Guidelines

A major comprehensive cancer center at the epicenter of the New York City COVID-19 storm is preparing to scale back palliative radiation therapy (RT), anticipating a focus on only oncologic emergencies.

“We’re not there yet, but we’re anticipating when the time comes in the next few weeks that we will have a system in place so we are able to handle it,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York City, told Medscape Medical News.

Yang and an expert panel of colleagues reviewed high-impact evidence, prior systematic reviews, and national guidelines to compile a set of recommendations for triage and shortened palliative rRT at their center, should the need arise.

The recommendations on palliative radiotherapy for oncologic emergencies in the setting of COVID-19 appear in a preprint version in Advances in Radiation Oncology, released by the American Society of Radiation Oncology.

Yang says the recommendations are a careful balance between the risk of COVID-19 exposure of staff and patients with the potential morbidity of delaying treatment.

“Everyone is conscious of decisions about whether patients need treatment now or can wait,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It’s a juggling act every single day, but by having this guideline in place, when we face the situation where we do have to make decisions, is helpful.”

The document aims to enable swift decisions based on best practice, including a three-tiered system prioritizing only “clinically urgent cases, in which delaying treatment would result in compromised outcomes or serious morbidity.”

“It’s brutal, that’s the only word for it. Not that I disagree with it,” commented Padraig Warde, MB BCh, professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, and radiation oncologist, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Like many places, Toronto is not yet experiencing the COVID-19 burden of New York City, but Warde says the MSKCC guideline is useful for everyone. “Other centers should review it and see how they could deal with resource limitations,” he said. “It’s sobering and sad, but if you don’t have the staff to treat all patients, which particular patients do you choose to treat?”

In a nutshell, the MSKCC recommendations defines Tier 1 patients as having oncologic emergencies that require palliative RT, including “cord compression, symptomatic brain metastases requiring whole-brain radiotherapy, life-threatening tumor bleeding, and malignant airway obstruction.”

According to the decision-making guideline, patients in Tiers 2 and 3 would have their palliative RT delayed. This would include Tier 2 patients whose needs are not classified as emergencies, but who have either symptomatic disease for which RT is usually the standard of care or asymptomatic disease for which RT is recommended “to prevent imminent functional deficits.” Tier 3 would be symptomatic or asymptomatic patients for whom RT is “one of the effective treatment options.”

“Rationing is always very difficult because as physicians you always want to do everything you can for your patients but we really have to strike the balance on when to do what, said Yang. The plan that he authored anticipates both reduced availability of radiation therapists as well as aggressive attempts to limit patients’ infection exposure.

“If a patient’s radiation is being considered for delay due to COVID-19, other means are utilized to achieve the goal of palliation in the interim, and in addition to the tier system, this decision is also made on a case-by-case basis with departmental discussion on the risks and benefits,” he explained.

“There are layers of checks and balances for these decisions...Obviously for oncologic emergencies, radiation will be implemented. However for less urgent situations, bringing them into the hospital when there are other ways to achieve the same goal, potential risk of exposure to COVID-19 is higher than the benefit we would be able to provide.”

The document also recommends shorter courses of RT when radiation is deemed appropriate.

“We have good evidence showing shorter courses of radiation can effectively treat the goal of palliation compared to longer courses of radiation,” he explained. “Going through this pandemic actually forces radiation oncologists in the United States to put that evidence into practice. It’s not suboptimal care in the sense that we are achieving the same goal — palliation. This paper is to remind people there are equally effective courses of palliation we can be using.”

“[There’s] nothing like a crisis to get people to do the right thing,” commented Louis Potters, MD, professor and chair of radiation medicine at the Feinstein Institutes, the research arm of Northwell Health, New York’s largest healthcare provider.

Northwell Health has been at the epicenter of the New York outbreak of COVID-19. Potters writes on an ASTRO blog that, as of March 26, Northwell Health “has diagnosed 4399 positive COVID-19 patients, which is about 20% of New York state and 1.2% of all cases in the world. All cancer surgery was discontinued as of March 20 and all of our 23 hospitals are seeing COVID-19 admissions, and ICU care became the primary focus of the entire system. As of today, we have reserved one floor in two hospitals for non-COVID care such as trauma. That’s it.”

Before the crisis, radiation medicine at Northwell consisted of eight separate locations treating on average 280 EBRT cases a day, not including SBRT/SRS and brachytherapy cases. “That of course was 3 weeks ago,” he notes.

Commenting on the recommendations from the MSKCC group, Potters told Medscape Medical News that the primary goal “was to document what are acceptable alternatives for accelerated care.”

“Ironically, these guidelines represent best practices with evidence that — in a non–COVID-19 world — make sense for the majority of patients requiring palliative radiotherapy,” he said.

Potters said there has been hesitance to transition to shorter radiation treatments for several reasons.

“Historically, palliative radiotherapy has been delivered over 2 to 4 weeks with good results. And, as is typical in medicine, the transition to shorter course care is slowed by financial incentives to protract care,” he explained.

“In a value-based future where payment is based on outcomes, this transition to shorter care will evolve very quickly. But given the current COVID-19 crisis, and the risk to patients and staff, the incentive for shorter treatment courses has been thrust upon us and the MSKCC outline helps to define how to do this safely and with evidence-based expected efficacy.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A major comprehensive cancer center at the epicenter of the New York City COVID-19 storm is preparing to scale back palliative radiation therapy (RT), anticipating a focus on only oncologic emergencies.

“We’re not there yet, but we’re anticipating when the time comes in the next few weeks that we will have a system in place so we are able to handle it,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York City, told Medscape Medical News.

Yang and an expert panel of colleagues reviewed high-impact evidence, prior systematic reviews, and national guidelines to compile a set of recommendations for triage and shortened palliative rRT at their center, should the need arise.

The recommendations on palliative radiotherapy for oncologic emergencies in the setting of COVID-19 appear in a preprint version in Advances in Radiation Oncology, released by the American Society of Radiation Oncology.

Yang says the recommendations are a careful balance between the risk of COVID-19 exposure of staff and patients with the potential morbidity of delaying treatment.

“Everyone is conscious of decisions about whether patients need treatment now or can wait,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It’s a juggling act every single day, but by having this guideline in place, when we face the situation where we do have to make decisions, is helpful.”

The document aims to enable swift decisions based on best practice, including a three-tiered system prioritizing only “clinically urgent cases, in which delaying treatment would result in compromised outcomes or serious morbidity.”

“It’s brutal, that’s the only word for it. Not that I disagree with it,” commented Padraig Warde, MB BCh, professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, and radiation oncologist, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Like many places, Toronto is not yet experiencing the COVID-19 burden of New York City, but Warde says the MSKCC guideline is useful for everyone. “Other centers should review it and see how they could deal with resource limitations,” he said. “It’s sobering and sad, but if you don’t have the staff to treat all patients, which particular patients do you choose to treat?”

In a nutshell, the MSKCC recommendations defines Tier 1 patients as having oncologic emergencies that require palliative RT, including “cord compression, symptomatic brain metastases requiring whole-brain radiotherapy, life-threatening tumor bleeding, and malignant airway obstruction.”

According to the decision-making guideline, patients in Tiers 2 and 3 would have their palliative RT delayed. This would include Tier 2 patients whose needs are not classified as emergencies, but who have either symptomatic disease for which RT is usually the standard of care or asymptomatic disease for which RT is recommended “to prevent imminent functional deficits.” Tier 3 would be symptomatic or asymptomatic patients for whom RT is “one of the effective treatment options.”

“Rationing is always very difficult because as physicians you always want to do everything you can for your patients but we really have to strike the balance on when to do what, said Yang. The plan that he authored anticipates both reduced availability of radiation therapists as well as aggressive attempts to limit patients’ infection exposure.

“If a patient’s radiation is being considered for delay due to COVID-19, other means are utilized to achieve the goal of palliation in the interim, and in addition to the tier system, this decision is also made on a case-by-case basis with departmental discussion on the risks and benefits,” he explained.

“There are layers of checks and balances for these decisions...Obviously for oncologic emergencies, radiation will be implemented. However for less urgent situations, bringing them into the hospital when there are other ways to achieve the same goal, potential risk of exposure to COVID-19 is higher than the benefit we would be able to provide.”

The document also recommends shorter courses of RT when radiation is deemed appropriate.

“We have good evidence showing shorter courses of radiation can effectively treat the goal of palliation compared to longer courses of radiation,” he explained. “Going through this pandemic actually forces radiation oncologists in the United States to put that evidence into practice. It’s not suboptimal care in the sense that we are achieving the same goal — palliation. This paper is to remind people there are equally effective courses of palliation we can be using.”

“[There’s] nothing like a crisis to get people to do the right thing,” commented Louis Potters, MD, professor and chair of radiation medicine at the Feinstein Institutes, the research arm of Northwell Health, New York’s largest healthcare provider.

Northwell Health has been at the epicenter of the New York outbreak of COVID-19. Potters writes on an ASTRO blog that, as of March 26, Northwell Health “has diagnosed 4399 positive COVID-19 patients, which is about 20% of New York state and 1.2% of all cases in the world. All cancer surgery was discontinued as of March 20 and all of our 23 hospitals are seeing COVID-19 admissions, and ICU care became the primary focus of the entire system. As of today, we have reserved one floor in two hospitals for non-COVID care such as trauma. That’s it.”

Before the crisis, radiation medicine at Northwell consisted of eight separate locations treating on average 280 EBRT cases a day, not including SBRT/SRS and brachytherapy cases. “That of course was 3 weeks ago,” he notes.

Commenting on the recommendations from the MSKCC group, Potters told Medscape Medical News that the primary goal “was to document what are acceptable alternatives for accelerated care.”

“Ironically, these guidelines represent best practices with evidence that — in a non–COVID-19 world — make sense for the majority of patients requiring palliative radiotherapy,” he said.

Potters said there has been hesitance to transition to shorter radiation treatments for several reasons.

“Historically, palliative radiotherapy has been delivered over 2 to 4 weeks with good results. And, as is typical in medicine, the transition to shorter course care is slowed by financial incentives to protract care,” he explained.

“In a value-based future where payment is based on outcomes, this transition to shorter care will evolve very quickly. But given the current COVID-19 crisis, and the risk to patients and staff, the incentive for shorter treatment courses has been thrust upon us and the MSKCC outline helps to define how to do this safely and with evidence-based expected efficacy.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A major comprehensive cancer center at the epicenter of the New York City COVID-19 storm is preparing to scale back palliative radiation therapy (RT), anticipating a focus on only oncologic emergencies.

“We’re not there yet, but we’re anticipating when the time comes in the next few weeks that we will have a system in place so we are able to handle it,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York City, told Medscape Medical News.

Yang and an expert panel of colleagues reviewed high-impact evidence, prior systematic reviews, and national guidelines to compile a set of recommendations for triage and shortened palliative rRT at their center, should the need arise.

The recommendations on palliative radiotherapy for oncologic emergencies in the setting of COVID-19 appear in a preprint version in Advances in Radiation Oncology, released by the American Society of Radiation Oncology.

Yang says the recommendations are a careful balance between the risk of COVID-19 exposure of staff and patients with the potential morbidity of delaying treatment.

“Everyone is conscious of decisions about whether patients need treatment now or can wait,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It’s a juggling act every single day, but by having this guideline in place, when we face the situation where we do have to make decisions, is helpful.”

The document aims to enable swift decisions based on best practice, including a three-tiered system prioritizing only “clinically urgent cases, in which delaying treatment would result in compromised outcomes or serious morbidity.”

“It’s brutal, that’s the only word for it. Not that I disagree with it,” commented Padraig Warde, MB BCh, professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, and radiation oncologist, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Like many places, Toronto is not yet experiencing the COVID-19 burden of New York City, but Warde says the MSKCC guideline is useful for everyone. “Other centers should review it and see how they could deal with resource limitations,” he said. “It’s sobering and sad, but if you don’t have the staff to treat all patients, which particular patients do you choose to treat?”

In a nutshell, the MSKCC recommendations defines Tier 1 patients as having oncologic emergencies that require palliative RT, including “cord compression, symptomatic brain metastases requiring whole-brain radiotherapy, life-threatening tumor bleeding, and malignant airway obstruction.”

According to the decision-making guideline, patients in Tiers 2 and 3 would have their palliative RT delayed. This would include Tier 2 patients whose needs are not classified as emergencies, but who have either symptomatic disease for which RT is usually the standard of care or asymptomatic disease for which RT is recommended “to prevent imminent functional deficits.” Tier 3 would be symptomatic or asymptomatic patients for whom RT is “one of the effective treatment options.”

“Rationing is always very difficult because as physicians you always want to do everything you can for your patients but we really have to strike the balance on when to do what, said Yang. The plan that he authored anticipates both reduced availability of radiation therapists as well as aggressive attempts to limit patients’ infection exposure.

“If a patient’s radiation is being considered for delay due to COVID-19, other means are utilized to achieve the goal of palliation in the interim, and in addition to the tier system, this decision is also made on a case-by-case basis with departmental discussion on the risks and benefits,” he explained.

“There are layers of checks and balances for these decisions...Obviously for oncologic emergencies, radiation will be implemented. However for less urgent situations, bringing them into the hospital when there are other ways to achieve the same goal, potential risk of exposure to COVID-19 is higher than the benefit we would be able to provide.”

The document also recommends shorter courses of RT when radiation is deemed appropriate.

“We have good evidence showing shorter courses of radiation can effectively treat the goal of palliation compared to longer courses of radiation,” he explained. “Going through this pandemic actually forces radiation oncologists in the United States to put that evidence into practice. It’s not suboptimal care in the sense that we are achieving the same goal — palliation. This paper is to remind people there are equally effective courses of palliation we can be using.”

“[There’s] nothing like a crisis to get people to do the right thing,” commented Louis Potters, MD, professor and chair of radiation medicine at the Feinstein Institutes, the research arm of Northwell Health, New York’s largest healthcare provider.

Northwell Health has been at the epicenter of the New York outbreak of COVID-19. Potters writes on an ASTRO blog that, as of March 26, Northwell Health “has diagnosed 4399 positive COVID-19 patients, which is about 20% of New York state and 1.2% of all cases in the world. All cancer surgery was discontinued as of March 20 and all of our 23 hospitals are seeing COVID-19 admissions, and ICU care became the primary focus of the entire system. As of today, we have reserved one floor in two hospitals for non-COVID care such as trauma. That’s it.”

Before the crisis, radiation medicine at Northwell consisted of eight separate locations treating on average 280 EBRT cases a day, not including SBRT/SRS and brachytherapy cases. “That of course was 3 weeks ago,” he notes.

Commenting on the recommendations from the MSKCC group, Potters told Medscape Medical News that the primary goal “was to document what are acceptable alternatives for accelerated care.”

“Ironically, these guidelines represent best practices with evidence that — in a non–COVID-19 world — make sense for the majority of patients requiring palliative radiotherapy,” he said.

Potters said there has been hesitance to transition to shorter radiation treatments for several reasons.

“Historically, palliative radiotherapy has been delivered over 2 to 4 weeks with good results. And, as is typical in medicine, the transition to shorter course care is slowed by financial incentives to protract care,” he explained.

“In a value-based future where payment is based on outcomes, this transition to shorter care will evolve very quickly. But given the current COVID-19 crisis, and the risk to patients and staff, the incentive for shorter treatment courses has been thrust upon us and the MSKCC outline helps to define how to do this safely and with evidence-based expected efficacy.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In liver transplant recipients or patients with autoimmune hepatitis on immunosuppressive therapy, acute cellular rejection or disease flare should not be presumed in the face of active coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), according to the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

Signs that would normally be interpreted as flare or rejection need to be considered more cautiously now because the virus attacks the liver, and elevated aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and slightly elevated bilirubin are common, ranging from a prevalence of 14% to 53% in COVID-19 patients. Acute liver injury is possible, especially in more severe cases, the group said.

The advice comes from a recently released document from AASLD, called “Clinical Insights for Hepatology and Liver Transplant Providers During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” to help hepatologists and liver transplant providers negotiate the pandemic, according to the latest data. It’s a far-ranging work that contains a lot of now familiar steps for providers to take to protect themselves and patients from the virus, but also much advice specific to liver medicine.

For instance, the group said it’s important to keep in mind that experimental treatments for the infection, including statins, remdesivir, and tocilizumab, can be hepatotoxic. Abnormal liver biochemistries are not a contraindication, but liver biochemistries need to be followed regularly in COVID-19 patients, especially those treated with remdesivir or tocilizumab, regardless of baseline values.

Also, lopinavir/ritonavir is a potent inhibitor of cytochrome P450 enzymes involved with calcineurin inhibitor metabolism, so if it’s used, AASLD said to reduce tacrolimus dosages to 1/20–1/50 of baseline.

The group cautioned against anticipatory adjustments to immunosuppressive drugs or dosages in patients without COVID-19, but if immunosuppressed liver disease patients do get the infection, prednisone doses should be reduced but kept above 10 mg/day to avoid adrenal insufficiency. In the setting of lymphopenia, fever, or worsening COVID-19 pneumonia, it advised reduction of azathioprine and mycophenolate dosages and reduction of, but not stopping, calcineurin inhibitors.

Liver transplants should not be postponed. However, to minimize exposure to the hospital environment, AASLD advised to “consider evaluating only patients with HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma] or those patients with severe disease and high MELD [model for end-stage liver disease] scores who are likely to benefit from immediate liver transplant.”

“An argument that has been put forward to justify deferring some transplants is concern about immunosuppressing patients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the group said, but “data suggest the innate immune response may be the main driver for pulmonary injury due to COVID-19 and [that] immunosuppression may be protective. ... Posttransplant immunosuppression was not a risk factor for mortality associated with” the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic in 2003-2004 or the ongoing Middle East respiratory syndrome pandemic, both also caused by coronaviruses.

AASLD advised against reducing immunosuppression or stopping mycophenolate for asymptomatic patients after transplant, but COVID-19 prevention measures should be emphasized, including frequent hand washing and staying away from large crowds.

People who test positive for COVID-19 are ineligible for organ donation. Bronchoalveolar lavage is the most sensitive test (93%), followed by nasal swabs (63%) and pharyngeal swabs (32%).

In general, the group said elective procedures should be postponed, but urgent ones, such as biliary surgery and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts for bleeding varices, in addition to liver transplants, should not.

Also, HCC patients “should not wait until the pandemic abates to undergo [surveillance] imaging because the prospective duration of the pandemic is unknown. ... An arbitrary delay of 2 months is reasonable” for imaging based on patient and facility circumstances, but otherwise, “proceed with HCC treatments rather than delaying them due to the pandemic,” the group said.

As for who to bring into the office for an initial consult, “consider seeing in person only new adult and pediatric patients with urgent issues and clinically significant liver disease (e.g., jaundice, elevated ALT or AST above 500 U/L, recent onset of hepatic decompensation),” AASLD said.

[email protected]

In liver transplant recipients or patients with autoimmune hepatitis on immunosuppressive therapy, acute cellular rejection or disease flare should not be presumed in the face of active coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), according to the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

Signs that would normally be interpreted as flare or rejection need to be considered more cautiously now because the virus attacks the liver, and elevated aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and slightly elevated bilirubin are common, ranging from a prevalence of 14% to 53% in COVID-19 patients. Acute liver injury is possible, especially in more severe cases, the group said.

The advice comes from a recently released document from AASLD, called “Clinical Insights for Hepatology and Liver Transplant Providers During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” to help hepatologists and liver transplant providers negotiate the pandemic, according to the latest data. It’s a far-ranging work that contains a lot of now familiar steps for providers to take to protect themselves and patients from the virus, but also much advice specific to liver medicine.

For instance, the group said it’s important to keep in mind that experimental treatments for the infection, including statins, remdesivir, and tocilizumab, can be hepatotoxic. Abnormal liver biochemistries are not a contraindication, but liver biochemistries need to be followed regularly in COVID-19 patients, especially those treated with remdesivir or tocilizumab, regardless of baseline values.

Also, lopinavir/ritonavir is a potent inhibitor of cytochrome P450 enzymes involved with calcineurin inhibitor metabolism, so if it’s used, AASLD said to reduce tacrolimus dosages to 1/20–1/50 of baseline.

The group cautioned against anticipatory adjustments to immunosuppressive drugs or dosages in patients without COVID-19, but if immunosuppressed liver disease patients do get the infection, prednisone doses should be reduced but kept above 10 mg/day to avoid adrenal insufficiency. In the setting of lymphopenia, fever, or worsening COVID-19 pneumonia, it advised reduction of azathioprine and mycophenolate dosages and reduction of, but not stopping, calcineurin inhibitors.

Liver transplants should not be postponed. However, to minimize exposure to the hospital environment, AASLD advised to “consider evaluating only patients with HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma] or those patients with severe disease and high MELD [model for end-stage liver disease] scores who are likely to benefit from immediate liver transplant.”

“An argument that has been put forward to justify deferring some transplants is concern about immunosuppressing patients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the group said, but “data suggest the innate immune response may be the main driver for pulmonary injury due to COVID-19 and [that] immunosuppression may be protective. ... Posttransplant immunosuppression was not a risk factor for mortality associated with” the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic in 2003-2004 or the ongoing Middle East respiratory syndrome pandemic, both also caused by coronaviruses.

AASLD advised against reducing immunosuppression or stopping mycophenolate for asymptomatic patients after transplant, but COVID-19 prevention measures should be emphasized, including frequent hand washing and staying away from large crowds.

People who test positive for COVID-19 are ineligible for organ donation. Bronchoalveolar lavage is the most sensitive test (93%), followed by nasal swabs (63%) and pharyngeal swabs (32%).

In general, the group said elective procedures should be postponed, but urgent ones, such as biliary surgery and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts for bleeding varices, in addition to liver transplants, should not.

Also, HCC patients “should not wait until the pandemic abates to undergo [surveillance] imaging because the prospective duration of the pandemic is unknown. ... An arbitrary delay of 2 months is reasonable” for imaging based on patient and facility circumstances, but otherwise, “proceed with HCC treatments rather than delaying them due to the pandemic,” the group said.

As for who to bring into the office for an initial consult, “consider seeing in person only new adult and pediatric patients with urgent issues and clinically significant liver disease (e.g., jaundice, elevated ALT or AST above 500 U/L, recent onset of hepatic decompensation),” AASLD said.

[email protected]

In liver transplant recipients or patients with autoimmune hepatitis on immunosuppressive therapy, acute cellular rejection or disease flare should not be presumed in the face of active coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), according to the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

Signs that would normally be interpreted as flare or rejection need to be considered more cautiously now because the virus attacks the liver, and elevated aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and slightly elevated bilirubin are common, ranging from a prevalence of 14% to 53% in COVID-19 patients. Acute liver injury is possible, especially in more severe cases, the group said.

The advice comes from a recently released document from AASLD, called “Clinical Insights for Hepatology and Liver Transplant Providers During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” to help hepatologists and liver transplant providers negotiate the pandemic, according to the latest data. It’s a far-ranging work that contains a lot of now familiar steps for providers to take to protect themselves and patients from the virus, but also much advice specific to liver medicine.

For instance, the group said it’s important to keep in mind that experimental treatments for the infection, including statins, remdesivir, and tocilizumab, can be hepatotoxic. Abnormal liver biochemistries are not a contraindication, but liver biochemistries need to be followed regularly in COVID-19 patients, especially those treated with remdesivir or tocilizumab, regardless of baseline values.

Also, lopinavir/ritonavir is a potent inhibitor of cytochrome P450 enzymes involved with calcineurin inhibitor metabolism, so if it’s used, AASLD said to reduce tacrolimus dosages to 1/20–1/50 of baseline.

The group cautioned against anticipatory adjustments to immunosuppressive drugs or dosages in patients without COVID-19, but if immunosuppressed liver disease patients do get the infection, prednisone doses should be reduced but kept above 10 mg/day to avoid adrenal insufficiency. In the setting of lymphopenia, fever, or worsening COVID-19 pneumonia, it advised reduction of azathioprine and mycophenolate dosages and reduction of, but not stopping, calcineurin inhibitors.

Liver transplants should not be postponed. However, to minimize exposure to the hospital environment, AASLD advised to “consider evaluating only patients with HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma] or those patients with severe disease and high MELD [model for end-stage liver disease] scores who are likely to benefit from immediate liver transplant.”

“An argument that has been put forward to justify deferring some transplants is concern about immunosuppressing patients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the group said, but “data suggest the innate immune response may be the main driver for pulmonary injury due to COVID-19 and [that] immunosuppression may be protective. ... Posttransplant immunosuppression was not a risk factor for mortality associated with” the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic in 2003-2004 or the ongoing Middle East respiratory syndrome pandemic, both also caused by coronaviruses.

AASLD advised against reducing immunosuppression or stopping mycophenolate for asymptomatic patients after transplant, but COVID-19 prevention measures should be emphasized, including frequent hand washing and staying away from large crowds.

People who test positive for COVID-19 are ineligible for organ donation. Bronchoalveolar lavage is the most sensitive test (93%), followed by nasal swabs (63%) and pharyngeal swabs (32%).

In general, the group said elective procedures should be postponed, but urgent ones, such as biliary surgery and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts for bleeding varices, in addition to liver transplants, should not.

Also, HCC patients “should not wait until the pandemic abates to undergo [surveillance] imaging because the prospective duration of the pandemic is unknown. ... An arbitrary delay of 2 months is reasonable” for imaging based on patient and facility circumstances, but otherwise, “proceed with HCC treatments rather than delaying them due to the pandemic,” the group said.

As for who to bring into the office for an initial consult, “consider seeing in person only new adult and pediatric patients with urgent issues and clinically significant liver disease (e.g., jaundice, elevated ALT or AST above 500 U/L, recent onset of hepatic decompensation),” AASLD said.

[email protected]

Cancer surgeries may need to be delayed as hospitals are forced to allocate resources to a surge of COVID-19 patients, says the American College of Surgeons, as it issues a new set of recommendations in reaction to the crisis.

Most surgeons have already curtailed or have ceased to perform elective operations, the ACS notes, and recommends that surgeons continue to do so in order to preserve the necessary resources for care of critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new clinical guidance for elective surgical case triage during the pandemic includes recommendations for cancer surgery as well as for procedures that are specific to certain cancer types.

“These triage guidelines and joint recommendations are being issued as we appear to be entering a new phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with more hospitals facing a potential push beyond their resources to care for critically ill patients,” commented ACS Executive Director David B. Hoyt, MD, in a statement.

“ACS will continue to monitor the landscape for surgical care but we feel this guidance document provides a good foundation for surgeons to begin enacting these triage recommendations today to help them make the best decisions possible for their patients during COVID-19,” he said.

For cancer surgery, which is often not elective but essential to treatment, ACS has issued general guidance for triaging patients, taking into account the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation.

First, decisions about whether to proceed with elective surgeries must consider the available resources of local facilities. The parties responsible for preparing the facility to manage coronavirus patients should be sharing information at regular intervals about constraints on local resources, especially personal protective equipment (PPE), which is running low in many jurisdictions. For example, if an elective case has a high likelihood of needing postoperative ICU care, it is imperative to balance the risk of delay against the need of availability for patients with COVID-19.

Second, cancer care coordination should use virtual technologies as much as possible, and facilities with tumor boards may find it helpful to locate multidisciplinary experts by virtual means, to assist with decision making and establishing triage criteria.

Three Phases of Pandemic

The ACS has also organized decision making into three phases that reflect the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation:

• Phase I. Semi-Urgent Setting (Preparation Phase) – few COVID-19 patients, hospital resources not exhausted, institution still has ICU ventilator capacity and COVID-19 trajectory not in rapid escalation phase
• Phase II. Urgent Setting – many COVID-19 patients, ICU and ventilator capacity limited, operating room supplies limited
• Phase III. Hospital resources are all routed to COVID-19 patients, no ventilator or ICU capacity, operating room supplies exhausted; patients in whom death is likely within hours if surgery is deferred

Breast Cancer Surgery

The ACS also issued specific guidance for several tumor types, including guidance for breast cancer surgery.

For phase I, surgery should be restricted to patients who are likely to experience compromised survival if it is not performed within next 3 months. This includes patients completing neoadjuvant treatment, those with clinical stage T2 or N1 ERpos/PRpos/HER2-negative tumors, patients with triple negative or HER2-positive tumors, discordant biopsies that are likely to be malignant, and removal of a recurrent lesion.

Phase II would be restricted to patients whose survival is threatened if surgery is not performed within the next few days. These would include incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuating a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

In Phase III, surgical procedures would be restricted to patients who may not survive if surgery is not performed within a few hours. This includes incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuation of a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Guidance for colorectal cancer surgery is also split into the three phases of the pandemic.

Phase I would include cases needing surgical intervention as soon as feasible, while recognizing that the status of each hospital is likely to evolve over the next week or two. These patients would include those with nearly obstructing colon cancer or rectal cancer; cancers that require frequent transfusions; asymptomatic colon cancers; rectal cancers that do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiation; malignancies with a risk of local perforation and sepsis; and those with early stage rectal cancers that are not candidates for adjuvant therapy.

Phase II comprises patients needing surgery as soon as feasible, but recognizing that hospital status is likely to progress over the next few days. These cases include patients with a nearly obstructing colon cancer where stenting is not an option; those with nearly obstructing rectal cancer (should be diverted); cancers with high (inpatient) transfusion requirements; and cancers with pending evidence of local perforation and sepsis.

All colorectal procedures typically scheduled as routine should be delayed.

In Phase III, if the status of the facility is likely to progress within hours, the only surgery that should be performed would be for perforated, obstructed, or actively bleeding (inpatient transfusion dependent) cancers or those with sepsis. All other surgeries should be deferred.

Thoracic Cancer Surgery

Thoracic cancer surgery guidelines follow those for breast cancer. Phase I should be restricted to patients whose survival may be impacted if surgery is not performed within next 3 months. These include:

• Cases with solid or predominantly solid (>50%) lung cancer or presumed lung cancer (>2 cm), clinical node negative
• Node positive lung cancer
• Post-induction therapy cancer
• Esophageal cancer T1b or greater
• Chest wall tumors that are potentially aggressive and not manageable by alternative means
• Stenting for obstructing esophageal tumor
• Staging to start treatment (mediastinoscopy, diagnostic VATS for pleural dissemination)
• Symptomatic mediastinal tumors
• Patients who are enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials.

Phase II would permit surgery if survival will be impacted by a delay of a few days. These cases would include nonseptic perforated cancer of esophagus, a tumor-associated infection, and management of surgical complications in a hemodynamically stable patient.

All thoracic procedures considered to be routine/elective would be deferred.

Phase III restricts surgery to patients whose survival will be compromised if they do not undergo surgery within the next few hours. This group would include perforated cancer of esophagus in a septic patient, a patient with a threatened airway, sepsis associated with the cancer, and management of surgical complications in an unstable patient  (active bleeding that requires surgery, dehiscence of airway, anastomotic leak with sepsis).

All other cases would be deferred.

Other Cancer Types

Although the ACS doesn’t have specific guidelines for all cancer types, a few are included in their general recommendations for the specialty.

For gynecologic surgeries, ACS lists cancer or suspected cancer as indications where significantly delayed surgery could cause “significant harm.”

Delays, in general, are not recommended for neurosurgery, which would include brain cancers. In pediatrics, most cancer surgery is considered “urgent,” where a delay of days to weeks could prove detrimental to the patient. This would comprise all solid tumors, including the initial biopsy and resection following neoadjuvant therapy.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer surgeries may need to be delayed as hospitals are forced to allocate resources to a surge of COVID-19 patients, says the American College of Surgeons, as it issues a new set of recommendations in reaction to the crisis.

Most surgeons have already curtailed or have ceased to perform elective operations, the ACS notes, and recommends that surgeons continue to do so in order to preserve the necessary resources for care of critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new clinical guidance for elective surgical case triage during the pandemic includes recommendations for cancer surgery as well as for procedures that are specific to certain cancer types.

“These triage guidelines and joint recommendations are being issued as we appear to be entering a new phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with more hospitals facing a potential push beyond their resources to care for critically ill patients,” commented ACS Executive Director David B. Hoyt, MD, in a statement.

“ACS will continue to monitor the landscape for surgical care but we feel this guidance document provides a good foundation for surgeons to begin enacting these triage recommendations today to help them make the best decisions possible for their patients during COVID-19,” he said.

For cancer surgery, which is often not elective but essential to treatment, ACS has issued general guidance for triaging patients, taking into account the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation.

First, decisions about whether to proceed with elective surgeries must consider the available resources of local facilities. The parties responsible for preparing the facility to manage coronavirus patients should be sharing information at regular intervals about constraints on local resources, especially personal protective equipment (PPE), which is running low in many jurisdictions. For example, if an elective case has a high likelihood of needing postoperative ICU care, it is imperative to balance the risk of delay against the need of availability for patients with COVID-19.

Second, cancer care coordination should use virtual technologies as much as possible, and facilities with tumor boards may find it helpful to locate multidisciplinary experts by virtual means, to assist with decision making and establishing triage criteria.

Three Phases of Pandemic

The ACS has also organized decision making into three phases that reflect the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation:

• Phase I. Semi-Urgent Setting (Preparation Phase) – few COVID-19 patients, hospital resources not exhausted, institution still has ICU ventilator capacity and COVID-19 trajectory not in rapid escalation phase
• Phase II. Urgent Setting – many COVID-19 patients, ICU and ventilator capacity limited, operating room supplies limited
• Phase III. Hospital resources are all routed to COVID-19 patients, no ventilator or ICU capacity, operating room supplies exhausted; patients in whom death is likely within hours if surgery is deferred

Breast Cancer Surgery

The ACS also issued specific guidance for several tumor types, including guidance for breast cancer surgery.

For phase I, surgery should be restricted to patients who are likely to experience compromised survival if it is not performed within next 3 months. This includes patients completing neoadjuvant treatment, those with clinical stage T2 or N1 ERpos/PRpos/HER2-negative tumors, patients with triple negative or HER2-positive tumors, discordant biopsies that are likely to be malignant, and removal of a recurrent lesion.

Phase II would be restricted to patients whose survival is threatened if surgery is not performed within the next few days. These would include incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuating a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

In Phase III, surgical procedures would be restricted to patients who may not survive if surgery is not performed within a few hours. This includes incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuation of a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Guidance for colorectal cancer surgery is also split into the three phases of the pandemic.

Phase I would include cases needing surgical intervention as soon as feasible, while recognizing that the status of each hospital is likely to evolve over the next week or two. These patients would include those with nearly obstructing colon cancer or rectal cancer; cancers that require frequent transfusions; asymptomatic colon cancers; rectal cancers that do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiation; malignancies with a risk of local perforation and sepsis; and those with early stage rectal cancers that are not candidates for adjuvant therapy.

Phase II comprises patients needing surgery as soon as feasible, but recognizing that hospital status is likely to progress over the next few days. These cases include patients with a nearly obstructing colon cancer where stenting is not an option; those with nearly obstructing rectal cancer (should be diverted); cancers with high (inpatient) transfusion requirements; and cancers with pending evidence of local perforation and sepsis.

All colorectal procedures typically scheduled as routine should be delayed.

In Phase III, if the status of the facility is likely to progress within hours, the only surgery that should be performed would be for perforated, obstructed, or actively bleeding (inpatient transfusion dependent) cancers or those with sepsis. All other surgeries should be deferred.

Thoracic Cancer Surgery

Thoracic cancer surgery guidelines follow those for breast cancer. Phase I should be restricted to patients whose survival may be impacted if surgery is not performed within next 3 months. These include:

• Cases with solid or predominantly solid (>50%) lung cancer or presumed lung cancer (>2 cm), clinical node negative
• Node positive lung cancer
• Post-induction therapy cancer
• Esophageal cancer T1b or greater
• Chest wall tumors that are potentially aggressive and not manageable by alternative means
• Stenting for obstructing esophageal tumor
• Staging to start treatment (mediastinoscopy, diagnostic VATS for pleural dissemination)
• Symptomatic mediastinal tumors
• Patients who are enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials.

Phase II would permit surgery if survival will be impacted by a delay of a few days. These cases would include nonseptic perforated cancer of esophagus, a tumor-associated infection, and management of surgical complications in a hemodynamically stable patient.

All thoracic procedures considered to be routine/elective would be deferred.

Phase III restricts surgery to patients whose survival will be compromised if they do not undergo surgery within the next few hours. This group would include perforated cancer of esophagus in a septic patient, a patient with a threatened airway, sepsis associated with the cancer, and management of surgical complications in an unstable patient  (active bleeding that requires surgery, dehiscence of airway, anastomotic leak with sepsis).

All other cases would be deferred.

Other Cancer Types

Although the ACS doesn’t have specific guidelines for all cancer types, a few are included in their general recommendations for the specialty.

For gynecologic surgeries, ACS lists cancer or suspected cancer as indications where significantly delayed surgery could cause “significant harm.”

Delays, in general, are not recommended for neurosurgery, which would include brain cancers. In pediatrics, most cancer surgery is considered “urgent,” where a delay of days to weeks could prove detrimental to the patient. This would comprise all solid tumors, including the initial biopsy and resection following neoadjuvant therapy.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer surgeries may need to be delayed as hospitals are forced to allocate resources to a surge of COVID-19 patients, says the American College of Surgeons, as it issues a new set of recommendations in reaction to the crisis.

Most surgeons have already curtailed or have ceased to perform elective operations, the ACS notes, and recommends that surgeons continue to do so in order to preserve the necessary resources for care of critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new clinical guidance for elective surgical case triage during the pandemic includes recommendations for cancer surgery as well as for procedures that are specific to certain cancer types.

“These triage guidelines and joint recommendations are being issued as we appear to be entering a new phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with more hospitals facing a potential push beyond their resources to care for critically ill patients,” commented ACS Executive Director David B. Hoyt, MD, in a statement.

“ACS will continue to monitor the landscape for surgical care but we feel this guidance document provides a good foundation for surgeons to begin enacting these triage recommendations today to help them make the best decisions possible for their patients during COVID-19,” he said.

For cancer surgery, which is often not elective but essential to treatment, ACS has issued general guidance for triaging patients, taking into account the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation.

First, decisions about whether to proceed with elective surgeries must consider the available resources of local facilities. The parties responsible for preparing the facility to manage coronavirus patients should be sharing information at regular intervals about constraints on local resources, especially personal protective equipment (PPE), which is running low in many jurisdictions. For example, if an elective case has a high likelihood of needing postoperative ICU care, it is imperative to balance the risk of delay against the need of availability for patients with COVID-19.

Second, cancer care coordination should use virtual technologies as much as possible, and facilities with tumor boards may find it helpful to locate multidisciplinary experts by virtual means, to assist with decision making and establishing triage criteria.

Three Phases of Pandemic

The ACS has also organized decision making into three phases that reflect the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation:

• Phase I. Semi-Urgent Setting (Preparation Phase) – few COVID-19 patients, hospital resources not exhausted, institution still has ICU ventilator capacity and COVID-19 trajectory not in rapid escalation phase
• Phase II. Urgent Setting – many COVID-19 patients, ICU and ventilator capacity limited, operating room supplies limited
• Phase III. Hospital resources are all routed to COVID-19 patients, no ventilator or ICU capacity, operating room supplies exhausted; patients in whom death is likely within hours if surgery is deferred

Breast Cancer Surgery

The ACS also issued specific guidance for several tumor types, including guidance for breast cancer surgery.

For phase I, surgery should be restricted to patients who are likely to experience compromised survival if it is not performed within next 3 months. This includes patients completing neoadjuvant treatment, those with clinical stage T2 or N1 ERpos/PRpos/HER2-negative tumors, patients with triple negative or HER2-positive tumors, discordant biopsies that are likely to be malignant, and removal of a recurrent lesion.

Phase II would be restricted to patients whose survival is threatened if surgery is not performed within the next few days. These would include incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuating a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

In Phase III, surgical procedures would be restricted to patients who may not survive if surgery is not performed within a few hours. This includes incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuation of a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Guidance for colorectal cancer surgery is also split into the three phases of the pandemic.

Phase I would include cases needing surgical intervention as soon as feasible, while recognizing that the status of each hospital is likely to evolve over the next week or two. These patients would include those with nearly obstructing colon cancer or rectal cancer; cancers that require frequent transfusions; asymptomatic colon cancers; rectal cancers that do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiation; malignancies with a risk of local perforation and sepsis; and those with early stage rectal cancers that are not candidates for adjuvant therapy.

Phase II comprises patients needing surgery as soon as feasible, but recognizing that hospital status is likely to progress over the next few days. These cases include patients with a nearly obstructing colon cancer where stenting is not an option; those with nearly obstructing rectal cancer (should be diverted); cancers with high (inpatient) transfusion requirements; and cancers with pending evidence of local perforation and sepsis.

All colorectal procedures typically scheduled as routine should be delayed.

In Phase III, if the status of the facility is likely to progress within hours, the only surgery that should be performed would be for perforated, obstructed, or actively bleeding (inpatient transfusion dependent) cancers or those with sepsis. All other surgeries should be deferred.

Thoracic Cancer Surgery

Thoracic cancer surgery guidelines follow those for breast cancer. Phase I should be restricted to patients whose survival may be impacted if surgery is not performed within next 3 months. These include:

• Cases with solid or predominantly solid (>50%) lung cancer or presumed lung cancer (>2 cm), clinical node negative
• Node positive lung cancer
• Post-induction therapy cancer
• Esophageal cancer T1b or greater
• Chest wall tumors that are potentially aggressive and not manageable by alternative means
• Stenting for obstructing esophageal tumor
• Staging to start treatment (mediastinoscopy, diagnostic VATS for pleural dissemination)
• Symptomatic mediastinal tumors
• Patients who are enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials.

Phase II would permit surgery if survival will be impacted by a delay of a few days. These cases would include nonseptic perforated cancer of esophagus, a tumor-associated infection, and management of surgical complications in a hemodynamically stable patient.

All thoracic procedures considered to be routine/elective would be deferred.

Phase III restricts surgery to patients whose survival will be compromised if they do not undergo surgery within the next few hours. This group would include perforated cancer of esophagus in a septic patient, a patient with a threatened airway, sepsis associated with the cancer, and management of surgical complications in an unstable patient  (active bleeding that requires surgery, dehiscence of airway, anastomotic leak with sepsis).

All other cases would be deferred.

Other Cancer Types

Although the ACS doesn’t have specific guidelines for all cancer types, a few are included in their general recommendations for the specialty.

For gynecologic surgeries, ACS lists cancer or suspected cancer as indications where significantly delayed surgery could cause “significant harm.”

Delays, in general, are not recommended for neurosurgery, which would include brain cancers. In pediatrics, most cancer surgery is considered “urgent,” where a delay of days to weeks could prove detrimental to the patient. This would comprise all solid tumors, including the initial biopsy and resection following neoadjuvant therapy.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I have no knowledge of, or experience with, managing a cancer patient during a pandemic. However, from the published and otherwise shared experience of others, we should not allow ourselves to underestimate the voracity of the coronavirus pandemic on our patients, communities, and health care systems.

Data from China suggest cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 face a 3.5 times higher risk of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, or death, compared with infected patients without cancer (Lancet Oncol 2020;21:335-7).

Health care workers in Seattle have also shared their experiences battling coronavirus infections in cancer patients (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7560). Masumi Ueda, MD, of Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and colleagues reviewed their decisions in multiple domains over a 7-week period, during which the state of Washington went from a single case of SARS-CoV-2 infection to nearly 650 cases and 40 deaths.
 

Making tough treatment decisions

Dr. Ueda and colleagues contrasted their customary resource-rich, innovation-oriented, cancer-combatting environment with their current circumstance, in which they must prioritize treatment for patients for whom the risk-reward balance has tilted substantially toward “risk.”

The authors noted that their most difficult decisions were those regarding delay of cancer treatment. They suggested that plans for potentially curative adjuvant therapy should likely proceed, but, for patients with metastatic disease, the equation is more nuanced.

In some cases, treatment should be delayed or interrupted with recognition of how that could result in worsening performance status and admission for symptom palliation, further stressing inpatient resources.

The authors suggested scenarios for prioritizing cancer surgery. For example, several months of systemic therapy (ideally, low-risk systemic therapy such as hormone therapy for breast or prostate cancer) and surgical delay may be worthwhile, without compromising patient care.

Patients with aggressive hematologic malignancy requiring urgent systemic treatment (potentially stem cell transplantation and cellular immunotherapies) should be treated promptly. However, even in those cases, opportunities should be sought to lessen immunosuppression and transition care as quickly as possible to the outpatient clinic, according to guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy.
 

See one, do one, teach one

Rendering patient care during a pandemic would be unique for me. However, I, like all physicians, am familiar with feelings of inadequacy at times of professional challenge. On countless occasions, I have started my day or walked into a patient’s room wondering whether I will have the fortitude, knowledge, creativity, or help I need to get through that day or make that patient “better” by any definition of that word.

We all know the formula: “Work hard. Make evidence-based, personalized decisions for those who have entrusted their care to us. Learn from those encounters. Teach from our knowledge and experience – that is, ‘See one, do one, teach one.’ ”

The Seattle oncologists are living the lives of first responders and deserve our admiration for putting pen to paper so we can learn from their considerable, relevant experience.

Similar admiration is due to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. In the ASCO Daily News, Dr. Curigliano described an epidemic that, within 3 weeks, overloaded the health care system across northern Italy.

Hospitalization was needed for over 60% of infected patients, and nearly 15% of those patients needed intensive care unit services for respiratory distress. The Italians centralized oncology care in specialized hubs, with spokes of institutions working in parallel to provide cancer-specific care in a COVID-free environment.

To build upon cancer-specific information from Italy and other areas hard-hit by COVID-19, more than 30 cancer centers have joined together to form the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium. The consortium’s website hosts a survey designed to “capture details related to cancer patients presumed to have COVID-19.”
 

Calculating deaths and long-term consequences for cancer care delivery

It is proper that the authors from China, Italy, and Seattle did not focus attention on the case fatality rate from the COVID-19 pandemic among cancer patients. To say the least, it would be complicated to tally the direct mortality – either overall or in clinically important subsets of patients, including country-specific cohorts.

What we know from published reports is that, in Italy, cancer patients account for about 20% of deaths from coronavirus. In China, the case-fatality rate for patients with cancer was 5.6% (JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648).

However, we know nothing about the indirect death toll from malignancy (without coronavirus infection) that was untreated or managed less than optimally because of personnel and physical resources that were diverted to COVID-19–associated cases.

Similarly, we cannot begin to estimate indirect consequences of the pandemic to oncology practices, such as accelerated burnout and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as the long-range effects of economic turmoil on patients, health care workers, and provider organizations.
 

What happens to cancer trials?

From China, Italy, and Seattle, thus far, there is little information about how the pandemic will affect the vital clinical research endeavor. The Seattle physicians did say they plan to enroll patients on clinical trials only when the trial offers a high chance of benefiting the patient over standard therapy alone.

Fortunately, the National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration have released guidance documents related to clinical trials.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has also released guidance documents (March 13 guidance; March 23 guidance) for patients on clinical trials supported by the NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) and the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP).

CTEP and NCORP are making reasonable accommodations to suspend monitoring visits and audits, allow tele–follow-up visits for patients, and permit local physicians to provide care for patients on study. In addition, with appropriate procedural adherence and documentation, CTEP and NCORP will allow oral investigational medicines to be mailed directly to patients’ homes.

Planned NCI National Clinical Trials Network meetings will be conducted via remote access webinars, conference calls, and similar technology. These adjustments – and probably many more to come – are geared toward facilitating ongoing care to proceed safely and with minimal risk for patients currently receiving investigational therapies and for the sites and investigators engaged in those studies.

Each of us has probably faced a personal “defining professional moment,” when we had to utilize every skill in our arsenal and examine the motivations that led us to a career in oncology. However, it is clear from the forgoing clinical and research processes and guidelines that the COVID-19 pandemic is such a defining professional moment for each of us, in every community we serve.

Critical junctures like this cause more rapid behavior change and innovation than the slow-moving pace that characterizes our idealized preferences. As oncologists who embrace new data and behavioral change, we stand to learn processes that will facilitate more perfected systems of care than the one that preceded this unprecedented crisis, promote more efficient sharing of high-quality information, and improve the outcome for our future patients.


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

I have no knowledge of, or experience with, managing a cancer patient during a pandemic. However, from the published and otherwise shared experience of others, we should not allow ourselves to underestimate the voracity of the coronavirus pandemic on our patients, communities, and health care systems.

Data from China suggest cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 face a 3.5 times higher risk of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, or death, compared with infected patients without cancer (Lancet Oncol 2020;21:335-7).

Health care workers in Seattle have also shared their experiences battling coronavirus infections in cancer patients (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7560). Masumi Ueda, MD, of Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and colleagues reviewed their decisions in multiple domains over a 7-week period, during which the state of Washington went from a single case of SARS-CoV-2 infection to nearly 650 cases and 40 deaths.
 

Making tough treatment decisions

Dr. Ueda and colleagues contrasted their customary resource-rich, innovation-oriented, cancer-combatting environment with their current circumstance, in which they must prioritize treatment for patients for whom the risk-reward balance has tilted substantially toward “risk.”

The authors noted that their most difficult decisions were those regarding delay of cancer treatment. They suggested that plans for potentially curative adjuvant therapy should likely proceed, but, for patients with metastatic disease, the equation is more nuanced.

In some cases, treatment should be delayed or interrupted with recognition of how that could result in worsening performance status and admission for symptom palliation, further stressing inpatient resources.

The authors suggested scenarios for prioritizing cancer surgery. For example, several months of systemic therapy (ideally, low-risk systemic therapy such as hormone therapy for breast or prostate cancer) and surgical delay may be worthwhile, without compromising patient care.

Patients with aggressive hematologic malignancy requiring urgent systemic treatment (potentially stem cell transplantation and cellular immunotherapies) should be treated promptly. However, even in those cases, opportunities should be sought to lessen immunosuppression and transition care as quickly as possible to the outpatient clinic, according to guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy.
 

See one, do one, teach one

Rendering patient care during a pandemic would be unique for me. However, I, like all physicians, am familiar with feelings of inadequacy at times of professional challenge. On countless occasions, I have started my day or walked into a patient’s room wondering whether I will have the fortitude, knowledge, creativity, or help I need to get through that day or make that patient “better” by any definition of that word.

We all know the formula: “Work hard. Make evidence-based, personalized decisions for those who have entrusted their care to us. Learn from those encounters. Teach from our knowledge and experience – that is, ‘See one, do one, teach one.’ ”

The Seattle oncologists are living the lives of first responders and deserve our admiration for putting pen to paper so we can learn from their considerable, relevant experience.

Similar admiration is due to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. In the ASCO Daily News, Dr. Curigliano described an epidemic that, within 3 weeks, overloaded the health care system across northern Italy.

Hospitalization was needed for over 60% of infected patients, and nearly 15% of those patients needed intensive care unit services for respiratory distress. The Italians centralized oncology care in specialized hubs, with spokes of institutions working in parallel to provide cancer-specific care in a COVID-free environment.

To build upon cancer-specific information from Italy and other areas hard-hit by COVID-19, more than 30 cancer centers have joined together to form the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium. The consortium’s website hosts a survey designed to “capture details related to cancer patients presumed to have COVID-19.”
 

Calculating deaths and long-term consequences for cancer care delivery

It is proper that the authors from China, Italy, and Seattle did not focus attention on the case fatality rate from the COVID-19 pandemic among cancer patients. To say the least, it would be complicated to tally the direct mortality – either overall or in clinically important subsets of patients, including country-specific cohorts.

What we know from published reports is that, in Italy, cancer patients account for about 20% of deaths from coronavirus. In China, the case-fatality rate for patients with cancer was 5.6% (JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648).

However, we know nothing about the indirect death toll from malignancy (without coronavirus infection) that was untreated or managed less than optimally because of personnel and physical resources that were diverted to COVID-19–associated cases.

Similarly, we cannot begin to estimate indirect consequences of the pandemic to oncology practices, such as accelerated burnout and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as the long-range effects of economic turmoil on patients, health care workers, and provider organizations.
 

What happens to cancer trials?

From China, Italy, and Seattle, thus far, there is little information about how the pandemic will affect the vital clinical research endeavor. The Seattle physicians did say they plan to enroll patients on clinical trials only when the trial offers a high chance of benefiting the patient over standard therapy alone.

Fortunately, the National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration have released guidance documents related to clinical trials.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has also released guidance documents (March 13 guidance; March 23 guidance) for patients on clinical trials supported by the NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) and the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP).

CTEP and NCORP are making reasonable accommodations to suspend monitoring visits and audits, allow tele–follow-up visits for patients, and permit local physicians to provide care for patients on study. In addition, with appropriate procedural adherence and documentation, CTEP and NCORP will allow oral investigational medicines to be mailed directly to patients’ homes.

Planned NCI National Clinical Trials Network meetings will be conducted via remote access webinars, conference calls, and similar technology. These adjustments – and probably many more to come – are geared toward facilitating ongoing care to proceed safely and with minimal risk for patients currently receiving investigational therapies and for the sites and investigators engaged in those studies.

Each of us has probably faced a personal “defining professional moment,” when we had to utilize every skill in our arsenal and examine the motivations that led us to a career in oncology. However, it is clear from the forgoing clinical and research processes and guidelines that the COVID-19 pandemic is such a defining professional moment for each of us, in every community we serve.

Critical junctures like this cause more rapid behavior change and innovation than the slow-moving pace that characterizes our idealized preferences. As oncologists who embrace new data and behavioral change, we stand to learn processes that will facilitate more perfected systems of care than the one that preceded this unprecedented crisis, promote more efficient sharing of high-quality information, and improve the outcome for our future patients.


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

I have no knowledge of, or experience with, managing a cancer patient during a pandemic. However, from the published and otherwise shared experience of others, we should not allow ourselves to underestimate the voracity of the coronavirus pandemic on our patients, communities, and health care systems.

Data from China suggest cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 face a 3.5 times higher risk of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, or death, compared with infected patients without cancer (Lancet Oncol 2020;21:335-7).

Health care workers in Seattle have also shared their experiences battling coronavirus infections in cancer patients (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7560). Masumi Ueda, MD, of Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and colleagues reviewed their decisions in multiple domains over a 7-week period, during which the state of Washington went from a single case of SARS-CoV-2 infection to nearly 650 cases and 40 deaths.
 

Making tough treatment decisions

Dr. Ueda and colleagues contrasted their customary resource-rich, innovation-oriented, cancer-combatting environment with their current circumstance, in which they must prioritize treatment for patients for whom the risk-reward balance has tilted substantially toward “risk.”

The authors noted that their most difficult decisions were those regarding delay of cancer treatment. They suggested that plans for potentially curative adjuvant therapy should likely proceed, but, for patients with metastatic disease, the equation is more nuanced.

In some cases, treatment should be delayed or interrupted with recognition of how that could result in worsening performance status and admission for symptom palliation, further stressing inpatient resources.

The authors suggested scenarios for prioritizing cancer surgery. For example, several months of systemic therapy (ideally, low-risk systemic therapy such as hormone therapy for breast or prostate cancer) and surgical delay may be worthwhile, without compromising patient care.

Patients with aggressive hematologic malignancy requiring urgent systemic treatment (potentially stem cell transplantation and cellular immunotherapies) should be treated promptly. However, even in those cases, opportunities should be sought to lessen immunosuppression and transition care as quickly as possible to the outpatient clinic, according to guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy.
 

See one, do one, teach one

Rendering patient care during a pandemic would be unique for me. However, I, like all physicians, am familiar with feelings of inadequacy at times of professional challenge. On countless occasions, I have started my day or walked into a patient’s room wondering whether I will have the fortitude, knowledge, creativity, or help I need to get through that day or make that patient “better” by any definition of that word.

We all know the formula: “Work hard. Make evidence-based, personalized decisions for those who have entrusted their care to us. Learn from those encounters. Teach from our knowledge and experience – that is, ‘See one, do one, teach one.’ ”

The Seattle oncologists are living the lives of first responders and deserve our admiration for putting pen to paper so we can learn from their considerable, relevant experience.

Similar admiration is due to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. In the ASCO Daily News, Dr. Curigliano described an epidemic that, within 3 weeks, overloaded the health care system across northern Italy.

Hospitalization was needed for over 60% of infected patients, and nearly 15% of those patients needed intensive care unit services for respiratory distress. The Italians centralized oncology care in specialized hubs, with spokes of institutions working in parallel to provide cancer-specific care in a COVID-free environment.

To build upon cancer-specific information from Italy and other areas hard-hit by COVID-19, more than 30 cancer centers have joined together to form the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium. The consortium’s website hosts a survey designed to “capture details related to cancer patients presumed to have COVID-19.”
 

Calculating deaths and long-term consequences for cancer care delivery

It is proper that the authors from China, Italy, and Seattle did not focus attention on the case fatality rate from the COVID-19 pandemic among cancer patients. To say the least, it would be complicated to tally the direct mortality – either overall or in clinically important subsets of patients, including country-specific cohorts.

What we know from published reports is that, in Italy, cancer patients account for about 20% of deaths from coronavirus. In China, the case-fatality rate for patients with cancer was 5.6% (JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648).

However, we know nothing about the indirect death toll from malignancy (without coronavirus infection) that was untreated or managed less than optimally because of personnel and physical resources that were diverted to COVID-19–associated cases.

Similarly, we cannot begin to estimate indirect consequences of the pandemic to oncology practices, such as accelerated burnout and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as the long-range effects of economic turmoil on patients, health care workers, and provider organizations.
 

What happens to cancer trials?

From China, Italy, and Seattle, thus far, there is little information about how the pandemic will affect the vital clinical research endeavor. The Seattle physicians did say they plan to enroll patients on clinical trials only when the trial offers a high chance of benefiting the patient over standard therapy alone.

Fortunately, the National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration have released guidance documents related to clinical trials.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has also released guidance documents (March 13 guidance; March 23 guidance) for patients on clinical trials supported by the NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) and the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP).

CTEP and NCORP are making reasonable accommodations to suspend monitoring visits and audits, allow tele–follow-up visits for patients, and permit local physicians to provide care for patients on study. In addition, with appropriate procedural adherence and documentation, CTEP and NCORP will allow oral investigational medicines to be mailed directly to patients’ homes.

Planned NCI National Clinical Trials Network meetings will be conducted via remote access webinars, conference calls, and similar technology. These adjustments – and probably many more to come – are geared toward facilitating ongoing care to proceed safely and with minimal risk for patients currently receiving investigational therapies and for the sites and investigators engaged in those studies.

Each of us has probably faced a personal “defining professional moment,” when we had to utilize every skill in our arsenal and examine the motivations that led us to a career in oncology. However, it is clear from the forgoing clinical and research processes and guidelines that the COVID-19 pandemic is such a defining professional moment for each of us, in every community we serve.

Critical junctures like this cause more rapid behavior change and innovation than the slow-moving pace that characterizes our idealized preferences. As oncologists who embrace new data and behavioral change, we stand to learn processes that will facilitate more perfected systems of care than the one that preceded this unprecedented crisis, promote more efficient sharing of high-quality information, and improve the outcome for our future patients.


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

Amid the growing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, currently in its expansive growth phase in the United States, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) have jointly released “COVID-19 Clinical Insights for Our Community of Gastroenterologists and Gastroenterology Care Providers,” which can be found on the websites of the various societies.

“The purpose of this communication is to jointly provide you with up to date COVID-19 information in order to maintain the highest level of health and safety for our patients, staff, community, and ourselves,” according to the AGA website announcement.

In particular, the societies point out that there is recent evidence suggesting the potential for coronavirus transmission through droplets and perhaps fecal shedding, which pose potential risks in particular during endoscopy and colonoscopy procedures to other patients, endoscopy personnel, and practitioners.

Relevant clinical factors related to COVID-19 are discussed, including the fact that asymptomatic spread can occur during the prodromal phase (the mean incubation period is approximately 5 days, with a range of 0-14 days), with viral shedding greatest when symptoms begin.

Between 20% and 30% of patients with COVID-19 infection show abnormal liver enzymes. In addition, COVID-19 patients show drops in their leukocyte counts, and elevated white blood cell counts is a poor prognostic sign, according to the release.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists vulnerable populations at the greatest risk for more serious outcomes; these include the elderly and those with severe chronic health conditions, such as heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, decompensated cirrhosis, HIV with low CD4 counts, and immunosuppression (including liver and other solid organ transplant recipients), are at higher risk of developing more serious illness. In addition pregnancy may provide added risk.
 

Specific advice for the gastroenterology profession

The joint statement urges that practitioners strongly consider rescheduling elective nonurgent endoscopic procedures, although some nonurgent procedures are higher priority and may need to be performed, including cancer evaluations, prosthetic removals, and evaluation of significant symptoms. “Of note, the Surgeon General on 3/14/20 advised hospitals to postpone all elective surgeries,” the document states.

Patient concerns

In all cases, patients should be prescreened for high-risk exposure or symptoms. This includes asking about history of fever or respiratory symptoms, family members or close contacts with similar symptoms, any contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19, and recent travel to a high-risk area. “Avoid bringing patients (or their escorts) into the medical facility who are over age 65 or have one of the CDC recognized risks listed above,” the societies advise.

Check body temperature of the patient upon arrival at endoscopy unit or clinic, and keep all patients at an appropriate distance from each other (6 feet is recommended) throughout the entire time in the endoscopy unit.

“For COVID-19 positive patients, or those awaiting test results, isolation precautions should be taken with procedures performed in negative pressure rooms,” according to the statement.

In addition, use telemedicine where possible in elective cases, and consider phone follow-up after any procedures at 7 and 14 days to ask about new diagnosis of COVID-19 or development of its symptoms, .

Those patients who are on immunosuppressive drugs for inflammatory bowel disease and autoimmune hepatitis should continue taking their medications because the risk of disease flare outweighs the chance of contracting coronavirus, according to the document. In addition, these patients should be advised to follow CDC guidelines for at-risk groups by avoiding crowds and limiting travel.
 

Protection of practitioners

Key factors in ensuring practitioner safety and maintaining practice functionality are discussed by the joint document. In particular, appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) should be worn by all members of the endoscopy team: gloves, mask, eye shield/goggles, face shields, and gown, but practitioners should also be aware of how to put on and take off PPE appropriately.

“Conservation of PPE is critical. Only essential personnel should be present in cases. Consider extended use or reuse of surgical masks and eye protection in accordance with hospital policies,” the document recommends.

“It is important to address our collective staff needs and institute policies that protect our workforce.” To that end, the document recommends that centers should strategically assign available personnel in order to minimize concomitant exposure of those with similar or unique skill sets. This includes the use of nonphysician practitioners and fellows that cannot participate in cases for screening and triaging patients, or performing virtual visits.

Coming at a time of pandemic, when gastrointestinal symptoms have been recognized as a more common symptom of COVID-19 than previously expected and liver damage has been noted as a potential repercussion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, these clinical insights provide a template for gastroenterologists and related professionals for dealing with their patients and keeping themselves safe under dramatically changed circumstances.

The partnered organizations, AASLD, ACG, AGA, and ASGE, are committed to providing updated COVID-19 information as appropriate. However: “Given the evolving and fluid nature of the situation, institutions, hospitals and clinics have also been formulating their own local guidelines, so we urge you to follow the evolving CDC recommendations and your local requirements,” according to the AGA website announcement.

In addition to the joint communication, the society websites each offer additional COVID-19 information. The AGA practice updates on the COVID-19 webpage provides information about announcements, such as the cancellation of Digestive Disease Week^® in May, a location for AGA members to discuss their COVID-19 experiences and share advice, and links to the CDC COVID-19 updates.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Association et al. March 2020, COVID-19 Clinical Insights for Our Community of Gastroenterologists and Gastroenterology Care Providers.

Amid the growing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, currently in its expansive growth phase in the United States, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) have jointly released “COVID-19 Clinical Insights for Our Community of Gastroenterologists and Gastroenterology Care Providers,” which can be found on the websites of the various societies.

“The purpose of this communication is to jointly provide you with up to date COVID-19 information in order to maintain the highest level of health and safety for our patients, staff, community, and ourselves,” according to the AGA website announcement.

In particular, the societies point out that there is recent evidence suggesting the potential for coronavirus transmission through droplets and perhaps fecal shedding, which pose potential risks in particular during endoscopy and colonoscopy procedures to other patients, endoscopy personnel, and practitioners.

Relevant clinical factors related to COVID-19 are discussed, including the fact that asymptomatic spread can occur during the prodromal phase (the mean incubation period is approximately 5 days, with a range of 0-14 days), with viral shedding greatest when symptoms begin.

Between 20% and 30% of patients with COVID-19 infection show abnormal liver enzymes. In addition, COVID-19 patients show drops in their leukocyte counts, and elevated white blood cell counts is a poor prognostic sign, according to the release.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists vulnerable populations at the greatest risk for more serious outcomes; these include the elderly and those with severe chronic health conditions, such as heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, decompensated cirrhosis, HIV with low CD4 counts, and immunosuppression (including liver and other solid organ transplant recipients), are at higher risk of developing more serious illness. In addition pregnancy may provide added risk.
 

Specific advice for the gastroenterology profession

The joint statement urges that practitioners strongly consider rescheduling elective nonurgent endoscopic procedures, although some nonurgent procedures are higher priority and may need to be performed, including cancer evaluations, prosthetic removals, and evaluation of significant symptoms. “Of note, the Surgeon General on 3/14/20 advised hospitals to postpone all elective surgeries,” the document states.

Patient concerns

In all cases, patients should be prescreened for high-risk exposure or symptoms. This includes asking about history of fever or respiratory symptoms, family members or close contacts with similar symptoms, any contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19, and recent travel to a high-risk area. “Avoid bringing patients (or their escorts) into the medical facility who are over age 65 or have one of the CDC recognized risks listed above,” the societies advise.

Check body temperature of the patient upon arrival at endoscopy unit or clinic, and keep all patients at an appropriate distance from each other (6 feet is recommended) throughout the entire time in the endoscopy unit.

“For COVID-19 positive patients, or those awaiting test results, isolation precautions should be taken with procedures performed in negative pressure rooms,” according to the statement.

In addition, use telemedicine where possible in elective cases, and consider phone follow-up after any procedures at 7 and 14 days to ask about new diagnosis of COVID-19 or development of its symptoms, .

Those patients who are on immunosuppressive drugs for inflammatory bowel disease and autoimmune hepatitis should continue taking their medications because the risk of disease flare outweighs the chance of contracting coronavirus, according to the document. In addition, these patients should be advised to follow CDC guidelines for at-risk groups by avoiding crowds and limiting travel.
 

Protection of practitioners

Key factors in ensuring practitioner safety and maintaining practice functionality are discussed by the joint document. In particular, appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) should be worn by all members of the endoscopy team: gloves, mask, eye shield/goggles, face shields, and gown, but practitioners should also be aware of how to put on and take off PPE appropriately.

“Conservation of PPE is critical. Only essential personnel should be present in cases. Consider extended use or reuse of surgical masks and eye protection in accordance with hospital policies,” the document recommends.

“It is important to address our collective staff needs and institute policies that protect our workforce.” To that end, the document recommends that centers should strategically assign available personnel in order to minimize concomitant exposure of those with similar or unique skill sets. This includes the use of nonphysician practitioners and fellows that cannot participate in cases for screening and triaging patients, or performing virtual visits.

Coming at a time of pandemic, when gastrointestinal symptoms have been recognized as a more common symptom of COVID-19 than previously expected and liver damage has been noted as a potential repercussion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, these clinical insights provide a template for gastroenterologists and related professionals for dealing with their patients and keeping themselves safe under dramatically changed circumstances.

The partnered organizations, AASLD, ACG, AGA, and ASGE, are committed to providing updated COVID-19 information as appropriate. However: “Given the evolving and fluid nature of the situation, institutions, hospitals and clinics have also been formulating their own local guidelines, so we urge you to follow the evolving CDC recommendations and your local requirements,” according to the AGA website announcement.

In addition to the joint communication, the society websites each offer additional COVID-19 information. The AGA practice updates on the COVID-19 webpage provides information about announcements, such as the cancellation of Digestive Disease Week^® in May, a location for AGA members to discuss their COVID-19 experiences and share advice, and links to the CDC COVID-19 updates.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Association et al. March 2020, COVID-19 Clinical Insights for Our Community of Gastroenterologists and Gastroenterology Care Providers.

Amid the growing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, currently in its expansive growth phase in the United States, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) have jointly released “COVID-19 Clinical Insights for Our Community of Gastroenterologists and Gastroenterology Care Providers,” which can be found on the websites of the various societies.

“The purpose of this communication is to jointly provide you with up to date COVID-19 information in order to maintain the highest level of health and safety for our patients, staff, community, and ourselves,” according to the AGA website announcement.

In particular, the societies point out that there is recent evidence suggesting the potential for coronavirus transmission through droplets and perhaps fecal shedding, which pose potential risks in particular during endoscopy and colonoscopy procedures to other patients, endoscopy personnel, and practitioners.

Relevant clinical factors related to COVID-19 are discussed, including the fact that asymptomatic spread can occur during the prodromal phase (the mean incubation period is approximately 5 days, with a range of 0-14 days), with viral shedding greatest when symptoms begin.

Between 20% and 30% of patients with COVID-19 infection show abnormal liver enzymes. In addition, COVID-19 patients show drops in their leukocyte counts, and elevated white blood cell counts is a poor prognostic sign, according to the release.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists vulnerable populations at the greatest risk for more serious outcomes; these include the elderly and those with severe chronic health conditions, such as heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, decompensated cirrhosis, HIV with low CD4 counts, and immunosuppression (including liver and other solid organ transplant recipients), are at higher risk of developing more serious illness. In addition pregnancy may provide added risk.
 

Specific advice for the gastroenterology profession

The joint statement urges that practitioners strongly consider rescheduling elective nonurgent endoscopic procedures, although some nonurgent procedures are higher priority and may need to be performed, including cancer evaluations, prosthetic removals, and evaluation of significant symptoms. “Of note, the Surgeon General on 3/14/20 advised hospitals to postpone all elective surgeries,” the document states.

Patient concerns

In all cases, patients should be prescreened for high-risk exposure or symptoms. This includes asking about history of fever or respiratory symptoms, family members or close contacts with similar symptoms, any contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19, and recent travel to a high-risk area. “Avoid bringing patients (or their escorts) into the medical facility who are over age 65 or have one of the CDC recognized risks listed above,” the societies advise.

Check body temperature of the patient upon arrival at endoscopy unit or clinic, and keep all patients at an appropriate distance from each other (6 feet is recommended) throughout the entire time in the endoscopy unit.

“For COVID-19 positive patients, or those awaiting test results, isolation precautions should be taken with procedures performed in negative pressure rooms,” according to the statement.

In addition, use telemedicine where possible in elective cases, and consider phone follow-up after any procedures at 7 and 14 days to ask about new diagnosis of COVID-19 or development of its symptoms, .

Those patients who are on immunosuppressive drugs for inflammatory bowel disease and autoimmune hepatitis should continue taking their medications because the risk of disease flare outweighs the chance of contracting coronavirus, according to the document. In addition, these patients should be advised to follow CDC guidelines for at-risk groups by avoiding crowds and limiting travel.
 

Protection of practitioners

Key factors in ensuring practitioner safety and maintaining practice functionality are discussed by the joint document. In particular, appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) should be worn by all members of the endoscopy team: gloves, mask, eye shield/goggles, face shields, and gown, but practitioners should also be aware of how to put on and take off PPE appropriately.

“Conservation of PPE is critical. Only essential personnel should be present in cases. Consider extended use or reuse of surgical masks and eye protection in accordance with hospital policies,” the document recommends.

“It is important to address our collective staff needs and institute policies that protect our workforce.” To that end, the document recommends that centers should strategically assign available personnel in order to minimize concomitant exposure of those with similar or unique skill sets. This includes the use of nonphysician practitioners and fellows that cannot participate in cases for screening and triaging patients, or performing virtual visits.

Coming at a time of pandemic, when gastrointestinal symptoms have been recognized as a more common symptom of COVID-19 than previously expected and liver damage has been noted as a potential repercussion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, these clinical insights provide a template for gastroenterologists and related professionals for dealing with their patients and keeping themselves safe under dramatically changed circumstances.

The partnered organizations, AASLD, ACG, AGA, and ASGE, are committed to providing updated COVID-19 information as appropriate. However: “Given the evolving and fluid nature of the situation, institutions, hospitals and clinics have also been formulating their own local guidelines, so we urge you to follow the evolving CDC recommendations and your local requirements,” according to the AGA website announcement.

In addition to the joint communication, the society websites each offer additional COVID-19 information. The AGA practice updates on the COVID-19 webpage provides information about announcements, such as the cancellation of Digestive Disease Week^® in May, a location for AGA members to discuss their COVID-19 experiences and share advice, and links to the CDC COVID-19 updates.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Association et al. March 2020, COVID-19 Clinical Insights for Our Community of Gastroenterologists and Gastroenterology Care Providers.

Ideally, all cases of colorectal cancer would be detected at an early and curable stage, but, as new guidelines for late-stage colorectal cancer suggest, the world is far from perfect.

“Different regions of the world, both among and within countries, differ with respect to access to early detection,” the guideline authors wrote in JCO Global Oncology. “Many regions do not have mass or even opportunistic screening, and even within regions with mass screening, subpopulations may not have access to screening.”

The guidelines were developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Resource-Stratified Guidelines Advisory Group. Based on and adapted from existing guidelines developed by four international agencies, the ASCO guidelines take into account economic and social realities and offer recommendations for diagnosis, staging, and treatment by resource level: basic, limited, enhanced, or maximal.

“We made these guidelines to apply to countries or regions that have basic resources,” lead author E. Gabriela Chiorean, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, said in an interview.

“We decided what should be the most basic resources – diagnostics, imaging, and treatment – that should be available to patients, and we make recommendations for the use of limited resources and supplies,” she added.

The guidelines pose and answer seven questions about optimal initial symptom management, diagnosis, and staging; optimal first and later lines of therapy; liver-directed therapy options for patients with late-stage colorectal cancer and liver metastases; and optimal on-treatment surveillance and follow-up strategies for patients treated for metastatic colorectal cancer.

For each question, the document offers guidance based on the availability of resources. As defined by the authors, the recommendations are stratified according to the following categories:

• Basic resources – “Core resources or fundamental services that are absolutely necessary for any cancer health care system to function.”
• Limited resources – “Second-tier resources or services that are intended to produce major improvements in outcome, such as increased survival and cost effectiveness, and are attainable with limited financial means and modest infrastructure.”
• Enhanced resources – “Third-tier resources or services that are optional but important; enhanced-level resources should produce further improvements in outcome and increase the number and quality of options and patient choice.”
• Maximal resources – “High-level/state-of-the art resources or services that may be used/available in some high-resource regions and/or may be recommended by high-resource setting guidelines that do not adapt to resource constraints but that nonetheless should be considered a lower priority than those resources or services listed in the other categories on the basis of extreme cost and/or impracticality for broad use in a resource-limited environment.”

The guidelines address common elements of symptom management for patients with acute disease, such as diagnosis involving the primary tumor, endoscopy when possible, and staging to include digital rectal exam and/or imaging when possible. The guidelines also include information tailored to resource level about chemotherapy and surgical resection.

“If, for example, a patient presents with bleeding and you suspect it to be of colorectal origin, we make recommendations that if the patient has symptoms of obstruction and bleeding and is resectable, they should undergo surgery, which should be available in countries of all resource levels,” Dr. Chiorean said.

The guidelines also recommend following the ASCO palliative care guidelines (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan;35[1]:96-112) for those patients who present with clinically unstable disease because of bowel obstruction, uncontrolled bleeding, or uncontrolled pain. Patients with clinically stable disease and ongoing bleeding from the primary tumor site are recommended to undergo transfusion and primary-site resection if only basic resources are available or transfusion plus multidisciplinary specialized evaluation when higher-level resources are available.

The ASCO guidelines are adapted from guidelines developed by Cancer Council Australia; the European Society for Medical Oncology; the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, including separate recommendation for therapy combinations (https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta212, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta439); and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Some of these guidelines have been updated since the creation of the ASCO guidelines.

ASCO funds the guideline development process. Dr. Chiorean and other authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies.

SOURCE: Chiorean EG et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Mar;6:414-38.

Ideally, all cases of colorectal cancer would be detected at an early and curable stage, but, as new guidelines for late-stage colorectal cancer suggest, the world is far from perfect.

“Different regions of the world, both among and within countries, differ with respect to access to early detection,” the guideline authors wrote in JCO Global Oncology. “Many regions do not have mass or even opportunistic screening, and even within regions with mass screening, subpopulations may not have access to screening.”

The guidelines were developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Resource-Stratified Guidelines Advisory Group. Based on and adapted from existing guidelines developed by four international agencies, the ASCO guidelines take into account economic and social realities and offer recommendations for diagnosis, staging, and treatment by resource level: basic, limited, enhanced, or maximal.

“We made these guidelines to apply to countries or regions that have basic resources,” lead author E. Gabriela Chiorean, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, said in an interview.

“We decided what should be the most basic resources – diagnostics, imaging, and treatment – that should be available to patients, and we make recommendations for the use of limited resources and supplies,” she added.

The guidelines pose and answer seven questions about optimal initial symptom management, diagnosis, and staging; optimal first and later lines of therapy; liver-directed therapy options for patients with late-stage colorectal cancer and liver metastases; and optimal on-treatment surveillance and follow-up strategies for patients treated for metastatic colorectal cancer.

For each question, the document offers guidance based on the availability of resources. As defined by the authors, the recommendations are stratified according to the following categories:

• Basic resources – “Core resources or fundamental services that are absolutely necessary for any cancer health care system to function.”
• Limited resources – “Second-tier resources or services that are intended to produce major improvements in outcome, such as increased survival and cost effectiveness, and are attainable with limited financial means and modest infrastructure.”
• Enhanced resources – “Third-tier resources or services that are optional but important; enhanced-level resources should produce further improvements in outcome and increase the number and quality of options and patient choice.”
• Maximal resources – “High-level/state-of-the art resources or services that may be used/available in some high-resource regions and/or may be recommended by high-resource setting guidelines that do not adapt to resource constraints but that nonetheless should be considered a lower priority than those resources or services listed in the other categories on the basis of extreme cost and/or impracticality for broad use in a resource-limited environment.”

The guidelines address common elements of symptom management for patients with acute disease, such as diagnosis involving the primary tumor, endoscopy when possible, and staging to include digital rectal exam and/or imaging when possible. The guidelines also include information tailored to resource level about chemotherapy and surgical resection.

“If, for example, a patient presents with bleeding and you suspect it to be of colorectal origin, we make recommendations that if the patient has symptoms of obstruction and bleeding and is resectable, they should undergo surgery, which should be available in countries of all resource levels,” Dr. Chiorean said.

The guidelines also recommend following the ASCO palliative care guidelines (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan;35[1]:96-112) for those patients who present with clinically unstable disease because of bowel obstruction, uncontrolled bleeding, or uncontrolled pain. Patients with clinically stable disease and ongoing bleeding from the primary tumor site are recommended to undergo transfusion and primary-site resection if only basic resources are available or transfusion plus multidisciplinary specialized evaluation when higher-level resources are available.

The ASCO guidelines are adapted from guidelines developed by Cancer Council Australia; the European Society for Medical Oncology; the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, including separate recommendation for therapy combinations (https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta212, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta439); and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Some of these guidelines have been updated since the creation of the ASCO guidelines.

ASCO funds the guideline development process. Dr. Chiorean and other authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies.

SOURCE: Chiorean EG et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Mar;6:414-38.

Ideally, all cases of colorectal cancer would be detected at an early and curable stage, but, as new guidelines for late-stage colorectal cancer suggest, the world is far from perfect.

“Different regions of the world, both among and within countries, differ with respect to access to early detection,” the guideline authors wrote in JCO Global Oncology. “Many regions do not have mass or even opportunistic screening, and even within regions with mass screening, subpopulations may not have access to screening.”

The guidelines were developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Resource-Stratified Guidelines Advisory Group. Based on and adapted from existing guidelines developed by four international agencies, the ASCO guidelines take into account economic and social realities and offer recommendations for diagnosis, staging, and treatment by resource level: basic, limited, enhanced, or maximal.

“We made these guidelines to apply to countries or regions that have basic resources,” lead author E. Gabriela Chiorean, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, said in an interview.

“We decided what should be the most basic resources – diagnostics, imaging, and treatment – that should be available to patients, and we make recommendations for the use of limited resources and supplies,” she added.

The guidelines pose and answer seven questions about optimal initial symptom management, diagnosis, and staging; optimal first and later lines of therapy; liver-directed therapy options for patients with late-stage colorectal cancer and liver metastases; and optimal on-treatment surveillance and follow-up strategies for patients treated for metastatic colorectal cancer.

For each question, the document offers guidance based on the availability of resources. As defined by the authors, the recommendations are stratified according to the following categories:

• Basic resources – “Core resources or fundamental services that are absolutely necessary for any cancer health care system to function.”
• Limited resources – “Second-tier resources or services that are intended to produce major improvements in outcome, such as increased survival and cost effectiveness, and are attainable with limited financial means and modest infrastructure.”
• Enhanced resources – “Third-tier resources or services that are optional but important; enhanced-level resources should produce further improvements in outcome and increase the number and quality of options and patient choice.”
• Maximal resources – “High-level/state-of-the art resources or services that may be used/available in some high-resource regions and/or may be recommended by high-resource setting guidelines that do not adapt to resource constraints but that nonetheless should be considered a lower priority than those resources or services listed in the other categories on the basis of extreme cost and/or impracticality for broad use in a resource-limited environment.”

The guidelines address common elements of symptom management for patients with acute disease, such as diagnosis involving the primary tumor, endoscopy when possible, and staging to include digital rectal exam and/or imaging when possible. The guidelines also include information tailored to resource level about chemotherapy and surgical resection.

“If, for example, a patient presents with bleeding and you suspect it to be of colorectal origin, we make recommendations that if the patient has symptoms of obstruction and bleeding and is resectable, they should undergo surgery, which should be available in countries of all resource levels,” Dr. Chiorean said.

The guidelines also recommend following the ASCO palliative care guidelines (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan;35[1]:96-112) for those patients who present with clinically unstable disease because of bowel obstruction, uncontrolled bleeding, or uncontrolled pain. Patients with clinically stable disease and ongoing bleeding from the primary tumor site are recommended to undergo transfusion and primary-site resection if only basic resources are available or transfusion plus multidisciplinary specialized evaluation when higher-level resources are available.

The ASCO guidelines are adapted from guidelines developed by Cancer Council Australia; the European Society for Medical Oncology; the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, including separate recommendation for therapy combinations (https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta212, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta439); and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Some of these guidelines have been updated since the creation of the ASCO guidelines.

ASCO funds the guideline development process. Dr. Chiorean and other authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies.

SOURCE: Chiorean EG et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Mar;6:414-38.

The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) has released interim guidelines for the care of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy patients in the light of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The guidelines, summarized briefly below, focus on diagnostic and treatment considerations, evaluation of patients prior to initializing HCT and cellular therapy, and cell donor evaluation. Much of the guideline relies upon recommendations developed by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ESBMT). These guidelines were updated on March 16.

The ASTCT document focuses on patient-treatment specifics and does not cover specific infection-prevention policies and procedures, instead suggesting that local and institutional guidelines, such as those from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should be followed. They did recommend that, in the local presence of COVID-19, “clinic visits that are not critical should be either deferred or substituted with telemedicine visits if deemed appropriate and feasible.”
 

Diagnostic considerations

In any patient with upper or lower respiratory symptoms, obtain polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2, where possible, in addition to other respiratory virus PCR testing from any respiratory sample obtained, following CDC recommendations for sample collection and processing, which are continuously being updated on the CDC website.

These recommendations include nasal sampling, rather than oral sampling, and the discouraging of nasal washes where avoidable. If nasal washing is performed, it should be done with appropriate personal protective equipment as described by the CDC. The CDC has also provided additional infection prevention and control information for known and suspected COVID-19 patients in health care settings.

In patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 in an upper respiratory tract sample, chest imaging should be considered.

Preliminary reports suggest that there may be a discrepancy between upper- and lower-tract specimen positivity. Therefore, even when SARS-CoV-2 is not detected in an upper respiratory sample, the ASTCT recommends that chest imaging should be considered for lower respiratory tract infection when clinical symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection are present, including shortness of breath, hypoxia, and tachypnea.

With regard to routine bronchoalveolar lavage, the ASTCT recommends against it if a patient tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 given the risk of transmission among health care workers. The exception is in the case of suspected coinfection based on abnormal chest imaging and in patients for whom it is clinically indicated (for example, those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation). In addition to testing bronchoalveolar lavage samples for SARS-CoV-2, “copathogens should be evaluated and treated.”

Treatment considerations

“At this point no recommendations can be made on specific therapies due to limited data and unknown risk versus benefit; additional recommendations will be forthcoming. Even less data is available for pediatric patients. Treatment for viral, bacterial, and fungal copathogens should be optimized,” according to the ASTCT.

However, the society lists several therapies currently under consideration, which may be available through compassionate-use programs and are being investigated in current clinical trials in several countries, “including lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, hydroxychloroquine, darunavir/cobicistat, and interferons-alpha and -beta.” Remdesivir, in particular, is being evaluated in a National Institutes of Health–sponsored, placebo-controlled clinical trial (NCT04280705).

In case of known or suspected COVID-19 with normal imaging and no or mild symptoms, no therapy is recommended. However, if symptoms progress or imaging is abnormal, an infectious disease specialist or department should be consulted, according to the ASTCT.

Evaluation prior to HCT or cellular therapy

“There is sufficient concern that COVID-19 could have a significant impact on posttransplant or posttherapy outcomes,” according to the guidelines, and the ASTCT provided the following recommendations to be considered in known or suspected COVID-19 patients. In particular, practitioners need to weigh the risk of delaying or altering therapy plans with the risk of progression of underlying disease.

If SARS-CoV-2 is detected in a respiratory specimen, HCT or cellular therapy procedures should be deferred. Therapy should also be deferred in HCT and cellular therapy candidates with close contact with a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 and in those patients who have traveled to a high-risk area or had close contact with a person traveling from an area at high risk for COVID-19.

In the case of a patient in a community with widespread disease, “all HCT and cellular therapy candidates should undergo screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR in respiratory specimens at the time of initial evaluation and 2 days prior to conditioning/lymphodepletion, regardless of the presence of symptoms, if testing is available.”

Procedures to be deferred include peripheral blood stem cell mobilization, bone marrow harvest, T-cell collections, and conditioning/lymphodepletion. These should not be performed for at least 14 days (preferably 21 days) from the day of last contact, according to the ASTCT. Two consecutive negative PCR tests each approximately 1 week apart (deferral for 14 days minimum), should be obtained, if available.

In areas with high community spread, the guidelines also state that “interim treatment and/or longer deferral of definite therapy should be considered when feasible (for example, multiple myeloma, germ cell tumors, consolidative transplants).”

Similar considerations should be afforded to potential cellular donors. Donors with SARS-CoV-2 detected in a respiratory sample are considered ineligible. Those meeting exposure criteria for patients, as listed above, should be excluded from donation for at least 28 days. “In individual circumstances, a donor may be considered eligible if respiratory samples are negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR and donor is asymptomatic. Donor should be closely monitored for COVID-19.”

In the case of unrelated donors, the ASTCT recommends referral to the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) guidelines for updated guidance, but points out that, according to the NMDP, the Food and Drug Administration reports that there have been no reported or suspected cases of transfusion-transmitted COVID-19 to date and that “no cases of transfusion-transmission were ever reported for the other two coronaviruses that emerged during the past 2 decades [SARS, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and MERS-CoV, which causes Mideast respiratory syndrome].”

This article was updated 3/26/20.

[email protected]

SOURCE: ASTCT Response to COVID-19. 2020. www.astct.org/connect/astct-response-to-covid-19.

The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) has released interim guidelines for the care of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy patients in the light of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The guidelines, summarized briefly below, focus on diagnostic and treatment considerations, evaluation of patients prior to initializing HCT and cellular therapy, and cell donor evaluation. Much of the guideline relies upon recommendations developed by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ESBMT). These guidelines were updated on March 16.

The ASTCT document focuses on patient-treatment specifics and does not cover specific infection-prevention policies and procedures, instead suggesting that local and institutional guidelines, such as those from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should be followed. They did recommend that, in the local presence of COVID-19, “clinic visits that are not critical should be either deferred or substituted with telemedicine visits if deemed appropriate and feasible.”
 

Diagnostic considerations

In any patient with upper or lower respiratory symptoms, obtain polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2, where possible, in addition to other respiratory virus PCR testing from any respiratory sample obtained, following CDC recommendations for sample collection and processing, which are continuously being updated on the CDC website.

These recommendations include nasal sampling, rather than oral sampling, and the discouraging of nasal washes where avoidable. If nasal washing is performed, it should be done with appropriate personal protective equipment as described by the CDC. The CDC has also provided additional infection prevention and control information for known and suspected COVID-19 patients in health care settings.

In patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 in an upper respiratory tract sample, chest imaging should be considered.

Preliminary reports suggest that there may be a discrepancy between upper- and lower-tract specimen positivity. Therefore, even when SARS-CoV-2 is not detected in an upper respiratory sample, the ASTCT recommends that chest imaging should be considered for lower respiratory tract infection when clinical symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection are present, including shortness of breath, hypoxia, and tachypnea.

With regard to routine bronchoalveolar lavage, the ASTCT recommends against it if a patient tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 given the risk of transmission among health care workers. The exception is in the case of suspected coinfection based on abnormal chest imaging and in patients for whom it is clinically indicated (for example, those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation). In addition to testing bronchoalveolar lavage samples for SARS-CoV-2, “copathogens should be evaluated and treated.”

Treatment considerations

“At this point no recommendations can be made on specific therapies due to limited data and unknown risk versus benefit; additional recommendations will be forthcoming. Even less data is available for pediatric patients. Treatment for viral, bacterial, and fungal copathogens should be optimized,” according to the ASTCT.

However, the society lists several therapies currently under consideration, which may be available through compassionate-use programs and are being investigated in current clinical trials in several countries, “including lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, hydroxychloroquine, darunavir/cobicistat, and interferons-alpha and -beta.” Remdesivir, in particular, is being evaluated in a National Institutes of Health–sponsored, placebo-controlled clinical trial (NCT04280705).

In case of known or suspected COVID-19 with normal imaging and no or mild symptoms, no therapy is recommended. However, if symptoms progress or imaging is abnormal, an infectious disease specialist or department should be consulted, according to the ASTCT.

Evaluation prior to HCT or cellular therapy

“There is sufficient concern that COVID-19 could have a significant impact on posttransplant or posttherapy outcomes,” according to the guidelines, and the ASTCT provided the following recommendations to be considered in known or suspected COVID-19 patients. In particular, practitioners need to weigh the risk of delaying or altering therapy plans with the risk of progression of underlying disease.

If SARS-CoV-2 is detected in a respiratory specimen, HCT or cellular therapy procedures should be deferred. Therapy should also be deferred in HCT and cellular therapy candidates with close contact with a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 and in those patients who have traveled to a high-risk area or had close contact with a person traveling from an area at high risk for COVID-19.

In the case of a patient in a community with widespread disease, “all HCT and cellular therapy candidates should undergo screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR in respiratory specimens at the time of initial evaluation and 2 days prior to conditioning/lymphodepletion, regardless of the presence of symptoms, if testing is available.”

Procedures to be deferred include peripheral blood stem cell mobilization, bone marrow harvest, T-cell collections, and conditioning/lymphodepletion. These should not be performed for at least 14 days (preferably 21 days) from the day of last contact, according to the ASTCT. Two consecutive negative PCR tests each approximately 1 week apart (deferral for 14 days minimum), should be obtained, if available.

In areas with high community spread, the guidelines also state that “interim treatment and/or longer deferral of definite therapy should be considered when feasible (for example, multiple myeloma, germ cell tumors, consolidative transplants).”

Similar considerations should be afforded to potential cellular donors. Donors with SARS-CoV-2 detected in a respiratory sample are considered ineligible. Those meeting exposure criteria for patients, as listed above, should be excluded from donation for at least 28 days. “In individual circumstances, a donor may be considered eligible if respiratory samples are negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR and donor is asymptomatic. Donor should be closely monitored for COVID-19.”

In the case of unrelated donors, the ASTCT recommends referral to the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) guidelines for updated guidance, but points out that, according to the NMDP, the Food and Drug Administration reports that there have been no reported or suspected cases of transfusion-transmitted COVID-19 to date and that “no cases of transfusion-transmission were ever reported for the other two coronaviruses that emerged during the past 2 decades [SARS, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and MERS-CoV, which causes Mideast respiratory syndrome].”

This article was updated 3/26/20.

[email protected]

SOURCE: ASTCT Response to COVID-19. 2020. www.astct.org/connect/astct-response-to-covid-19.

The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) has released interim guidelines for the care of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy patients in the light of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The guidelines, summarized briefly below, focus on diagnostic and treatment considerations, evaluation of patients prior to initializing HCT and cellular therapy, and cell donor evaluation. Much of the guideline relies upon recommendations developed by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ESBMT). These guidelines were updated on March 16.

The ASTCT document focuses on patient-treatment specifics and does not cover specific infection-prevention policies and procedures, instead suggesting that local and institutional guidelines, such as those from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should be followed. They did recommend that, in the local presence of COVID-19, “clinic visits that are not critical should be either deferred or substituted with telemedicine visits if deemed appropriate and feasible.”
 

Diagnostic considerations

In any patient with upper or lower respiratory symptoms, obtain polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2, where possible, in addition to other respiratory virus PCR testing from any respiratory sample obtained, following CDC recommendations for sample collection and processing, which are continuously being updated on the CDC website.

These recommendations include nasal sampling, rather than oral sampling, and the discouraging of nasal washes where avoidable. If nasal washing is performed, it should be done with appropriate personal protective equipment as described by the CDC. The CDC has also provided additional infection prevention and control information for known and suspected COVID-19 patients in health care settings.

In patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 in an upper respiratory tract sample, chest imaging should be considered.

Preliminary reports suggest that there may be a discrepancy between upper- and lower-tract specimen positivity. Therefore, even when SARS-CoV-2 is not detected in an upper respiratory sample, the ASTCT recommends that chest imaging should be considered for lower respiratory tract infection when clinical symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection are present, including shortness of breath, hypoxia, and tachypnea.

With regard to routine bronchoalveolar lavage, the ASTCT recommends against it if a patient tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 given the risk of transmission among health care workers. The exception is in the case of suspected coinfection based on abnormal chest imaging and in patients for whom it is clinically indicated (for example, those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation). In addition to testing bronchoalveolar lavage samples for SARS-CoV-2, “copathogens should be evaluated and treated.”

Treatment considerations

“At this point no recommendations can be made on specific therapies due to limited data and unknown risk versus benefit; additional recommendations will be forthcoming. Even less data is available for pediatric patients. Treatment for viral, bacterial, and fungal copathogens should be optimized,” according to the ASTCT.

However, the society lists several therapies currently under consideration, which may be available through compassionate-use programs and are being investigated in current clinical trials in several countries, “including lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, hydroxychloroquine, darunavir/cobicistat, and interferons-alpha and -beta.” Remdesivir, in particular, is being evaluated in a National Institutes of Health–sponsored, placebo-controlled clinical trial (NCT04280705).

In case of known or suspected COVID-19 with normal imaging and no or mild symptoms, no therapy is recommended. However, if symptoms progress or imaging is abnormal, an infectious disease specialist or department should be consulted, according to the ASTCT.

Evaluation prior to HCT or cellular therapy

“There is sufficient concern that COVID-19 could have a significant impact on posttransplant or posttherapy outcomes,” according to the guidelines, and the ASTCT provided the following recommendations to be considered in known or suspected COVID-19 patients. In particular, practitioners need to weigh the risk of delaying or altering therapy plans with the risk of progression of underlying disease.

If SARS-CoV-2 is detected in a respiratory specimen, HCT or cellular therapy procedures should be deferred. Therapy should also be deferred in HCT and cellular therapy candidates with close contact with a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 and in those patients who have traveled to a high-risk area or had close contact with a person traveling from an area at high risk for COVID-19.

In the case of a patient in a community with widespread disease, “all HCT and cellular therapy candidates should undergo screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR in respiratory specimens at the time of initial evaluation and 2 days prior to conditioning/lymphodepletion, regardless of the presence of symptoms, if testing is available.”

Procedures to be deferred include peripheral blood stem cell mobilization, bone marrow harvest, T-cell collections, and conditioning/lymphodepletion. These should not be performed for at least 14 days (preferably 21 days) from the day of last contact, according to the ASTCT. Two consecutive negative PCR tests each approximately 1 week apart (deferral for 14 days minimum), should be obtained, if available.

In areas with high community spread, the guidelines also state that “interim treatment and/or longer deferral of definite therapy should be considered when feasible (for example, multiple myeloma, germ cell tumors, consolidative transplants).”

Similar considerations should be afforded to potential cellular donors. Donors with SARS-CoV-2 detected in a respiratory sample are considered ineligible. Those meeting exposure criteria for patients, as listed above, should be excluded from donation for at least 28 days. “In individual circumstances, a donor may be considered eligible if respiratory samples are negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR and donor is asymptomatic. Donor should be closely monitored for COVID-19.”

In the case of unrelated donors, the ASTCT recommends referral to the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) guidelines for updated guidance, but points out that, according to the NMDP, the Food and Drug Administration reports that there have been no reported or suspected cases of transfusion-transmitted COVID-19 to date and that “no cases of transfusion-transmission were ever reported for the other two coronaviruses that emerged during the past 2 decades [SARS, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and MERS-CoV, which causes Mideast respiratory syndrome].”

This article was updated 3/26/20.

[email protected]

SOURCE: ASTCT Response to COVID-19. 2020. www.astct.org/connect/astct-response-to-covid-19.

For moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, treatment with any one of the leading biologic agents is superior to no treatment at all. And in treatment-naive patients, infliximab or vedolizumab should be used rather than adalimumab for inducing remission. These are key recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association guideline for patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC), published in Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.006).

In all, the guideline comprises 11 recommendations for using immunomodulators, biologics, and small-molecule agents to induce and maintain remission in outpatients with moderate to severe UC and to decrease the need for colectomy in hospitalized patients with acute severe UC. The latest guideline follows a guideline for mild to moderate UC published last year (Gastroenterology. 2019;156[3]:748-64). A technical review accompanied the most recent publication (Gastroenterology. 2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.007).

An updated guideline was long overdue, lead author Joseph D. Feuerstein, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. “The care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease – both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s – has become increasingly complicated with many newer drugs becoming available,” he said. “The paradigm of how we are treating the disease is evolving, but we haven’t had updated, evidence-based guidelines.” Dr. Feuerstein is the lead author of this guideline.

The guideline can also aid in influencing payers’ policies that now require step-up therapy – that is, failing with the least costly drug before moving onto newer and more effective but costlier agents – Dr. Feuerstein said. “These guidelines show now that we should be treating people based on the evidence and not based on just an insurance company’s preferred policy,” he said.

The strongest recommendation is to use the tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) antagonists infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab, the anti-integrin agent vedolizumab, or the anti-interleukin 12/23 agent ustekinumab — all biologics — or the synthetic JAK inhibitor tofacitinib rather than not treating the UC. This is the only recommendation labeled as “strong,” based on “moderate quality evidence.” The relative risk profiles the committee analyzed all favored the biologics over the JAK inhibitor.

Also based on moderate evidence is the recommendation to use infliximab or vedolizumab rather than adalimumab to induce remission in patients who had taken biologic agents before. The other recommendations are based on evidence listed at “low” or “very low” quality, or citing a “knowledge gap.”

“The quality of the evidence available is variable, and we can only make our recommendations based on the quality of the evidence there, but it doesn’t negate the effects of the guideline itself,” Dr. Feuerstein said. The strong recommendation is based on randomized clinical trials that led to the Food and Drug Administration approvals, said Aline Charabaty-Pishvaian, MD, AGAF, associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington. “For everything else, we do not have randomized controlled trials to help make a decision, and the recommendations are made based on the interpretation of different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], knowing that these trials have different designs, patient populations, and endpoints, as well as on experts’ opinions,” she said in an interview.

The only other recommendation based on moderate quality evidence is to use infliximab or vedolizumab rather than adalimumab to induce remission in patients who haven’t previously used biologic agents. The guideline also recommends using tofacitinib in these patients in the confines of a clinical trial; and using ustekinumab or tofacitinib rather than vedolizumab or adalimumab in patients who’ve already been on infliximab, particularly if they haven’t responded to treatment.

The guideline also recommends against thiopurine monotherapy to induce remission, but, for maintenance of remission, recommends such treatment vs. none. However, the guideline suggests against methotrexate monotherapy to induce or maintain remission. And biologic monotherapy is preferred to thiopurine to induce remission, but the guideline makes no recommendation for biologic vs. thiopurine monotherapy to maintain remission. Likewise, combining vedolizumab or ustekinumab with thiopurines or methotrexate is preferred to monotherapy with either a biologic or thiopurine.

The guideline also addresses step-up therapy. It suggests biologics as a first treatment, either as monotherapy or in combination with an immunomodulator, rather than a step-up after failure with 5-aminosalicylates. Also, it recommends against continuing 5-aminosalicylates to induce or maintain remission after a patient has achieved remission with biologics as monotherapy or in combination with immunomodulators or tofacitinib.

The guideline also offers four recommendations for hospitalized patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis: use of intravenous 40-60 mg/d methylprednisolone rather than higher dose IV corticosteroids, no adjunctive antibiotics in the absence of infection; use of infliximab or cyclosporine when IV corticosteroids fail, and no recommendation on the use of intensive vs. standard infliximab dosing when IV corticosteroids fail and the patient is already on infliximab.

The guideline will be meaningful in closing the evidence gap going forward because it can help direct the design of clinical trials, Dr. Charabaty-Pishvaian said. “The guideline highlights areas of need in terms of randomized clinical trials,” she said. “We need these trials to answer the questions we ask ourselves in our daily practice when managing patients with UC: Which drug to choose as the first-line agent? Which drug is the second-line therapy when the disease doesn’t respond or loses response to the first-line agent? Do we need to use combination therapy with all biologics, or only with anti-TNF-alpha agents? For how long? Can we use vedolizumab or ustekinumab as monotherapy when used as a first-line agent? And is there any advantage in adding an immunomodulator when these agents are used as third- or fourth-line therapy?”

Dr. Feuerstein has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Guideline author Kim Isaacs, MD, disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, UCB, Janssen and Hoffmann-Laroche. All other committee members have no relevant disclosures.

*This story was updated on 5/7/2020.

SOURCE: Feuerstein JD et al. on behalf of the AGA Institute Clinical Guidelines Committee. Gastroenterology. 2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.006.

For moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, treatment with any one of the leading biologic agents is superior to no treatment at all. And in treatment-naive patients, infliximab or vedolizumab should be used rather than adalimumab for inducing remission. These are key recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association guideline for patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC), published in Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.006).

In all, the guideline comprises 11 recommendations for using immunomodulators, biologics, and small-molecule agents to induce and maintain remission in outpatients with moderate to severe UC and to decrease the need for colectomy in hospitalized patients with acute severe UC. The latest guideline follows a guideline for mild to moderate UC published last year (Gastroenterology. 2019;156[3]:748-64). A technical review accompanied the most recent publication (Gastroenterology. 2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.007).

An updated guideline was long overdue, lead author Joseph D. Feuerstein, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. “The care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease – both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s – has become increasingly complicated with many newer drugs becoming available,” he said. “The paradigm of how we are treating the disease is evolving, but we haven’t had updated, evidence-based guidelines.” Dr. Feuerstein is the lead author of this guideline.

The guideline can also aid in influencing payers’ policies that now require step-up therapy – that is, failing with the least costly drug before moving onto newer and more effective but costlier agents – Dr. Feuerstein said. “These guidelines show now that we should be treating people based on the evidence and not based on just an insurance company’s preferred policy,” he said.

The strongest recommendation is to use the tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) antagonists infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab, the anti-integrin agent vedolizumab, or the anti-interleukin 12/23 agent ustekinumab — all biologics — or the synthetic JAK inhibitor tofacitinib rather than not treating the UC. This is the only recommendation labeled as “strong,” based on “moderate quality evidence.” The relative risk profiles the committee analyzed all favored the biologics over the JAK inhibitor.

Also based on moderate evidence is the recommendation to use infliximab or vedolizumab rather than adalimumab to induce remission in patients who had taken biologic agents before. The other recommendations are based on evidence listed at “low” or “very low” quality, or citing a “knowledge gap.”

“The quality of the evidence available is variable, and we can only make our recommendations based on the quality of the evidence there, but it doesn’t negate the effects of the guideline itself,” Dr. Feuerstein said. The strong recommendation is based on randomized clinical trials that led to the Food and Drug Administration approvals, said Aline Charabaty-Pishvaian, MD, AGAF, associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington. “For everything else, we do not have randomized controlled trials to help make a decision, and the recommendations are made based on the interpretation of different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], knowing that these trials have different designs, patient populations, and endpoints, as well as on experts’ opinions,” she said in an interview.

The only other recommendation based on moderate quality evidence is to use infliximab or vedolizumab rather than adalimumab to induce remission in patients who haven’t previously used biologic agents. The guideline also recommends using tofacitinib in these patients in the confines of a clinical trial; and using ustekinumab or tofacitinib rather than vedolizumab or adalimumab in patients who’ve already been on infliximab, particularly if they haven’t responded to treatment.

The guideline also recommends against thiopurine monotherapy to induce remission, but, for maintenance of remission, recommends such treatment vs. none. However, the guideline suggests against methotrexate monotherapy to induce or maintain remission. And biologic monotherapy is preferred to thiopurine to induce remission, but the guideline makes no recommendation for biologic vs. thiopurine monotherapy to maintain remission. Likewise, combining vedolizumab or ustekinumab with thiopurines or methotrexate is preferred to monotherapy with either a biologic or thiopurine.

The guideline also addresses step-up therapy. It suggests biologics as a first treatment, either as monotherapy or in combination with an immunomodulator, rather than a step-up after failure with 5-aminosalicylates. Also, it recommends against continuing 5-aminosalicylates to induce or maintain remission after a patient has achieved remission with biologics as monotherapy or in combination with immunomodulators or tofacitinib.

The guideline also offers four recommendations for hospitalized patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis: use of intravenous 40-60 mg/d methylprednisolone rather than higher dose IV corticosteroids, no adjunctive antibiotics in the absence of infection; use of infliximab or cyclosporine when IV corticosteroids fail, and no recommendation on the use of intensive vs. standard infliximab dosing when IV corticosteroids fail and the patient is already on infliximab.

The guideline will be meaningful in closing the evidence gap going forward because it can help direct the design of clinical trials, Dr. Charabaty-Pishvaian said. “The guideline highlights areas of need in terms of randomized clinical trials,” she said. “We need these trials to answer the questions we ask ourselves in our daily practice when managing patients with UC: Which drug to choose as the first-line agent? Which drug is the second-line therapy when the disease doesn’t respond or loses response to the first-line agent? Do we need to use combination therapy with all biologics, or only with anti-TNF-alpha agents? For how long? Can we use vedolizumab or ustekinumab as monotherapy when used as a first-line agent? And is there any advantage in adding an immunomodulator when these agents are used as third- or fourth-line therapy?”

Dr. Feuerstein has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Guideline author Kim Isaacs, MD, disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, UCB, Janssen and Hoffmann-Laroche. All other committee members have no relevant disclosures.

*This story was updated on 5/7/2020.

SOURCE: Feuerstein JD et al. on behalf of the AGA Institute Clinical Guidelines Committee. Gastroenterology. 2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.006.

For moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, treatment with any one of the leading biologic agents is superior to no treatment at all. And in treatment-naive patients, infliximab or vedolizumab should be used rather than adalimumab for inducing remission. These are key recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association guideline for patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC), published in Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.006).

In all, the guideline comprises 11 recommendations for using immunomodulators, biologics, and small-molecule agents to induce and maintain remission in outpatients with moderate to severe UC and to decrease the need for colectomy in hospitalized patients with acute severe UC. The latest guideline follows a guideline for mild to moderate UC published last year (Gastroenterology. 2019;156[3]:748-64). A technical review accompanied the most recent publication (Gastroenterology. 2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.007).

An updated guideline was long overdue, lead author Joseph D. Feuerstein, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. “The care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease – both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s – has become increasingly complicated with many newer drugs becoming available,” he said. “The paradigm of how we are treating the disease is evolving, but we haven’t had updated, evidence-based guidelines.” Dr. Feuerstein is the lead author of this guideline.

The guideline can also aid in influencing payers’ policies that now require step-up therapy – that is, failing with the least costly drug before moving onto newer and more effective but costlier agents – Dr. Feuerstein said. “These guidelines show now that we should be treating people based on the evidence and not based on just an insurance company’s preferred policy,” he said.

The strongest recommendation is to use the tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) antagonists infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab, the anti-integrin agent vedolizumab, or the anti-interleukin 12/23 agent ustekinumab — all biologics — or the synthetic JAK inhibitor tofacitinib rather than not treating the UC. This is the only recommendation labeled as “strong,” based on “moderate quality evidence.” The relative risk profiles the committee analyzed all favored the biologics over the JAK inhibitor.

Also based on moderate evidence is the recommendation to use infliximab or vedolizumab rather than adalimumab to induce remission in patients who had taken biologic agents before. The other recommendations are based on evidence listed at “low” or “very low” quality, or citing a “knowledge gap.”

“The quality of the evidence available is variable, and we can only make our recommendations based on the quality of the evidence there, but it doesn’t negate the effects of the guideline itself,” Dr. Feuerstein said. The strong recommendation is based on randomized clinical trials that led to the Food and Drug Administration approvals, said Aline Charabaty-Pishvaian, MD, AGAF, associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington. “For everything else, we do not have randomized controlled trials to help make a decision, and the recommendations are made based on the interpretation of different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], knowing that these trials have different designs, patient populations, and endpoints, as well as on experts’ opinions,” she said in an interview.

The only other recommendation based on moderate quality evidence is to use infliximab or vedolizumab rather than adalimumab to induce remission in patients who haven’t previously used biologic agents. The guideline also recommends using tofacitinib in these patients in the confines of a clinical trial; and using ustekinumab or tofacitinib rather than vedolizumab or adalimumab in patients who’ve already been on infliximab, particularly if they haven’t responded to treatment.

The guideline also recommends against thiopurine monotherapy to induce remission, but, for maintenance of remission, recommends such treatment vs. none. However, the guideline suggests against methotrexate monotherapy to induce or maintain remission. And biologic monotherapy is preferred to thiopurine to induce remission, but the guideline makes no recommendation for biologic vs. thiopurine monotherapy to maintain remission. Likewise, combining vedolizumab or ustekinumab with thiopurines or methotrexate is preferred to monotherapy with either a biologic or thiopurine.

The guideline also addresses step-up therapy. It suggests biologics as a first treatment, either as monotherapy or in combination with an immunomodulator, rather than a step-up after failure with 5-aminosalicylates. Also, it recommends against continuing 5-aminosalicylates to induce or maintain remission after a patient has achieved remission with biologics as monotherapy or in combination with immunomodulators or tofacitinib.

The guideline also offers four recommendations for hospitalized patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis: use of intravenous 40-60 mg/d methylprednisolone rather than higher dose IV corticosteroids, no adjunctive antibiotics in the absence of infection; use of infliximab or cyclosporine when IV corticosteroids fail, and no recommendation on the use of intensive vs. standard infliximab dosing when IV corticosteroids fail and the patient is already on infliximab.

The guideline will be meaningful in closing the evidence gap going forward because it can help direct the design of clinical trials, Dr. Charabaty-Pishvaian said. “The guideline highlights areas of need in terms of randomized clinical trials,” she said. “We need these trials to answer the questions we ask ourselves in our daily practice when managing patients with UC: Which drug to choose as the first-line agent? Which drug is the second-line therapy when the disease doesn’t respond or loses response to the first-line agent? Do we need to use combination therapy with all biologics, or only with anti-TNF-alpha agents? For how long? Can we use vedolizumab or ustekinumab as monotherapy when used as a first-line agent? And is there any advantage in adding an immunomodulator when these agents are used as third- or fourth-line therapy?”

Dr. Feuerstein has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Guideline author Kim Isaacs, MD, disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, UCB, Janssen and Hoffmann-Laroche. All other committee members have no relevant disclosures.

*This story was updated on 5/7/2020.

SOURCE: Feuerstein JD et al. on behalf of the AGA Institute Clinical Guidelines Committee. Gastroenterology. 2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.006.

It’s been 11 years since the American Academy of Dermatology updated its guidelines for using nonbiologic systemic therapies for psoriasis, and now new guidelines recommend oral apremilast monotherapy and suggest a framework for a number of off-label treatments.

The guidelines, issued jointly with the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF), were published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“I think we are way behind,” Alan Menter, MD, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the guideline writing committee, said in an interview. “Most other countries update their guidelines every 1 or 2 years; we were 10 years behind.” The guidelines for systemic nonbiologic drugs follow up psoriasis guidelines issued by the AAD and the NPF on pediatric patients issued earlier this year, and on phototherapy, biologic treatments, and management of comorbidities issued last year.

“A lot has happened in the last 10 years,” said cochair Craig Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “While much of the interest is on biologic agents, nonbiologics are still used quite frequently, and the guidelines for their appropriate use have changed. Use of the guidelines provides people in the health profession with the most up to date evidence-based information so they can give their patients the best care.”

The guidelines acknowledge that the medications it covers are still widely used, either by themselves or in combination with biologic agents; readily available; easy to use; and, in the case of older therapies, relatively cheap.

Methotrexate has been available since the 1970s. Given as an injection or taken orally, the guidelines recommend supplementation with folic acid to counteract methotrexate’s side effects, particularly GI upset. The guidelines note that folic acid is less expensive than folinic acid. Combination therapy with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors is more effective than methotrexate monotherapy, with a similar side effect profile, the guidelines state.

Methotrexate is more widely used outside the United States, “but it is a very good, quick fix and it’s much safer in children and young people than it is in people with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Menter noted. “It’s still the most commonly used drug worldwide because it’s cheap, and you do have to worry about the long-term toxicity which is related the liver issues.”

The guidelines say that subcutaneous administration of methotrexate “may be particularly useful” for patients on higher doses, which when taken orally, are associated with a higher risk of GI effects.

Dr. Menter referred to a 2017 study, which reported 41% of patients treated with subcutaneous methotrexate once a week achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 score of 41% after a year of treatment, compared with 10% of those on placebo (Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389[10068]:528-37).

The guidelines rate strength of recommendation as class A for methotrexate for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, recommend supplementation with folic or folinic acid to counteract GI complications and liver problems, and note that adalimumab and infliximab are more effective than methotrexate for cutaneous psoriasis. Class B recommendations for methotrexate and psoriasis include statements that patients should begin with a test dose, especially if they have impaired kidney function; methotrexate is effective for peripheral, but not axial, psoriatic arthritis (PsA); and TNF inhibitors are more effective than methotrexate for PsA.

Approved by the FDA in 2014 for psoriasis, apremilast, which inhibits phosphodiesterase-4, is the newest drug in the recommendations. The guidelines recommend its use for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, with a class A recommendation. Patients should start on a low dose and then build up to the 30-mg, twice-daily dose over 6 days and should be counseled about the risk of depression before starting treatment. Routine laboratory testing can be considered on an individual basis.

The guidelines also lay out three recommendations (and strength of recommendation) for cyclosporine, a drug that’s been around since the 1990s: for severe, recalcitrant cases (class A); for erythrodermic, general pustular, and palmoplantar psoriasis (class B); and as short-term therapy for psoriasis flare in patients already on another drug (class C).

Acitretin is another longstanding therapy used mostly for palmar-plantar psoriasis, but it can also be used as monotherapy for plaque psoriasis as well as erythrodermic and pustular disease. It can also be used in combination with psoralens with UVA for psoriasis and combined with broadband UVB phototherapy for plaque psoriasis. The acitretin recommendations are class B.

The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib isn’t specifically approved for psoriasis, but it is approved for RA, PsA, and ulcerative colitis. The drug targets the JAK-STAT signaling pathway that causes inflammation. The guidelines state that tofacitinib can be considered for moderate to severe psoriasis, but lists no strength of recommendation. The recommended dose is either 5 or 10 mg orally twice a day, with a caveat that the higher dose carries a higher risk of adverse events. Patients should be evaluated for getting a zoster vaccine before they begin therapy.

“We thought that, because there was probably a small chance that it might get approved for psoriasis, that we would discuss it briefly,” Dr. Menter said of tofacitinib.

Another off-label use the guidelines address is for fumaric and acid esters, also known as fumarates, which are used to in Europe to treat moderate to severe psoriasis. Dimethyl fumarate is approved for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. The guidelines state that fumarates can be used for psoriasis, but offer no strength of recommendation. Side effects include gastrointestinal disturbance and flushing.

Other treatments that are also addressed in the guidelines include a host of systemic immunosuppressants and antimetabolites: azathioprine, hydroxyurea, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, thioguanine, and tacrolimus, none of which are FDA approved for psoriasis. They’re rarely used for psoriasis, but may have value in selected cases, the guidelines state.

Dr. Menter said that apremilast is the only oral drug in the guidelines, but they are the wave of the future for treating psoriasis. “I think there’s a tremendous potential for new oral drugs – TK2 [thymidine kinase], the JAK inhibitors, and other drugs coming down the pipelines. The majority of patients, if you ask them their preference, would like to take an oral drug rather than an injectable drug. And it would be much easier for dermatologists, they wouldn’t have to train patients on how to do the injections.”

Dr. Menter and Dr. Elmets disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Other authors/work group members also had disclosures related to pharmaceutical manufacturers, and several had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Menter A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.044.

It’s been 11 years since the American Academy of Dermatology updated its guidelines for using nonbiologic systemic therapies for psoriasis, and now new guidelines recommend oral apremilast monotherapy and suggest a framework for a number of off-label treatments.

The guidelines, issued jointly with the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF), were published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“I think we are way behind,” Alan Menter, MD, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the guideline writing committee, said in an interview. “Most other countries update their guidelines every 1 or 2 years; we were 10 years behind.” The guidelines for systemic nonbiologic drugs follow up psoriasis guidelines issued by the AAD and the NPF on pediatric patients issued earlier this year, and on phototherapy, biologic treatments, and management of comorbidities issued last year.

“A lot has happened in the last 10 years,” said cochair Craig Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “While much of the interest is on biologic agents, nonbiologics are still used quite frequently, and the guidelines for their appropriate use have changed. Use of the guidelines provides people in the health profession with the most up to date evidence-based information so they can give their patients the best care.”

The guidelines acknowledge that the medications it covers are still widely used, either by themselves or in combination with biologic agents; readily available; easy to use; and, in the case of older therapies, relatively cheap.

Methotrexate has been available since the 1970s. Given as an injection or taken orally, the guidelines recommend supplementation with folic acid to counteract methotrexate’s side effects, particularly GI upset. The guidelines note that folic acid is less expensive than folinic acid. Combination therapy with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors is more effective than methotrexate monotherapy, with a similar side effect profile, the guidelines state.

Methotrexate is more widely used outside the United States, “but it is a very good, quick fix and it’s much safer in children and young people than it is in people with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Menter noted. “It’s still the most commonly used drug worldwide because it’s cheap, and you do have to worry about the long-term toxicity which is related the liver issues.”

The guidelines say that subcutaneous administration of methotrexate “may be particularly useful” for patients on higher doses, which when taken orally, are associated with a higher risk of GI effects.

Dr. Menter referred to a 2017 study, which reported 41% of patients treated with subcutaneous methotrexate once a week achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 score of 41% after a year of treatment, compared with 10% of those on placebo (Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389[10068]:528-37).

The guidelines rate strength of recommendation as class A for methotrexate for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, recommend supplementation with folic or folinic acid to counteract GI complications and liver problems, and note that adalimumab and infliximab are more effective than methotrexate for cutaneous psoriasis. Class B recommendations for methotrexate and psoriasis include statements that patients should begin with a test dose, especially if they have impaired kidney function; methotrexate is effective for peripheral, but not axial, psoriatic arthritis (PsA); and TNF inhibitors are more effective than methotrexate for PsA.

Approved by the FDA in 2014 for psoriasis, apremilast, which inhibits phosphodiesterase-4, is the newest drug in the recommendations. The guidelines recommend its use for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, with a class A recommendation. Patients should start on a low dose and then build up to the 30-mg, twice-daily dose over 6 days and should be counseled about the risk of depression before starting treatment. Routine laboratory testing can be considered on an individual basis.

The guidelines also lay out three recommendations (and strength of recommendation) for cyclosporine, a drug that’s been around since the 1990s: for severe, recalcitrant cases (class A); for erythrodermic, general pustular, and palmoplantar psoriasis (class B); and as short-term therapy for psoriasis flare in patients already on another drug (class C).

Acitretin is another longstanding therapy used mostly for palmar-plantar psoriasis, but it can also be used as monotherapy for plaque psoriasis as well as erythrodermic and pustular disease. It can also be used in combination with psoralens with UVA for psoriasis and combined with broadband UVB phototherapy for plaque psoriasis. The acitretin recommendations are class B.

The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib isn’t specifically approved for psoriasis, but it is approved for RA, PsA, and ulcerative colitis. The drug targets the JAK-STAT signaling pathway that causes inflammation. The guidelines state that tofacitinib can be considered for moderate to severe psoriasis, but lists no strength of recommendation. The recommended dose is either 5 or 10 mg orally twice a day, with a caveat that the higher dose carries a higher risk of adverse events. Patients should be evaluated for getting a zoster vaccine before they begin therapy.

“We thought that, because there was probably a small chance that it might get approved for psoriasis, that we would discuss it briefly,” Dr. Menter said of tofacitinib.

Another off-label use the guidelines address is for fumaric and acid esters, also known as fumarates, which are used to in Europe to treat moderate to severe psoriasis. Dimethyl fumarate is approved for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. The guidelines state that fumarates can be used for psoriasis, but offer no strength of recommendation. Side effects include gastrointestinal disturbance and flushing.

Other treatments that are also addressed in the guidelines include a host of systemic immunosuppressants and antimetabolites: azathioprine, hydroxyurea, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, thioguanine, and tacrolimus, none of which are FDA approved for psoriasis. They’re rarely used for psoriasis, but may have value in selected cases, the guidelines state.

Dr. Menter said that apremilast is the only oral drug in the guidelines, but they are the wave of the future for treating psoriasis. “I think there’s a tremendous potential for new oral drugs – TK2 [thymidine kinase], the JAK inhibitors, and other drugs coming down the pipelines. The majority of patients, if you ask them their preference, would like to take an oral drug rather than an injectable drug. And it would be much easier for dermatologists, they wouldn’t have to train patients on how to do the injections.”

Dr. Menter and Dr. Elmets disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Other authors/work group members also had disclosures related to pharmaceutical manufacturers, and several had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Menter A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.044.

It’s been 11 years since the American Academy of Dermatology updated its guidelines for using nonbiologic systemic therapies for psoriasis, and now new guidelines recommend oral apremilast monotherapy and suggest a framework for a number of off-label treatments.

The guidelines, issued jointly with the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF), were published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“I think we are way behind,” Alan Menter, MD, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the guideline writing committee, said in an interview. “Most other countries update their guidelines every 1 or 2 years; we were 10 years behind.” The guidelines for systemic nonbiologic drugs follow up psoriasis guidelines issued by the AAD and the NPF on pediatric patients issued earlier this year, and on phototherapy, biologic treatments, and management of comorbidities issued last year.

“A lot has happened in the last 10 years,” said cochair Craig Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “While much of the interest is on biologic agents, nonbiologics are still used quite frequently, and the guidelines for their appropriate use have changed. Use of the guidelines provides people in the health profession with the most up to date evidence-based information so they can give their patients the best care.”

The guidelines acknowledge that the medications it covers are still widely used, either by themselves or in combination with biologic agents; readily available; easy to use; and, in the case of older therapies, relatively cheap.

Methotrexate has been available since the 1970s. Given as an injection or taken orally, the guidelines recommend supplementation with folic acid to counteract methotrexate’s side effects, particularly GI upset. The guidelines note that folic acid is less expensive than folinic acid. Combination therapy with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors is more effective than methotrexate monotherapy, with a similar side effect profile, the guidelines state.

Methotrexate is more widely used outside the United States, “but it is a very good, quick fix and it’s much safer in children and young people than it is in people with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Menter noted. “It’s still the most commonly used drug worldwide because it’s cheap, and you do have to worry about the long-term toxicity which is related the liver issues.”

The guidelines say that subcutaneous administration of methotrexate “may be particularly useful” for patients on higher doses, which when taken orally, are associated with a higher risk of GI effects.

Dr. Menter referred to a 2017 study, which reported 41% of patients treated with subcutaneous methotrexate once a week achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 score of 41% after a year of treatment, compared with 10% of those on placebo (Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389[10068]:528-37).

The guidelines rate strength of recommendation as class A for methotrexate for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, recommend supplementation with folic or folinic acid to counteract GI complications and liver problems, and note that adalimumab and infliximab are more effective than methotrexate for cutaneous psoriasis. Class B recommendations for methotrexate and psoriasis include statements that patients should begin with a test dose, especially if they have impaired kidney function; methotrexate is effective for peripheral, but not axial, psoriatic arthritis (PsA); and TNF inhibitors are more effective than methotrexate for PsA.

Approved by the FDA in 2014 for psoriasis, apremilast, which inhibits phosphodiesterase-4, is the newest drug in the recommendations. The guidelines recommend its use for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, with a class A recommendation. Patients should start on a low dose and then build up to the 30-mg, twice-daily dose over 6 days and should be counseled about the risk of depression before starting treatment. Routine laboratory testing can be considered on an individual basis.

The guidelines also lay out three recommendations (and strength of recommendation) for cyclosporine, a drug that’s been around since the 1990s: for severe, recalcitrant cases (class A); for erythrodermic, general pustular, and palmoplantar psoriasis (class B); and as short-term therapy for psoriasis flare in patients already on another drug (class C).

Acitretin is another longstanding therapy used mostly for palmar-plantar psoriasis, but it can also be used as monotherapy for plaque psoriasis as well as erythrodermic and pustular disease. It can also be used in combination with psoralens with UVA for psoriasis and combined with broadband UVB phototherapy for plaque psoriasis. The acitretin recommendations are class B.

The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib isn’t specifically approved for psoriasis, but it is approved for RA, PsA, and ulcerative colitis. The drug targets the JAK-STAT signaling pathway that causes inflammation. The guidelines state that tofacitinib can be considered for moderate to severe psoriasis, but lists no strength of recommendation. The recommended dose is either 5 or 10 mg orally twice a day, with a caveat that the higher dose carries a higher risk of adverse events. Patients should be evaluated for getting a zoster vaccine before they begin therapy.

“We thought that, because there was probably a small chance that it might get approved for psoriasis, that we would discuss it briefly,” Dr. Menter said of tofacitinib.

Another off-label use the guidelines address is for fumaric and acid esters, also known as fumarates, which are used to in Europe to treat moderate to severe psoriasis. Dimethyl fumarate is approved for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. The guidelines state that fumarates can be used for psoriasis, but offer no strength of recommendation. Side effects include gastrointestinal disturbance and flushing.

Other treatments that are also addressed in the guidelines include a host of systemic immunosuppressants and antimetabolites: azathioprine, hydroxyurea, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, thioguanine, and tacrolimus, none of which are FDA approved for psoriasis. They’re rarely used for psoriasis, but may have value in selected cases, the guidelines state.

Dr. Menter said that apremilast is the only oral drug in the guidelines, but they are the wave of the future for treating psoriasis. “I think there’s a tremendous potential for new oral drugs – TK2 [thymidine kinase], the JAK inhibitors, and other drugs coming down the pipelines. The majority of patients, if you ask them their preference, would like to take an oral drug rather than an injectable drug. And it would be much easier for dermatologists, they wouldn’t have to train patients on how to do the injections.”

Dr. Menter and Dr. Elmets disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Other authors/work group members also had disclosures related to pharmaceutical manufacturers, and several had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Menter A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.044.

Less than one-third of first authors on rheumatology guidelines or recommendations are women, according to a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Giovanni Adami, MD, from the department of medicine at the University of Verona (Italy), and coauthors examined 366 English-language guidelines and recommendations published between 2004 and 2019 around the world.

They found that only 32% featured a female first author. However, they did observe a significant trend toward increasing female first authorship over the study period, with parity first being achieved for guidelines and recommendations published in 2017.

Male-dominated first authorship was seen almost across the disease subject matter. For RA, only 18.8% of the 96 guidelines or recommendations examined had a female first author, and of the 12 documents on polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis, none featured a female first author.

Among the 73 guidelines and recommendations relating to psoriatic arthritis and spondyloarthritis, only 23.3% featured a female first author. However, three of the six documents on polymyositis and dermatomyositis had a female lead author, the only area where parity was achieved.

The authors noted the recent establishment of the EULAR Task Force on Gender Equity in Academic Rheumatology, which they said was an important first step toward gender equity in rheumatology guidelines authorship.

“Indeed, in the last 15 years we have witnessed an increase in female representativeness,” they wrote. “Notwithstanding, efforts should be made to improve the representation of female authors nationally and internationally.”

Commenting on the findings, rheumatologist Jean Liew, MD, said an interesting thing is that, in the United States at least, rheumatology is not a male-dominated field.

“Even though the practicing clinicians in rheumatology, most of them are women ... at the top of things it’s not as equitable as what it should be,” said Dr. Liew, acting instructor and senior fellow in the division of rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Liew, who coauthored another study showing a significant gender gap in speakers at American College of Rheumatology meetings, said there was evidence suggesting men were more likely to be promoted, get grants, and get positive reviews, which made it harder for women to advance to senior research and leadership positions.

She noted that the ACR has been making a concerted effort to improve gender balance in the choice of speakers for meetings, but said that the problem of gender inequity in rheumatology required more widespread initiatives to address.

“It really takes people being aware of the problem and being good sponsors and promoting women who are qualified,” she said in an interview. “There should be more mentorship and sponsorship for women, otherwise this will never change.”

She also commented that pursuing research careers in rheumatology was difficult enough without the additional pressures of family life. “It’s years and years of sacrifice, it’s hard to get funding, which already makes it harder, especially for women with families who feel like they have to also be there at home.”

The study had no outside funding, and the authors declared no competing interests.

SOURCE: Adami G et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217119.

Less than one-third of first authors on rheumatology guidelines or recommendations are women, according to a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Giovanni Adami, MD, from the department of medicine at the University of Verona (Italy), and coauthors examined 366 English-language guidelines and recommendations published between 2004 and 2019 around the world.

They found that only 32% featured a female first author. However, they did observe a significant trend toward increasing female first authorship over the study period, with parity first being achieved for guidelines and recommendations published in 2017.

Male-dominated first authorship was seen almost across the disease subject matter. For RA, only 18.8% of the 96 guidelines or recommendations examined had a female first author, and of the 12 documents on polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis, none featured a female first author.

Among the 73 guidelines and recommendations relating to psoriatic arthritis and spondyloarthritis, only 23.3% featured a female first author. However, three of the six documents on polymyositis and dermatomyositis had a female lead author, the only area where parity was achieved.

The authors noted the recent establishment of the EULAR Task Force on Gender Equity in Academic Rheumatology, which they said was an important first step toward gender equity in rheumatology guidelines authorship.

“Indeed, in the last 15 years we have witnessed an increase in female representativeness,” they wrote. “Notwithstanding, efforts should be made to improve the representation of female authors nationally and internationally.”

Commenting on the findings, rheumatologist Jean Liew, MD, said an interesting thing is that, in the United States at least, rheumatology is not a male-dominated field.

“Even though the practicing clinicians in rheumatology, most of them are women ... at the top of things it’s not as equitable as what it should be,” said Dr. Liew, acting instructor and senior fellow in the division of rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Liew, who coauthored another study showing a significant gender gap in speakers at American College of Rheumatology meetings, said there was evidence suggesting men were more likely to be promoted, get grants, and get positive reviews, which made it harder for women to advance to senior research and leadership positions.

She noted that the ACR has been making a concerted effort to improve gender balance in the choice of speakers for meetings, but said that the problem of gender inequity in rheumatology required more widespread initiatives to address.

“It really takes people being aware of the problem and being good sponsors and promoting women who are qualified,” she said in an interview. “There should be more mentorship and sponsorship for women, otherwise this will never change.”

She also commented that pursuing research careers in rheumatology was difficult enough without the additional pressures of family life. “It’s years and years of sacrifice, it’s hard to get funding, which already makes it harder, especially for women with families who feel like they have to also be there at home.”

The study had no outside funding, and the authors declared no competing interests.

SOURCE: Adami G et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217119.

Less than one-third of first authors on rheumatology guidelines or recommendations are women, according to a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Giovanni Adami, MD, from the department of medicine at the University of Verona (Italy), and coauthors examined 366 English-language guidelines and recommendations published between 2004 and 2019 around the world.

They found that only 32% featured a female first author. However, they did observe a significant trend toward increasing female first authorship over the study period, with parity first being achieved for guidelines and recommendations published in 2017.

Male-dominated first authorship was seen almost across the disease subject matter. For RA, only 18.8% of the 96 guidelines or recommendations examined had a female first author, and of the 12 documents on polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis, none featured a female first author.

Among the 73 guidelines and recommendations relating to psoriatic arthritis and spondyloarthritis, only 23.3% featured a female first author. However, three of the six documents on polymyositis and dermatomyositis had a female lead author, the only area where parity was achieved.

The authors noted the recent establishment of the EULAR Task Force on Gender Equity in Academic Rheumatology, which they said was an important first step toward gender equity in rheumatology guidelines authorship.

“Indeed, in the last 15 years we have witnessed an increase in female representativeness,” they wrote. “Notwithstanding, efforts should be made to improve the representation of female authors nationally and internationally.”

Commenting on the findings, rheumatologist Jean Liew, MD, said an interesting thing is that, in the United States at least, rheumatology is not a male-dominated field.

“Even though the practicing clinicians in rheumatology, most of them are women ... at the top of things it’s not as equitable as what it should be,” said Dr. Liew, acting instructor and senior fellow in the division of rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Liew, who coauthored another study showing a significant gender gap in speakers at American College of Rheumatology meetings, said there was evidence suggesting men were more likely to be promoted, get grants, and get positive reviews, which made it harder for women to advance to senior research and leadership positions.

She noted that the ACR has been making a concerted effort to improve gender balance in the choice of speakers for meetings, but said that the problem of gender inequity in rheumatology required more widespread initiatives to address.

“It really takes people being aware of the problem and being good sponsors and promoting women who are qualified,” she said in an interview. “There should be more mentorship and sponsorship for women, otherwise this will never change.”

She also commented that pursuing research careers in rheumatology was difficult enough without the additional pressures of family life. “It’s years and years of sacrifice, it’s hard to get funding, which already makes it harder, especially for women with families who feel like they have to also be there at home.”

The study had no outside funding, and the authors declared no competing interests.

SOURCE: Adami G et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217119.