Blach, MHS, associate director of the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, based in Lafayette, Colo.

“As countries progress toward eliminating hepatitis B and C, we really need to do more to expand political will and financing of national elimination programs. It’s great to see that it’s happening in some of these countries, but we really need that to expand,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Ms. Blach presented data from the foundation’s Polaris Observatory, an initiative that provides epidemiological data, modeling tools, training, and decision analytics to support eliminating HBV and HCV globally by 2030.

The investigators used mathematical disease burden models for HBV and HCV to assess worldwide trends toward viral elimination. They also evaluated HBV and HCV elimination policies as reported by authorities in various countries.

They forecast the year in which each country or territory would meet each of the World Health Organization’s four elimination targets from 110 HCV models and 166 HBV models. The targets are 90% diagnosed, 80% of the eligible population treated, 65% reduction in mortality, and 80% incidence reduction for HCV and either 95% incidence reduction or prevalence of 0.1% or less in children aged 5 years and younger for HBV.

Investigators summarized the results across countries by disease area and time period of elimination; that is, elimination before 2030, between 2031 and 2050, or after 2050.
 

Results for HCV and HBV targets

The 11 nations on track to achieve all absolute or relative (programmatic) targets for HCV by 2030 are Australia, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Japan, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

An additional 24 countries are on track to meet their goals for HCV between 2031 and 2050.

But the rest, including the United States, much of sub-Saharan Africa, China, and South Asia, are not on track to meet their goals for HCV by 2050.

No countries are on track to achieve the absolute or relative (programmatic) targets for elimination of HBV, Ms. Blach said.

However, 83 countries or territories, including the United States, are on track for achieving the HBV surface antigen prevalence target of less than 0.1% in children aged 5 years and younger by 2030.

Ms. Blach and colleagues also looked at results of quantitative policy surveys submitted by 61 countries. The respondents were asked to report on linkage to care, awareness and screening, monitoring and evaluation, ability to expand capacity, harm-reduction programs, financing of national programs, and political will to achieve targets.

The investigators scored countries on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the highest score, in each category. For HCV, 25 countries (42%) had high scores, defined as 9 or 10, for political will, and 33 countries (54%) had high scores for national funding. For HBV, 17 countries (30%) received the high scores for political will, and 30 (51%) received the high scores for financing the national program.
 

The big picture

Most countries have not expanded HBV or HCV treatment beyond specialists, and HBV policies appear to lag behind policies directed toward HCV elimination, Ms. Blach noted.

“We do need to expand screening and treatment for hepatitis B moving forward,” she said.

The United States and the rest of the world need to do better, especially regarding HBV elimination, but the United States does appear to be making progress, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, from Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, who comoderated the session where Ms. Blach reported the data.

“My impression is that we’re doing a pretty good job with [HBV] vaccinations in the United States,” Dr. Sterling, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

One way to make progress, he said, may be to expand eligibility for HBV vaccines beyond the current upper age limit of 59 years.

Implementing simpler dosing regimens – the currently available vaccine is split into three doses – could improve vaccine compliance and lower costs, Dr. Sterling added.

During the session, Brian Conway, MD, medical director of the Vancouver Infectious Disease Centre, said it seems hard to use a composite set of data to determine a yes/no answer about whether a country is on track to reach targets.

“When you take my country of Canada, we have absolutely no national program, no hope of a national program, very little funding, and yet we make the cut. So how do you balance all these different variables to arrive at a yes/no answer and is there a way of putting a bit more subtlety into it?” Dr. Conway asked Ms. Blach.

Ms. Blach replied that the data are fluid, and countries can move closer or farther from reaching targets over time as conditions change.

Some countries seem to be improving efforts and “just need a bit more” work, Ms. Blach said.

“But we also saw some countries who we thought were going to be a shoo-in, and as time progressed the number of treatments just dropped in shocking ways. The reality is that a lot of countries are struggling to treat patients,” she said.

Canada “has a really great health system. It’s not a fragmented health system, and so even if you don’t have some of that push for elimination from the government level, having access to treatment, having access to those services, means that at least patients can come in and get what they need,” Ms. Blach said.

The study data are available for free on the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation’s Polaris website.

The study was funded by grants from the John C. Martin Foundation, ZeShan Foundation, EndHep2030, Gilead Sciences, and AbbVie. Ms. Blach is employed by the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, which receives research grants from Gilead and AbbVie. Dr. Sterling and Dr. Conway reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Vaccination campaigns in more than 80 nations have successfully reduced the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen. That’s the good news.
 

Less good is the news that no countries are on track to meet the goals for HBV eradication by 2030 or 2050, and only 11 countries are on track to achieve all absolute or relative targets for hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination, reported Sarah Blach, MHS, associate director of the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, based in Lafayette, Colo.

“As countries progress toward eliminating hepatitis B and C, we really need to do more to expand political will and financing of national elimination programs. It’s great to see that it’s happening in some of these countries, but we really need that to expand,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Ms. Blach presented data from the foundation’s Polaris Observatory, an initiative that provides epidemiological data, modeling tools, training, and decision analytics to support eliminating HBV and HCV globally by 2030.

The investigators used mathematical disease burden models for HBV and HCV to assess worldwide trends toward viral elimination. They also evaluated HBV and HCV elimination policies as reported by authorities in various countries.

They forecast the year in which each country or territory would meet each of the World Health Organization’s four elimination targets from 110 HCV models and 166 HBV models. The targets are 90% diagnosed, 80% of the eligible population treated, 65% reduction in mortality, and 80% incidence reduction for HCV and either 95% incidence reduction or prevalence of 0.1% or less in children aged 5 years and younger for HBV.

Investigators summarized the results across countries by disease area and time period of elimination; that is, elimination before 2030, between 2031 and 2050, or after 2050.
 

Results for HCV and HBV targets

The 11 nations on track to achieve all absolute or relative (programmatic) targets for HCV by 2030 are Australia, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Japan, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

An additional 24 countries are on track to meet their goals for HCV between 2031 and 2050.

But the rest, including the United States, much of sub-Saharan Africa, China, and South Asia, are not on track to meet their goals for HCV by 2050.

No countries are on track to achieve the absolute or relative (programmatic) targets for elimination of HBV, Ms. Blach said.

However, 83 countries or territories, including the United States, are on track for achieving the HBV surface antigen prevalence target of less than 0.1% in children aged 5 years and younger by 2030.

Ms. Blach and colleagues also looked at results of quantitative policy surveys submitted by 61 countries. The respondents were asked to report on linkage to care, awareness and screening, monitoring and evaluation, ability to expand capacity, harm-reduction programs, financing of national programs, and political will to achieve targets.

The investigators scored countries on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the highest score, in each category. For HCV, 25 countries (42%) had high scores, defined as 9 or 10, for political will, and 33 countries (54%) had high scores for national funding. For HBV, 17 countries (30%) received the high scores for political will, and 30 (51%) received the high scores for financing the national program.
 

The big picture

Most countries have not expanded HBV or HCV treatment beyond specialists, and HBV policies appear to lag behind policies directed toward HCV elimination, Ms. Blach noted.

“We do need to expand screening and treatment for hepatitis B moving forward,” she said.

The United States and the rest of the world need to do better, especially regarding HBV elimination, but the United States does appear to be making progress, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, from Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, who comoderated the session where Ms. Blach reported the data.

“My impression is that we’re doing a pretty good job with [HBV] vaccinations in the United States,” Dr. Sterling, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

One way to make progress, he said, may be to expand eligibility for HBV vaccines beyond the current upper age limit of 59 years.

Implementing simpler dosing regimens – the currently available vaccine is split into three doses – could improve vaccine compliance and lower costs, Dr. Sterling added.

During the session, Brian Conway, MD, medical director of the Vancouver Infectious Disease Centre, said it seems hard to use a composite set of data to determine a yes/no answer about whether a country is on track to reach targets.

“When you take my country of Canada, we have absolutely no national program, no hope of a national program, very little funding, and yet we make the cut. So how do you balance all these different variables to arrive at a yes/no answer and is there a way of putting a bit more subtlety into it?” Dr. Conway asked Ms. Blach.

Ms. Blach replied that the data are fluid, and countries can move closer or farther from reaching targets over time as conditions change.

Some countries seem to be improving efforts and “just need a bit more” work, Ms. Blach said.

“But we also saw some countries who we thought were going to be a shoo-in, and as time progressed the number of treatments just dropped in shocking ways. The reality is that a lot of countries are struggling to treat patients,” she said.

Canada “has a really great health system. It’s not a fragmented health system, and so even if you don’t have some of that push for elimination from the government level, having access to treatment, having access to those services, means that at least patients can come in and get what they need,” Ms. Blach said.

The study data are available for free on the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation’s Polaris website.

The study was funded by grants from the John C. Martin Foundation, ZeShan Foundation, EndHep2030, Gilead Sciences, and AbbVie. Ms. Blach is employed by the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, which receives research grants from Gilead and AbbVie. Dr. Sterling and Dr. Conway reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Vaccination campaigns in more than 80 nations have successfully reduced the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen. That’s the good news.
 

Less good is the news that no countries are on track to meet the goals for HBV eradication by 2030 or 2050, and only 11 countries are on track to achieve all absolute or relative targets for hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination, reported Sarah Blach, MHS, associate director of the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, based in Lafayette, Colo.

“As countries progress toward eliminating hepatitis B and C, we really need to do more to expand political will and financing of national elimination programs. It’s great to see that it’s happening in some of these countries, but we really need that to expand,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Ms. Blach presented data from the foundation’s Polaris Observatory, an initiative that provides epidemiological data, modeling tools, training, and decision analytics to support eliminating HBV and HCV globally by 2030.

The investigators used mathematical disease burden models for HBV and HCV to assess worldwide trends toward viral elimination. They also evaluated HBV and HCV elimination policies as reported by authorities in various countries.

They forecast the year in which each country or territory would meet each of the World Health Organization’s four elimination targets from 110 HCV models and 166 HBV models. The targets are 90% diagnosed, 80% of the eligible population treated, 65% reduction in mortality, and 80% incidence reduction for HCV and either 95% incidence reduction or prevalence of 0.1% or less in children aged 5 years and younger for HBV.

Investigators summarized the results across countries by disease area and time period of elimination; that is, elimination before 2030, between 2031 and 2050, or after 2050.
 

Results for HCV and HBV targets

The 11 nations on track to achieve all absolute or relative (programmatic) targets for HCV by 2030 are Australia, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Japan, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

An additional 24 countries are on track to meet their goals for HCV between 2031 and 2050.

But the rest, including the United States, much of sub-Saharan Africa, China, and South Asia, are not on track to meet their goals for HCV by 2050.

No countries are on track to achieve the absolute or relative (programmatic) targets for elimination of HBV, Ms. Blach said.

However, 83 countries or territories, including the United States, are on track for achieving the HBV surface antigen prevalence target of less than 0.1% in children aged 5 years and younger by 2030.

Ms. Blach and colleagues also looked at results of quantitative policy surveys submitted by 61 countries. The respondents were asked to report on linkage to care, awareness and screening, monitoring and evaluation, ability to expand capacity, harm-reduction programs, financing of national programs, and political will to achieve targets.

The investigators scored countries on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the highest score, in each category. For HCV, 25 countries (42%) had high scores, defined as 9 or 10, for political will, and 33 countries (54%) had high scores for national funding. For HBV, 17 countries (30%) received the high scores for political will, and 30 (51%) received the high scores for financing the national program.
 

The big picture

Most countries have not expanded HBV or HCV treatment beyond specialists, and HBV policies appear to lag behind policies directed toward HCV elimination, Ms. Blach noted.

“We do need to expand screening and treatment for hepatitis B moving forward,” she said.

The United States and the rest of the world need to do better, especially regarding HBV elimination, but the United States does appear to be making progress, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, from Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, who comoderated the session where Ms. Blach reported the data.

“My impression is that we’re doing a pretty good job with [HBV] vaccinations in the United States,” Dr. Sterling, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

One way to make progress, he said, may be to expand eligibility for HBV vaccines beyond the current upper age limit of 59 years.

Implementing simpler dosing regimens – the currently available vaccine is split into three doses – could improve vaccine compliance and lower costs, Dr. Sterling added.

During the session, Brian Conway, MD, medical director of the Vancouver Infectious Disease Centre, said it seems hard to use a composite set of data to determine a yes/no answer about whether a country is on track to reach targets.

“When you take my country of Canada, we have absolutely no national program, no hope of a national program, very little funding, and yet we make the cut. So how do you balance all these different variables to arrive at a yes/no answer and is there a way of putting a bit more subtlety into it?” Dr. Conway asked Ms. Blach.

Ms. Blach replied that the data are fluid, and countries can move closer or farther from reaching targets over time as conditions change.

Some countries seem to be improving efforts and “just need a bit more” work, Ms. Blach said.

“But we also saw some countries who we thought were going to be a shoo-in, and as time progressed the number of treatments just dropped in shocking ways. The reality is that a lot of countries are struggling to treat patients,” she said.

Canada “has a really great health system. It’s not a fragmented health system, and so even if you don’t have some of that push for elimination from the government level, having access to treatment, having access to those services, means that at least patients can come in and get what they need,” Ms. Blach said.

The study data are available for free on the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation’s Polaris website.

The study was funded by grants from the John C. Martin Foundation, ZeShan Foundation, EndHep2030, Gilead Sciences, and AbbVie. Ms. Blach is employed by the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, which receives research grants from Gilead and AbbVie. Dr. Sterling and Dr. Conway reported no relevant disclosures.

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