As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

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

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

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

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

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

Let me start with these 3 words that really should never have to be said: Black Lives Matter.

It was hard to sit down to write this piece—not just because it’s a sunny Sunday morning, but because I’m still afraid I’ll get it wrong, show my white privilege, offend someone. George Floyd’s murder has been a reckoning for Black Americans, for the police, for the nation (maybe the world), and for me. I live in a multi-racial household, and we have redoubled our efforts to talk about racism and bias and question our assumptions as part of our daily conversations. After Mr. Floyd was killed, I decided that I would try to be less afraid of getting it wrong and be more outspoken about my support for Black Lives Matter and for the work that we need to do in this country, and in ourselves, to become more antiracist.

Here are some things that I know: I know that study after study has shown that health care and health outcomes are worse for Black people than for White people. I know that people of color are sickening and dying with COVID-19 before our eyes, just as other pandemics, such as HIV, differentially affect communities of color. I know, too, that a Black physician executive who lives around the corner from me has been stopped by our local police more than 10 times; I have been stopped by our local police exactly once.

I don’t know how to fix it. But I do know that my silence won’t help. Here are some things I am trying to do at home and at work: I am educating myself about race and racism. I’m not asking my Black peers, patients, or colleagues to teach me, but I am listening to what they tell me, when they want to tell me. I am reading books like Ibram Kendi’s How to Be Antiracist and Bernadine Evaristo’s Girl, Woman, Other. I challenge myself to read articles that I might have skipped over—because they were simply too painful. People of color don’t have a choice about facing their pain. I have that choice—it’s a privilege—and I choose to be an ally.

I’m speaking up even when I’m afraid that I might say the wrong thing. This can take several forms—questioning assumptions about race and racism when it comes up, which is often, in medicine. It also means amplifying the voices that don’t always get heard—asking a young person of color her opinion in a meeting, retweeting the thoughts of a Black colleague, thanking someone publicly or personally for a comment, an idea, or the kernel of something important. I ask people to correct me, and I try to be humble in accepting criticism or correction.

Being a better ally also means putting our money where our mouth is, supporting Black-owned businesses and restaurants, and donating to causes that support equality and justice. We can diversify our social media feeds. We have to be willing to be excluded from the conversation—if you’re white or straight or cis-gendered, it’s not about you—and be ready to feel uncomfortable. We can encourage our organizations to do better. I’m proud of my organization, which had already started working to make our organizational culture even more inclusive.

Black Lives Matter. I’m looking forward to a day when that is so obvious that we don’t have to say it. Until then, I’m going to be hard at work with my head, my ears, and my whole heart.

Let me start with these 3 words that really should never have to be said: Black Lives Matter.

It was hard to sit down to write this piece—not just because it’s a sunny Sunday morning, but because I’m still afraid I’ll get it wrong, show my white privilege, offend someone. George Floyd’s murder has been a reckoning for Black Americans, for the police, for the nation (maybe the world), and for me. I live in a multi-racial household, and we have redoubled our efforts to talk about racism and bias and question our assumptions as part of our daily conversations. After Mr. Floyd was killed, I decided that I would try to be less afraid of getting it wrong and be more outspoken about my support for Black Lives Matter and for the work that we need to do in this country, and in ourselves, to become more antiracist.

Here are some things that I know: I know that study after study has shown that health care and health outcomes are worse for Black people than for White people. I know that people of color are sickening and dying with COVID-19 before our eyes, just as other pandemics, such as HIV, differentially affect communities of color. I know, too, that a Black physician executive who lives around the corner from me has been stopped by our local police more than 10 times; I have been stopped by our local police exactly once.

I don’t know how to fix it. But I do know that my silence won’t help. Here are some things I am trying to do at home and at work: I am educating myself about race and racism. I’m not asking my Black peers, patients, or colleagues to teach me, but I am listening to what they tell me, when they want to tell me. I am reading books like Ibram Kendi’s How to Be Antiracist and Bernadine Evaristo’s Girl, Woman, Other. I challenge myself to read articles that I might have skipped over—because they were simply too painful. People of color don’t have a choice about facing their pain. I have that choice—it’s a privilege—and I choose to be an ally.

I’m speaking up even when I’m afraid that I might say the wrong thing. This can take several forms—questioning assumptions about race and racism when it comes up, which is often, in medicine. It also means amplifying the voices that don’t always get heard—asking a young person of color her opinion in a meeting, retweeting the thoughts of a Black colleague, thanking someone publicly or personally for a comment, an idea, or the kernel of something important. I ask people to correct me, and I try to be humble in accepting criticism or correction.

Being a better ally also means putting our money where our mouth is, supporting Black-owned businesses and restaurants, and donating to causes that support equality and justice. We can diversify our social media feeds. We have to be willing to be excluded from the conversation—if you’re white or straight or cis-gendered, it’s not about you—and be ready to feel uncomfortable. We can encourage our organizations to do better. I’m proud of my organization, which had already started working to make our organizational culture even more inclusive.

Black Lives Matter. I’m looking forward to a day when that is so obvious that we don’t have to say it. Until then, I’m going to be hard at work with my head, my ears, and my whole heart.

Let me start with these 3 words that really should never have to be said: Black Lives Matter.

It was hard to sit down to write this piece—not just because it’s a sunny Sunday morning, but because I’m still afraid I’ll get it wrong, show my white privilege, offend someone. George Floyd’s murder has been a reckoning for Black Americans, for the police, for the nation (maybe the world), and for me. I live in a multi-racial household, and we have redoubled our efforts to talk about racism and bias and question our assumptions as part of our daily conversations. After Mr. Floyd was killed, I decided that I would try to be less afraid of getting it wrong and be more outspoken about my support for Black Lives Matter and for the work that we need to do in this country, and in ourselves, to become more antiracist.

Here are some things that I know: I know that study after study has shown that health care and health outcomes are worse for Black people than for White people. I know that people of color are sickening and dying with COVID-19 before our eyes, just as other pandemics, such as HIV, differentially affect communities of color. I know, too, that a Black physician executive who lives around the corner from me has been stopped by our local police more than 10 times; I have been stopped by our local police exactly once.

I don’t know how to fix it. But I do know that my silence won’t help. Here are some things I am trying to do at home and at work: I am educating myself about race and racism. I’m not asking my Black peers, patients, or colleagues to teach me, but I am listening to what they tell me, when they want to tell me. I am reading books like Ibram Kendi’s How to Be Antiracist and Bernadine Evaristo’s Girl, Woman, Other. I challenge myself to read articles that I might have skipped over—because they were simply too painful. People of color don’t have a choice about facing their pain. I have that choice—it’s a privilege—and I choose to be an ally.

I’m speaking up even when I’m afraid that I might say the wrong thing. This can take several forms—questioning assumptions about race and racism when it comes up, which is often, in medicine. It also means amplifying the voices that don’t always get heard—asking a young person of color her opinion in a meeting, retweeting the thoughts of a Black colleague, thanking someone publicly or personally for a comment, an idea, or the kernel of something important. I ask people to correct me, and I try to be humble in accepting criticism or correction.

Being a better ally also means putting our money where our mouth is, supporting Black-owned businesses and restaurants, and donating to causes that support equality and justice. We can diversify our social media feeds. We have to be willing to be excluded from the conversation—if you’re white or straight or cis-gendered, it’s not about you—and be ready to feel uncomfortable. We can encourage our organizations to do better. I’m proud of my organization, which had already started working to make our organizational culture even more inclusive.

Black Lives Matter. I’m looking forward to a day when that is so obvious that we don’t have to say it. Until then, I’m going to be hard at work with my head, my ears, and my whole heart.

A study has found that 7 days of treatment with tamoxifen can help treat troublesome bleeding in women who are using an etonogestrel implant for birth control.

“Our data support the use of tamoxifen as an effective option that offers the benefit of a shorter duration of treatment than other approaches such as combined oral contraceptives,” wrote Alison B. Edelman, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors. The report is in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

To determine if a short course of tamoxifen – typically used to treat breast cancer – could prove beneficial in reducing bothersome bleeding, the researchers launched a 90-day, double-blind randomized trial of women between the ages of 15 and 45 years who had been using the etonogestrel 68-mg subdermal contraceptive implant for at least 30 days. All participants suffered from frequent or prolonged bleeding or spotting during the previous month; their mean age was 24, and most (n = 62) identified as White.

Of the initial 112 participants, 107 began treatment and were split into two groups: 10 mg of tamoxifen twice a day for 7 days (n = 55) or placebo (n = 52). One hundred and four patients completed treatment one, and 88 completed 90 days. After the first treatment, women in the tamoxifen group experienced 9.8 more consecutive days of amenorrhea (95% confidence interval, 4.6-15.0) compared with the placebo group, as well as more total days of no bleeding in the first 90 days (median 73.5 [24-89] versus 68 [11-81], P = .001).

Afterward, both groups underwent a 90-day, open-label study where all participants took tamoxifen. The differences between the groups mostly disappeared, as they both experienced more amenorrhea days (median 56 [6-81] for tamoxifen and 67.5 [7-83] for placebo) and fewer bleeding days (median 12 [0-63] for tamoxifen and 12 [0-82] for placebo) compared with the placebo group during the initial 90 days. Although no serious adverse events occurred, more women taking tamoxifen reported fluid retention (12 versus 1), headache (19 versus 1), and mood changes (13 versus 2).

“This is a very promising drug for this purpose,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Davis, said in an interview, adding that it is “a bit unconventional because tamoxifen is traditionally used for cancer or precancer.”

As such, she recognized that young people of reproductive age might be a little wary of the drug. That said, having an effective treatment for troublesome bleeding beyond estrogen-based products should ultimately prove beneficial for clinicians and patients alike.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have long-term data so it’s unclear what the safety outcomes are,” she said, “but having another option to address bothersome bleeding can help women stay on birth control longer. The alternative would be pregnancy, with its own associated risks.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a lack of Black patients and the likelihood that their volunteer cohort “may not reflect the general population of implant users who present for discontinuation owing to bleeding problems.” They also enrolled a small but notable number of women who had been using the implant for less than 3 months, noting that bleeding patterns often change from the first 90 days and so “some of these women would likely experience better (or worse) bleeding irrespective of treatment.”

The study was supported by a Merck Women’s Health Investigator Initiated Studies Program and the Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute. Four of the authors acknowledged receiving consulting fees and research support from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies. The remaining three had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cansino is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Edelman AB et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jul 9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003896.

A study has found that 7 days of treatment with tamoxifen can help treat troublesome bleeding in women who are using an etonogestrel implant for birth control.

“Our data support the use of tamoxifen as an effective option that offers the benefit of a shorter duration of treatment than other approaches such as combined oral contraceptives,” wrote Alison B. Edelman, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors. The report is in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

To determine if a short course of tamoxifen – typically used to treat breast cancer – could prove beneficial in reducing bothersome bleeding, the researchers launched a 90-day, double-blind randomized trial of women between the ages of 15 and 45 years who had been using the etonogestrel 68-mg subdermal contraceptive implant for at least 30 days. All participants suffered from frequent or prolonged bleeding or spotting during the previous month; their mean age was 24, and most (n = 62) identified as White.

Of the initial 112 participants, 107 began treatment and were split into two groups: 10 mg of tamoxifen twice a day for 7 days (n = 55) or placebo (n = 52). One hundred and four patients completed treatment one, and 88 completed 90 days. After the first treatment, women in the tamoxifen group experienced 9.8 more consecutive days of amenorrhea (95% confidence interval, 4.6-15.0) compared with the placebo group, as well as more total days of no bleeding in the first 90 days (median 73.5 [24-89] versus 68 [11-81], P = .001).

Afterward, both groups underwent a 90-day, open-label study where all participants took tamoxifen. The differences between the groups mostly disappeared, as they both experienced more amenorrhea days (median 56 [6-81] for tamoxifen and 67.5 [7-83] for placebo) and fewer bleeding days (median 12 [0-63] for tamoxifen and 12 [0-82] for placebo) compared with the placebo group during the initial 90 days. Although no serious adverse events occurred, more women taking tamoxifen reported fluid retention (12 versus 1), headache (19 versus 1), and mood changes (13 versus 2).

“This is a very promising drug for this purpose,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Davis, said in an interview, adding that it is “a bit unconventional because tamoxifen is traditionally used for cancer or precancer.”

As such, she recognized that young people of reproductive age might be a little wary of the drug. That said, having an effective treatment for troublesome bleeding beyond estrogen-based products should ultimately prove beneficial for clinicians and patients alike.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have long-term data so it’s unclear what the safety outcomes are,” she said, “but having another option to address bothersome bleeding can help women stay on birth control longer. The alternative would be pregnancy, with its own associated risks.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a lack of Black patients and the likelihood that their volunteer cohort “may not reflect the general population of implant users who present for discontinuation owing to bleeding problems.” They also enrolled a small but notable number of women who had been using the implant for less than 3 months, noting that bleeding patterns often change from the first 90 days and so “some of these women would likely experience better (or worse) bleeding irrespective of treatment.”

The study was supported by a Merck Women’s Health Investigator Initiated Studies Program and the Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute. Four of the authors acknowledged receiving consulting fees and research support from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies. The remaining three had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cansino is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Edelman AB et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jul 9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003896.

A study has found that 7 days of treatment with tamoxifen can help treat troublesome bleeding in women who are using an etonogestrel implant for birth control.

“Our data support the use of tamoxifen as an effective option that offers the benefit of a shorter duration of treatment than other approaches such as combined oral contraceptives,” wrote Alison B. Edelman, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors. The report is in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

To determine if a short course of tamoxifen – typically used to treat breast cancer – could prove beneficial in reducing bothersome bleeding, the researchers launched a 90-day, double-blind randomized trial of women between the ages of 15 and 45 years who had been using the etonogestrel 68-mg subdermal contraceptive implant for at least 30 days. All participants suffered from frequent or prolonged bleeding or spotting during the previous month; their mean age was 24, and most (n = 62) identified as White.

Of the initial 112 participants, 107 began treatment and were split into two groups: 10 mg of tamoxifen twice a day for 7 days (n = 55) or placebo (n = 52). One hundred and four patients completed treatment one, and 88 completed 90 days. After the first treatment, women in the tamoxifen group experienced 9.8 more consecutive days of amenorrhea (95% confidence interval, 4.6-15.0) compared with the placebo group, as well as more total days of no bleeding in the first 90 days (median 73.5 [24-89] versus 68 [11-81], P = .001).

Afterward, both groups underwent a 90-day, open-label study where all participants took tamoxifen. The differences between the groups mostly disappeared, as they both experienced more amenorrhea days (median 56 [6-81] for tamoxifen and 67.5 [7-83] for placebo) and fewer bleeding days (median 12 [0-63] for tamoxifen and 12 [0-82] for placebo) compared with the placebo group during the initial 90 days. Although no serious adverse events occurred, more women taking tamoxifen reported fluid retention (12 versus 1), headache (19 versus 1), and mood changes (13 versus 2).

“This is a very promising drug for this purpose,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Davis, said in an interview, adding that it is “a bit unconventional because tamoxifen is traditionally used for cancer or precancer.”

As such, she recognized that young people of reproductive age might be a little wary of the drug. That said, having an effective treatment for troublesome bleeding beyond estrogen-based products should ultimately prove beneficial for clinicians and patients alike.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have long-term data so it’s unclear what the safety outcomes are,” she said, “but having another option to address bothersome bleeding can help women stay on birth control longer. The alternative would be pregnancy, with its own associated risks.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a lack of Black patients and the likelihood that their volunteer cohort “may not reflect the general population of implant users who present for discontinuation owing to bleeding problems.” They also enrolled a small but notable number of women who had been using the implant for less than 3 months, noting that bleeding patterns often change from the first 90 days and so “some of these women would likely experience better (or worse) bleeding irrespective of treatment.”

The study was supported by a Merck Women’s Health Investigator Initiated Studies Program and the Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute. Four of the authors acknowledged receiving consulting fees and research support from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies. The remaining three had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cansino is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Edelman AB et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jul 9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003896.

Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, MD, the only medical doctor on a current NFL roster, has become the first player to opt out of the 2020 NFL season, citing concerns over risk for COVID-19.

Canadian-born Duvernay-Tardif, right guard for the Kansas City Chiefs, announced on Twitter on July 24 what he called “one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make in my life.”

“There is no doubt in my mind the Chiefs’ medical staff have put together a strong plan to minimize the health risks associated with COVID-19, but some risks will remain,” he posted.

“Being at the frontline during this offseason has given me a different perspective on this pandemic and the stress it puts on individuals and our healthcare system. I cannot allow myself to potentially transmit the virus in our communities simply to play the sport that I love. If I am to take risks, I will do it caring for patients.”

According to CNN, Duvernay-Tardif, less than 3 months after helping the Chiefs win the Super Bowl in February, began working at a long-term care facility near Montreal in what he described as a “nursing role.”

Duvernay-Tardif wrote recently in an article for Sports Illustrated that he has not completed his residency and is not yet licensed to practice.

“My first day back in the hospital was April 24,” Duvernay-Tardif wrote. “I felt nervous the night before, but a good nervous, like before a game.”

Duvernay-Tardif has also served on the NFL Players’ Association COVID-19 task force, according to Yahoo News .

A spokesperson for Duvernay-Tardif told Medscape Medical News he was unavailable to comment about the announcement.

Starting His Dual Career

Duvernay-Tardif, 29, was drafted in the sixth round by the Chiefs in 2014.

According to Forbes , he spent 8 years (2010-2018) pursuing his medical degree while still playing college football for McGill University in Montreal. Duvernay-Tardif played offensive tackle for the Redmen and in his senior year (2013) won the Metras Trophy as most outstanding lineman in Canadian college football.

He explained in a previous Medscape interview how he managed his dual career; as a doctor he said he would like to focus on emergency medicine:

“I would say that at around 16-17 years of age, I was pretty convinced that medicine was for me,” he told Medscape.

“I was lucky that I didn’t have to do an undergrad program,” he continued. “In Canada, they have a fast-track program where instead of doing a full undergrad before getting into medical school, you can do a 1-year program where you can do all your physiology and biology classes all together.

“I had the chance to get into that program, and that’s how I was able to manage football and medicine at the same time. There’s no way I could have finished my med school doing part-time med school like I did for the past 4 years.”

ESPN explained the opt-out option: “According to an agreement approved by both the league and the union on [July 24], players considered high risk for COVID-19 can earn $350,000 and an accrued NFL season if they choose to opt out of the 2020 season. Players without risk can earn $150,000 for opting out. Duvernay-Tardif was scheduled to make $2.75 million this season.”

The danger of COVID-19 in professional sports has already been seen in Major League Baseball.

According to USA Today, the Miami Marlins have at least 14 players and staff who have tested positive for COVID-19, and major league baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred must decide whether to further delay the shortened season, cancel it, or allow it to continue.

MLB postponed the Marlins’ home opener July 27 against the Baltimore Orioles as well as the New York Yankees game in Philadelphia against the Phillies.

COVID-19 also shut down professional, college, high school, and recreational sports throughout much of the country beginning in March.

Medicine, Football Intersect

In the previous Medscape interview, Duvernay-Tardif talked about how medicine influenced his football career.

“For me, medicine was really helpful in the sense that I was better able to build a routine and question what works for me and what doesn’t. It gave me the ability to structure my work in order to optimize my time and to make sure that it’s pertinent.

“Another thing is the psychology and the sports psychology. I think there’s a little bit of a stigma around mental health issues in professional sports and everywhere, actually. I think because of medicine, I was more willing to question myself and more willing to use different tools in order to be a better football player.”
 

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

Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, MD, the only medical doctor on a current NFL roster, has become the first player to opt out of the 2020 NFL season, citing concerns over risk for COVID-19.

Canadian-born Duvernay-Tardif, right guard for the Kansas City Chiefs, announced on Twitter on July 24 what he called “one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make in my life.”

“There is no doubt in my mind the Chiefs’ medical staff have put together a strong plan to minimize the health risks associated with COVID-19, but some risks will remain,” he posted.

“Being at the frontline during this offseason has given me a different perspective on this pandemic and the stress it puts on individuals and our healthcare system. I cannot allow myself to potentially transmit the virus in our communities simply to play the sport that I love. If I am to take risks, I will do it caring for patients.”

According to CNN, Duvernay-Tardif, less than 3 months after helping the Chiefs win the Super Bowl in February, began working at a long-term care facility near Montreal in what he described as a “nursing role.”

Duvernay-Tardif wrote recently in an article for Sports Illustrated that he has not completed his residency and is not yet licensed to practice.

“My first day back in the hospital was April 24,” Duvernay-Tardif wrote. “I felt nervous the night before, but a good nervous, like before a game.”

Duvernay-Tardif has also served on the NFL Players’ Association COVID-19 task force, according to Yahoo News .

A spokesperson for Duvernay-Tardif told Medscape Medical News he was unavailable to comment about the announcement.

Starting His Dual Career

Duvernay-Tardif, 29, was drafted in the sixth round by the Chiefs in 2014.

According to Forbes , he spent 8 years (2010-2018) pursuing his medical degree while still playing college football for McGill University in Montreal. Duvernay-Tardif played offensive tackle for the Redmen and in his senior year (2013) won the Metras Trophy as most outstanding lineman in Canadian college football.

He explained in a previous Medscape interview how he managed his dual career; as a doctor he said he would like to focus on emergency medicine:

“I would say that at around 16-17 years of age, I was pretty convinced that medicine was for me,” he told Medscape.

“I was lucky that I didn’t have to do an undergrad program,” he continued. “In Canada, they have a fast-track program where instead of doing a full undergrad before getting into medical school, you can do a 1-year program where you can do all your physiology and biology classes all together.

“I had the chance to get into that program, and that’s how I was able to manage football and medicine at the same time. There’s no way I could have finished my med school doing part-time med school like I did for the past 4 years.”

ESPN explained the opt-out option: “According to an agreement approved by both the league and the union on [July 24], players considered high risk for COVID-19 can earn $350,000 and an accrued NFL season if they choose to opt out of the 2020 season. Players without risk can earn $150,000 for opting out. Duvernay-Tardif was scheduled to make $2.75 million this season.”

The danger of COVID-19 in professional sports has already been seen in Major League Baseball.

According to USA Today, the Miami Marlins have at least 14 players and staff who have tested positive for COVID-19, and major league baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred must decide whether to further delay the shortened season, cancel it, or allow it to continue.

MLB postponed the Marlins’ home opener July 27 against the Baltimore Orioles as well as the New York Yankees game in Philadelphia against the Phillies.

COVID-19 also shut down professional, college, high school, and recreational sports throughout much of the country beginning in March.

Medicine, Football Intersect

In the previous Medscape interview, Duvernay-Tardif talked about how medicine influenced his football career.

“For me, medicine was really helpful in the sense that I was better able to build a routine and question what works for me and what doesn’t. It gave me the ability to structure my work in order to optimize my time and to make sure that it’s pertinent.

“Another thing is the psychology and the sports psychology. I think there’s a little bit of a stigma around mental health issues in professional sports and everywhere, actually. I think because of medicine, I was more willing to question myself and more willing to use different tools in order to be a better football player.”
 

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

Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, MD, the only medical doctor on a current NFL roster, has become the first player to opt out of the 2020 NFL season, citing concerns over risk for COVID-19.

Canadian-born Duvernay-Tardif, right guard for the Kansas City Chiefs, announced on Twitter on July 24 what he called “one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make in my life.”

“There is no doubt in my mind the Chiefs’ medical staff have put together a strong plan to minimize the health risks associated with COVID-19, but some risks will remain,” he posted.

“Being at the frontline during this offseason has given me a different perspective on this pandemic and the stress it puts on individuals and our healthcare system. I cannot allow myself to potentially transmit the virus in our communities simply to play the sport that I love. If I am to take risks, I will do it caring for patients.”

According to CNN, Duvernay-Tardif, less than 3 months after helping the Chiefs win the Super Bowl in February, began working at a long-term care facility near Montreal in what he described as a “nursing role.”

Duvernay-Tardif wrote recently in an article for Sports Illustrated that he has not completed his residency and is not yet licensed to practice.

“My first day back in the hospital was April 24,” Duvernay-Tardif wrote. “I felt nervous the night before, but a good nervous, like before a game.”

Duvernay-Tardif has also served on the NFL Players’ Association COVID-19 task force, according to Yahoo News .

A spokesperson for Duvernay-Tardif told Medscape Medical News he was unavailable to comment about the announcement.

Starting His Dual Career

Duvernay-Tardif, 29, was drafted in the sixth round by the Chiefs in 2014.

According to Forbes , he spent 8 years (2010-2018) pursuing his medical degree while still playing college football for McGill University in Montreal. Duvernay-Tardif played offensive tackle for the Redmen and in his senior year (2013) won the Metras Trophy as most outstanding lineman in Canadian college football.

He explained in a previous Medscape interview how he managed his dual career; as a doctor he said he would like to focus on emergency medicine:

“I would say that at around 16-17 years of age, I was pretty convinced that medicine was for me,” he told Medscape.

“I was lucky that I didn’t have to do an undergrad program,” he continued. “In Canada, they have a fast-track program where instead of doing a full undergrad before getting into medical school, you can do a 1-year program where you can do all your physiology and biology classes all together.

“I had the chance to get into that program, and that’s how I was able to manage football and medicine at the same time. There’s no way I could have finished my med school doing part-time med school like I did for the past 4 years.”

ESPN explained the opt-out option: “According to an agreement approved by both the league and the union on [July 24], players considered high risk for COVID-19 can earn $350,000 and an accrued NFL season if they choose to opt out of the 2020 season. Players without risk can earn $150,000 for opting out. Duvernay-Tardif was scheduled to make $2.75 million this season.”

The danger of COVID-19 in professional sports has already been seen in Major League Baseball.

According to USA Today, the Miami Marlins have at least 14 players and staff who have tested positive for COVID-19, and major league baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred must decide whether to further delay the shortened season, cancel it, or allow it to continue.

MLB postponed the Marlins’ home opener July 27 against the Baltimore Orioles as well as the New York Yankees game in Philadelphia against the Phillies.

COVID-19 also shut down professional, college, high school, and recreational sports throughout much of the country beginning in March.

Medicine, Football Intersect

In the previous Medscape interview, Duvernay-Tardif talked about how medicine influenced his football career.

“For me, medicine was really helpful in the sense that I was better able to build a routine and question what works for me and what doesn’t. It gave me the ability to structure my work in order to optimize my time and to make sure that it’s pertinent.

“Another thing is the psychology and the sports psychology. I think there’s a little bit of a stigma around mental health issues in professional sports and everywhere, actually. I think because of medicine, I was more willing to question myself and more willing to use different tools in order to be a better football player.”
 

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

Complications were less common with robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) than with open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in a large study of patients with renal cancer.

RAPN was associated with a 61% decrease in intraoperative complications and a 71% decrease in overall complications in the IRON study.

Alessandro Larcher, MD, of San Raffaele Hospital and the Urological Research Institute in Milan, presented results from IRON during a live poster session at the virtual annual congress of the European Association of Urology.

The IRON study was performed in nine high-volume centers and involved 3,468 patients with renal cell cancer. Patients were recruited if they had a localized renal cell mass (cT1-2) with no nodal involvement or metastases. There were 2,405 patients who underwent RAPN and 1,063 who underwent OPN.

Intraoperative complications occurred in 5.7% of patients who underwent RAPN and in 9.3% of those who underwent OPN. Overall complications occurred in 33% and 18%, respectively (P < .001 for both).

“The complication profile was invariably in favor of robot-assisted surgery,” Dr. Larcher observed.

Patients who underwent RAPN had less estimated median blood loss (150 mL vs. 180 mL, P < .001) as well as lower rates of hemorrhagic complications (6.4% vs. 9%, P < .01) and urinary leakage (0.8% vs. 4.6%, P < .01).

The operative time was longer with RAPN than with OPN, at a median of 150 minutes and 120 minutes, respectively (P < .001). However, patients remained in the hospital for less time with RAPN than with OPN, at a median of 4 days and 6 days, respectively (P < .01).

RAPN was associated with fewer surgical complications than OPN according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Grade 2 or higher complications occurred in 12% and 20% of patients, respectively (P < .001). Grade 3 or higher complications occurred in 4% and 6.1%, respectively (P < .001).

“The benefit with respect to the complication risk reduction in the case of robot-assisted surgery was not affected by the tumor complexity, by the dimension of the mass, the comorbidities of the patients, or the baseline renal function,” Dr. Larcher said. “[T]he advantage after robot-assisted surgery is consistent regardless of all these features.”

Early renal function was better after OPN, but there was no significant difference between the two groups at 1 year of follow-up. The median ischemia time was 15 minutes with OPN and 16 minutes with RAPN (P < .001).

Postoperatively, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 78 mL/min/1.73m² with OPN and 76 mL/min/1.73m² with RAPN (P < .001). At 1 year, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 68 and 71 mL/min/1.73m², respectively (P = .5).

Dr. Larcher noted that there was no difference between RAPN and OPN in terms of 5-year oncologic outcomes. Local recurrence occurred in 1.6% and 2.1% of patients, respectively (P = .06); systemic progression was seen in 1.8% and 4.5%, respectively (P = .5); and clinical progression was observed in 3.2% and 6.6%, respectively (P = .9).

“[IRON is] a really powerful study. It’s one of those studies that kind of has to be done,” said Ben Challacombe, MBBS, a consultant urological surgeon at Guy’s Hospital and St. Thomas’ Hospital in London who chaired the poster session during which these findings were presented.

Dr. Challacombe, who specializes in the treatment of kidney and prostatic disease using robotic surgery, noted that about 75% of procedures in the United Kingdom are now being performed with robotic assistance and queried what percentage of procedures should still be done by open surgery.

“I would turn it,” Dr. Larcher said. “What is the percentage of surgeons that should use one technique or the other?” In the IRON study, as well as other studies, surgical expertise, training, and center volumes were important.

“What the data are telling us is that those who are really confident in robotic surgeries can achieve even better outcomes, also in very complex cases,” Dr. Larcher said. “I think it’s not any longer dependent on the tumor factors. The answer to the question is only determined by human factors.”

The IRON study was supported by a grant from Intuitive. Dr. Larcher declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Challacombe did not present any disclosures.

SOURCE: Larcher A et al. EAU20, Abstract 30. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;19(Suppl 2):e142.

Complications were less common with robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) than with open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in a large study of patients with renal cancer.

RAPN was associated with a 61% decrease in intraoperative complications and a 71% decrease in overall complications in the IRON study.

Alessandro Larcher, MD, of San Raffaele Hospital and the Urological Research Institute in Milan, presented results from IRON during a live poster session at the virtual annual congress of the European Association of Urology.

The IRON study was performed in nine high-volume centers and involved 3,468 patients with renal cell cancer. Patients were recruited if they had a localized renal cell mass (cT1-2) with no nodal involvement or metastases. There were 2,405 patients who underwent RAPN and 1,063 who underwent OPN.

Intraoperative complications occurred in 5.7% of patients who underwent RAPN and in 9.3% of those who underwent OPN. Overall complications occurred in 33% and 18%, respectively (P < .001 for both).

“The complication profile was invariably in favor of robot-assisted surgery,” Dr. Larcher observed.

Patients who underwent RAPN had less estimated median blood loss (150 mL vs. 180 mL, P < .001) as well as lower rates of hemorrhagic complications (6.4% vs. 9%, P < .01) and urinary leakage (0.8% vs. 4.6%, P < .01).

The operative time was longer with RAPN than with OPN, at a median of 150 minutes and 120 minutes, respectively (P < .001). However, patients remained in the hospital for less time with RAPN than with OPN, at a median of 4 days and 6 days, respectively (P < .01).

RAPN was associated with fewer surgical complications than OPN according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Grade 2 or higher complications occurred in 12% and 20% of patients, respectively (P < .001). Grade 3 or higher complications occurred in 4% and 6.1%, respectively (P < .001).

“The benefit with respect to the complication risk reduction in the case of robot-assisted surgery was not affected by the tumor complexity, by the dimension of the mass, the comorbidities of the patients, or the baseline renal function,” Dr. Larcher said. “[T]he advantage after robot-assisted surgery is consistent regardless of all these features.”

Early renal function was better after OPN, but there was no significant difference between the two groups at 1 year of follow-up. The median ischemia time was 15 minutes with OPN and 16 minutes with RAPN (P < .001).

Postoperatively, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 78 mL/min/1.73m² with OPN and 76 mL/min/1.73m² with RAPN (P < .001). At 1 year, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 68 and 71 mL/min/1.73m², respectively (P = .5).

Dr. Larcher noted that there was no difference between RAPN and OPN in terms of 5-year oncologic outcomes. Local recurrence occurred in 1.6% and 2.1% of patients, respectively (P = .06); systemic progression was seen in 1.8% and 4.5%, respectively (P = .5); and clinical progression was observed in 3.2% and 6.6%, respectively (P = .9).

“[IRON is] a really powerful study. It’s one of those studies that kind of has to be done,” said Ben Challacombe, MBBS, a consultant urological surgeon at Guy’s Hospital and St. Thomas’ Hospital in London who chaired the poster session during which these findings were presented.

Dr. Challacombe, who specializes in the treatment of kidney and prostatic disease using robotic surgery, noted that about 75% of procedures in the United Kingdom are now being performed with robotic assistance and queried what percentage of procedures should still be done by open surgery.

“I would turn it,” Dr. Larcher said. “What is the percentage of surgeons that should use one technique or the other?” In the IRON study, as well as other studies, surgical expertise, training, and center volumes were important.

“What the data are telling us is that those who are really confident in robotic surgeries can achieve even better outcomes, also in very complex cases,” Dr. Larcher said. “I think it’s not any longer dependent on the tumor factors. The answer to the question is only determined by human factors.”

The IRON study was supported by a grant from Intuitive. Dr. Larcher declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Challacombe did not present any disclosures.

SOURCE: Larcher A et al. EAU20, Abstract 30. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;19(Suppl 2):e142.

Complications were less common with robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) than with open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in a large study of patients with renal cancer.

RAPN was associated with a 61% decrease in intraoperative complications and a 71% decrease in overall complications in the IRON study.

Alessandro Larcher, MD, of San Raffaele Hospital and the Urological Research Institute in Milan, presented results from IRON during a live poster session at the virtual annual congress of the European Association of Urology.

The IRON study was performed in nine high-volume centers and involved 3,468 patients with renal cell cancer. Patients were recruited if they had a localized renal cell mass (cT1-2) with no nodal involvement or metastases. There were 2,405 patients who underwent RAPN and 1,063 who underwent OPN.

Intraoperative complications occurred in 5.7% of patients who underwent RAPN and in 9.3% of those who underwent OPN. Overall complications occurred in 33% and 18%, respectively (P < .001 for both).

“The complication profile was invariably in favor of robot-assisted surgery,” Dr. Larcher observed.

Patients who underwent RAPN had less estimated median blood loss (150 mL vs. 180 mL, P < .001) as well as lower rates of hemorrhagic complications (6.4% vs. 9%, P < .01) and urinary leakage (0.8% vs. 4.6%, P < .01).

The operative time was longer with RAPN than with OPN, at a median of 150 minutes and 120 minutes, respectively (P < .001). However, patients remained in the hospital for less time with RAPN than with OPN, at a median of 4 days and 6 days, respectively (P < .01).

RAPN was associated with fewer surgical complications than OPN according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Grade 2 or higher complications occurred in 12% and 20% of patients, respectively (P < .001). Grade 3 or higher complications occurred in 4% and 6.1%, respectively (P < .001).

“The benefit with respect to the complication risk reduction in the case of robot-assisted surgery was not affected by the tumor complexity, by the dimension of the mass, the comorbidities of the patients, or the baseline renal function,” Dr. Larcher said. “[T]he advantage after robot-assisted surgery is consistent regardless of all these features.”

Early renal function was better after OPN, but there was no significant difference between the two groups at 1 year of follow-up. The median ischemia time was 15 minutes with OPN and 16 minutes with RAPN (P < .001).

Postoperatively, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 78 mL/min/1.73m² with OPN and 76 mL/min/1.73m² with RAPN (P < .001). At 1 year, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 68 and 71 mL/min/1.73m², respectively (P = .5).

Dr. Larcher noted that there was no difference between RAPN and OPN in terms of 5-year oncologic outcomes. Local recurrence occurred in 1.6% and 2.1% of patients, respectively (P = .06); systemic progression was seen in 1.8% and 4.5%, respectively (P = .5); and clinical progression was observed in 3.2% and 6.6%, respectively (P = .9).

“[IRON is] a really powerful study. It’s one of those studies that kind of has to be done,” said Ben Challacombe, MBBS, a consultant urological surgeon at Guy’s Hospital and St. Thomas’ Hospital in London who chaired the poster session during which these findings were presented.

Dr. Challacombe, who specializes in the treatment of kidney and prostatic disease using robotic surgery, noted that about 75% of procedures in the United Kingdom are now being performed with robotic assistance and queried what percentage of procedures should still be done by open surgery.

“I would turn it,” Dr. Larcher said. “What is the percentage of surgeons that should use one technique or the other?” In the IRON study, as well as other studies, surgical expertise, training, and center volumes were important.

“What the data are telling us is that those who are really confident in robotic surgeries can achieve even better outcomes, also in very complex cases,” Dr. Larcher said. “I think it’s not any longer dependent on the tumor factors. The answer to the question is only determined by human factors.”

The IRON study was supported by a grant from Intuitive. Dr. Larcher declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Challacombe did not present any disclosures.

SOURCE: Larcher A et al. EAU20, Abstract 30. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;19(Suppl 2):e142.

When the coronavirus pandemic hit New York City in early March, the Hospital for Special Surgery leadership decided that the best way to serve the city was to stop elective orthopedic procedures temporarily and use the facility to take on patients from its sister institution, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital.

As in other institutions, it was all hands on deck. We have hospitalists that are accustomed to managing postsurgical care and internists familiar with preop surgical clearances. But they needed more help, and soon, other internal medicine subspecialists were asked to volunteer, including rheumatologists and primary care sports medicine doctors.

As a rheumatologist, it had been well over 10 years since I had last done any inpatient work. I was filled with trepidation, but I was also excited to dive in.
 

April 4:

Feeling very unmoored. I am in unfamiliar territory, and it’s terrifying. There are so many things that I no longer know how to do. Thankfully, the hospitalists are gracious, extremely supportive, and helpful.

My N95 doesn’t fit well. It’s never fit — not during residency or fellowship, not in any job I’ve had, and not today. The lady fit-testing me said she was sorry, but the look on her face said, “I’m sorry, but you’re going to die.”
 

April 7:

We don’t know how to treat coronavirus. I’ve sent some patients home, others I’ve sent to the ICU. Thank goodness for treatment algorithms from leadership, but we are sorely lacking good-quality data.

Our infectious disease doctor doesn’t think hydroxychloroquine works at all; I suspect he is right. The guidance right now is to give hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to everyone who is sick enough to be admitted, but there are methodologic flaws in the early enthusiastic preprints, and so far, I’ve not noticed any demonstrable benefit.

The only thing that seems to be happening is that I am seeing more QT prolongation — not something I previously counseled my rheumatology patients on.
 

April 9:

The patients have been, with a few exceptions, alone in the room. They’re not allowed to have visitors and are required to wear masks all the time. Anyone who enters their rooms is fully covered up so you can barely see them. It’s anonymous and dehumanizing.

We’re instructed to take histories by phone in order to limit the time spent in each room. I buck this instruction; I still take histories in person because human contact seems more important now than ever.

Except maybe I should be smarter about this. One of my patients refuses any treatment, including oxygen support. She firmly believes this is a result of 5G networks — something I later discovered was a common conspiracy theory. She refused to wear a mask despite having a very bad cough. She coughed in my face a lot when we were chatting. My face with my ill-fitting N95 mask. Maybe the fit-testing lady’s eyes weren’t lying and I will die after all.
 

April 15:

On the days when I’m not working as a hospitalist, I am still doing remote visits with my rheumatology patients. It feels good to be doing something familiar and something I’m actually good at. But it is surreal to be faced with the quotidian on one hand and life and death on the other.

I recently saw a fairly new patient, and I still haven’t figured out if she has a rheumatic condition or if her symptoms all stem from an alcohol use disorder. In our previous visits, she could barely acknowledge that her drinking was an issue. On today’s visit, she told me she was 1½ months sober.

I don’t know her very well, but it was the happiest news I’d heard in a long time. I was so beside myself with joy that I cried, which says more about my current emotional state than anything else, really.
 

April 21:

On my panel of patients, I have three women with COVID-19 — all of whom lost their husbands to COVID-19, and none of whom were able to say their goodbyes. I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to survive this period of illness, isolation, and fear, only to be met on the other side by grief.

Rheumatology doesn’t lend itself too well to such existential concerns; I am not equipped for this. Perhaps my only advantage as a rheumatologist is that I know how to use IVIG, anakinra, and tocilizumab.

Someone on my panel was started on anakinra, and it turned his case around. Would he have gotten better without it anyway? We’ll never know for sure.
 

April 28:

Patients seem to be requiring prolonged intubation. We have now reached the stage where patients are alive but trached and PEGed. One of my patients had been intubated for close to 3 weeks. She was one of four people in her family who contracted the illness (they had had a dinner party before New York’s state of emergency was declared). We thought she might die once she was extubated, but she is still fighting. Unconscious, unarousable, but breathing on her own.

Will she ever wake up? We don’t know. We put the onus on her family to make decisions about placing a PEG tube in. They can only do so from a distance with imperfect information gleaned from periodic, brief FaceTime interactions — where no interaction happens at all.
 

May 4:

It’s my last day as a “COVID hospitalist.” When I first started, I felt like I was being helpful. Walking home in the middle of the 7 PM cheers for healthcare workers frequently left me teary eyed. As horrible as the situation was, I was proud of myself for volunteering to help and appreciative of a broken city’s gratitude toward all healthcare workers in general. Maybe I bought into the idea that, like many others around me, I am a hero.

I don’t feel like a hero, though. The stuff I saw was easy compared with the stuff that my colleagues in critical care saw. Our hospital accepted the more stable patient transfers from our sister hospitals. Patients who remained in the NewYork–Presbyterian system were sicker, with encephalitis, thrombotic complications, multiorgan failure, and cytokine release syndrome. It’s the doctors who took care of those patients who deserve to be called heroes.

No, I am no hero. But did my volunteering make a difference? It made a difference to me. The overwhelming feeling I am left with isn’t pride; it’s humility. I feel humbled that I could feel so unexpectedly touched by the lives of people that I had no idea I could feel touched by.
 

Postscript:

My patient Esther [name changed to hide her identity] died from COVID-19. She was MY patient — not a patient I met as a COVID hospitalist, but a patient with rheumatoid arthritis whom I cared for for years.

She had scleromalacia and multiple failed scleral grafts, which made her profoundly sad. She fought her anxiety fiercely and always with poise and panache. One way she dealt with her anxiety was that she constantly messaged me via our EHR portal. She ran everything by me and trusted me to be her rock.

The past month has been so busy that I just now noticed it had been a month since I last heard from her. I tried to call her but got her voicemail. It wasn’t until I exchanged messages with her ophthalmologist that I found out she had passed away from complications of COVID-19.

She was taking rituximab and mycophenolate. I wonder if these drugs made her sicker than she would have been otherwise; it fills me with sadness. I wonder if she was alone like my other COVID-19 patients. I wonder if she was afraid. I am sorry that I wasn’t able to say goodbye.

Karmela Kim Chan, MD, is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for this rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com. This article is part of a partnership between Medscape and Hospital for Special Surgery.

When the coronavirus pandemic hit New York City in early March, the Hospital for Special Surgery leadership decided that the best way to serve the city was to stop elective orthopedic procedures temporarily and use the facility to take on patients from its sister institution, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital.

As in other institutions, it was all hands on deck. We have hospitalists that are accustomed to managing postsurgical care and internists familiar with preop surgical clearances. But they needed more help, and soon, other internal medicine subspecialists were asked to volunteer, including rheumatologists and primary care sports medicine doctors.

As a rheumatologist, it had been well over 10 years since I had last done any inpatient work. I was filled with trepidation, but I was also excited to dive in.
 

April 4:

Feeling very unmoored. I am in unfamiliar territory, and it’s terrifying. There are so many things that I no longer know how to do. Thankfully, the hospitalists are gracious, extremely supportive, and helpful.

My N95 doesn’t fit well. It’s never fit — not during residency or fellowship, not in any job I’ve had, and not today. The lady fit-testing me said she was sorry, but the look on her face said, “I’m sorry, but you’re going to die.”
 

April 7:

We don’t know how to treat coronavirus. I’ve sent some patients home, others I’ve sent to the ICU. Thank goodness for treatment algorithms from leadership, but we are sorely lacking good-quality data.

Our infectious disease doctor doesn’t think hydroxychloroquine works at all; I suspect he is right. The guidance right now is to give hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to everyone who is sick enough to be admitted, but there are methodologic flaws in the early enthusiastic preprints, and so far, I’ve not noticed any demonstrable benefit.

The only thing that seems to be happening is that I am seeing more QT prolongation — not something I previously counseled my rheumatology patients on.
 

April 9:

The patients have been, with a few exceptions, alone in the room. They’re not allowed to have visitors and are required to wear masks all the time. Anyone who enters their rooms is fully covered up so you can barely see them. It’s anonymous and dehumanizing.

We’re instructed to take histories by phone in order to limit the time spent in each room. I buck this instruction; I still take histories in person because human contact seems more important now than ever.

Except maybe I should be smarter about this. One of my patients refuses any treatment, including oxygen support. She firmly believes this is a result of 5G networks — something I later discovered was a common conspiracy theory. She refused to wear a mask despite having a very bad cough. She coughed in my face a lot when we were chatting. My face with my ill-fitting N95 mask. Maybe the fit-testing lady’s eyes weren’t lying and I will die after all.
 

April 15:

On the days when I’m not working as a hospitalist, I am still doing remote visits with my rheumatology patients. It feels good to be doing something familiar and something I’m actually good at. But it is surreal to be faced with the quotidian on one hand and life and death on the other.

I recently saw a fairly new patient, and I still haven’t figured out if she has a rheumatic condition or if her symptoms all stem from an alcohol use disorder. In our previous visits, she could barely acknowledge that her drinking was an issue. On today’s visit, she told me she was 1½ months sober.

I don’t know her very well, but it was the happiest news I’d heard in a long time. I was so beside myself with joy that I cried, which says more about my current emotional state than anything else, really.
 

April 21:

On my panel of patients, I have three women with COVID-19 — all of whom lost their husbands to COVID-19, and none of whom were able to say their goodbyes. I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to survive this period of illness, isolation, and fear, only to be met on the other side by grief.

Rheumatology doesn’t lend itself too well to such existential concerns; I am not equipped for this. Perhaps my only advantage as a rheumatologist is that I know how to use IVIG, anakinra, and tocilizumab.

Someone on my panel was started on anakinra, and it turned his case around. Would he have gotten better without it anyway? We’ll never know for sure.
 

April 28:

Patients seem to be requiring prolonged intubation. We have now reached the stage where patients are alive but trached and PEGed. One of my patients had been intubated for close to 3 weeks. She was one of four people in her family who contracted the illness (they had had a dinner party before New York’s state of emergency was declared). We thought she might die once she was extubated, but she is still fighting. Unconscious, unarousable, but breathing on her own.

Will she ever wake up? We don’t know. We put the onus on her family to make decisions about placing a PEG tube in. They can only do so from a distance with imperfect information gleaned from periodic, brief FaceTime interactions — where no interaction happens at all.
 

May 4:

It’s my last day as a “COVID hospitalist.” When I first started, I felt like I was being helpful. Walking home in the middle of the 7 PM cheers for healthcare workers frequently left me teary eyed. As horrible as the situation was, I was proud of myself for volunteering to help and appreciative of a broken city’s gratitude toward all healthcare workers in general. Maybe I bought into the idea that, like many others around me, I am a hero.

I don’t feel like a hero, though. The stuff I saw was easy compared with the stuff that my colleagues in critical care saw. Our hospital accepted the more stable patient transfers from our sister hospitals. Patients who remained in the NewYork–Presbyterian system were sicker, with encephalitis, thrombotic complications, multiorgan failure, and cytokine release syndrome. It’s the doctors who took care of those patients who deserve to be called heroes.

No, I am no hero. But did my volunteering make a difference? It made a difference to me. The overwhelming feeling I am left with isn’t pride; it’s humility. I feel humbled that I could feel so unexpectedly touched by the lives of people that I had no idea I could feel touched by.
 

Postscript:

My patient Esther [name changed to hide her identity] died from COVID-19. She was MY patient — not a patient I met as a COVID hospitalist, but a patient with rheumatoid arthritis whom I cared for for years.

She had scleromalacia and multiple failed scleral grafts, which made her profoundly sad. She fought her anxiety fiercely and always with poise and panache. One way she dealt with her anxiety was that she constantly messaged me via our EHR portal. She ran everything by me and trusted me to be her rock.

The past month has been so busy that I just now noticed it had been a month since I last heard from her. I tried to call her but got her voicemail. It wasn’t until I exchanged messages with her ophthalmologist that I found out she had passed away from complications of COVID-19.

She was taking rituximab and mycophenolate. I wonder if these drugs made her sicker than she would have been otherwise; it fills me with sadness. I wonder if she was alone like my other COVID-19 patients. I wonder if she was afraid. I am sorry that I wasn’t able to say goodbye.

Karmela Kim Chan, MD, is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for this rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com. This article is part of a partnership between Medscape and Hospital for Special Surgery.

When the coronavirus pandemic hit New York City in early March, the Hospital for Special Surgery leadership decided that the best way to serve the city was to stop elective orthopedic procedures temporarily and use the facility to take on patients from its sister institution, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital.

As in other institutions, it was all hands on deck. We have hospitalists that are accustomed to managing postsurgical care and internists familiar with preop surgical clearances. But they needed more help, and soon, other internal medicine subspecialists were asked to volunteer, including rheumatologists and primary care sports medicine doctors.

As a rheumatologist, it had been well over 10 years since I had last done any inpatient work. I was filled with trepidation, but I was also excited to dive in.
 

April 4:

Feeling very unmoored. I am in unfamiliar territory, and it’s terrifying. There are so many things that I no longer know how to do. Thankfully, the hospitalists are gracious, extremely supportive, and helpful.

My N95 doesn’t fit well. It’s never fit — not during residency or fellowship, not in any job I’ve had, and not today. The lady fit-testing me said she was sorry, but the look on her face said, “I’m sorry, but you’re going to die.”
 

April 7:

We don’t know how to treat coronavirus. I’ve sent some patients home, others I’ve sent to the ICU. Thank goodness for treatment algorithms from leadership, but we are sorely lacking good-quality data.

Our infectious disease doctor doesn’t think hydroxychloroquine works at all; I suspect he is right. The guidance right now is to give hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to everyone who is sick enough to be admitted, but there are methodologic flaws in the early enthusiastic preprints, and so far, I’ve not noticed any demonstrable benefit.

The only thing that seems to be happening is that I am seeing more QT prolongation — not something I previously counseled my rheumatology patients on.
 

April 9:

The patients have been, with a few exceptions, alone in the room. They’re not allowed to have visitors and are required to wear masks all the time. Anyone who enters their rooms is fully covered up so you can barely see them. It’s anonymous and dehumanizing.

We’re instructed to take histories by phone in order to limit the time spent in each room. I buck this instruction; I still take histories in person because human contact seems more important now than ever.

Except maybe I should be smarter about this. One of my patients refuses any treatment, including oxygen support. She firmly believes this is a result of 5G networks — something I later discovered was a common conspiracy theory. She refused to wear a mask despite having a very bad cough. She coughed in my face a lot when we were chatting. My face with my ill-fitting N95 mask. Maybe the fit-testing lady’s eyes weren’t lying and I will die after all.
 

April 15:

On the days when I’m not working as a hospitalist, I am still doing remote visits with my rheumatology patients. It feels good to be doing something familiar and something I’m actually good at. But it is surreal to be faced with the quotidian on one hand and life and death on the other.

I recently saw a fairly new patient, and I still haven’t figured out if she has a rheumatic condition or if her symptoms all stem from an alcohol use disorder. In our previous visits, she could barely acknowledge that her drinking was an issue. On today’s visit, she told me she was 1½ months sober.

I don’t know her very well, but it was the happiest news I’d heard in a long time. I was so beside myself with joy that I cried, which says more about my current emotional state than anything else, really.
 

April 21:

On my panel of patients, I have three women with COVID-19 — all of whom lost their husbands to COVID-19, and none of whom were able to say their goodbyes. I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to survive this period of illness, isolation, and fear, only to be met on the other side by grief.

Rheumatology doesn’t lend itself too well to such existential concerns; I am not equipped for this. Perhaps my only advantage as a rheumatologist is that I know how to use IVIG, anakinra, and tocilizumab.

Someone on my panel was started on anakinra, and it turned his case around. Would he have gotten better without it anyway? We’ll never know for sure.
 

April 28:

Patients seem to be requiring prolonged intubation. We have now reached the stage where patients are alive but trached and PEGed. One of my patients had been intubated for close to 3 weeks. She was one of four people in her family who contracted the illness (they had had a dinner party before New York’s state of emergency was declared). We thought she might die once she was extubated, but she is still fighting. Unconscious, unarousable, but breathing on her own.

Will she ever wake up? We don’t know. We put the onus on her family to make decisions about placing a PEG tube in. They can only do so from a distance with imperfect information gleaned from periodic, brief FaceTime interactions — where no interaction happens at all.
 

May 4:

It’s my last day as a “COVID hospitalist.” When I first started, I felt like I was being helpful. Walking home in the middle of the 7 PM cheers for healthcare workers frequently left me teary eyed. As horrible as the situation was, I was proud of myself for volunteering to help and appreciative of a broken city’s gratitude toward all healthcare workers in general. Maybe I bought into the idea that, like many others around me, I am a hero.

I don’t feel like a hero, though. The stuff I saw was easy compared with the stuff that my colleagues in critical care saw. Our hospital accepted the more stable patient transfers from our sister hospitals. Patients who remained in the NewYork–Presbyterian system were sicker, with encephalitis, thrombotic complications, multiorgan failure, and cytokine release syndrome. It’s the doctors who took care of those patients who deserve to be called heroes.

No, I am no hero. But did my volunteering make a difference? It made a difference to me. The overwhelming feeling I am left with isn’t pride; it’s humility. I feel humbled that I could feel so unexpectedly touched by the lives of people that I had no idea I could feel touched by.
 

Postscript:

My patient Esther [name changed to hide her identity] died from COVID-19. She was MY patient — not a patient I met as a COVID hospitalist, but a patient with rheumatoid arthritis whom I cared for for years.

She had scleromalacia and multiple failed scleral grafts, which made her profoundly sad. She fought her anxiety fiercely and always with poise and panache. One way she dealt with her anxiety was that she constantly messaged me via our EHR portal. She ran everything by me and trusted me to be her rock.

The past month has been so busy that I just now noticed it had been a month since I last heard from her. I tried to call her but got her voicemail. It wasn’t until I exchanged messages with her ophthalmologist that I found out she had passed away from complications of COVID-19.

She was taking rituximab and mycophenolate. I wonder if these drugs made her sicker than she would have been otherwise; it fills me with sadness. I wonder if she was alone like my other COVID-19 patients. I wonder if she was afraid. I am sorry that I wasn’t able to say goodbye.

Karmela Kim Chan, MD, is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for this rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com. This article is part of a partnership between Medscape and Hospital for Special Surgery.

The first-in-class drug belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep, GlaxoSmithKline) has been recommended for conditional marketing approval in the European Union (EU) for use in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in patients who have already tried other therapies.

The product was accepted into the European Medicines Agency (EMA) PRIME program for medicines that have potential to address unmet medical needs, the agency noted.

Belantamab mafodotin was also recently recommended for U.S. approval when a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 12-0 in favor of the drug’s benefits outweighing risks in this patient population.

Specifically, these patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma should have already tried treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.

For patients who no longer respond to these drugs, the outlook is bleak, the EMA said. There is an unmet medical need for new treatments that improve survival of these patients beyond the currently observed 3 months or less.

Belantamab mafodotin has a novel mechanism of action: It targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), a protein present on the surface of virtually all multiple myeloma cells, but is absent from normal B-cells, thus “making it an ideal drug target,” the agency remarked.

The product is an antibody–drug conjugate that combines a monoclonal antibody that targets BCMA with the cytotoxic agent maleimidocaproyl monomethylauristatin F (mcMMAF). It homes in on BCMA on myeloma cell surfaces, and once inside the myeloma cell, the cytotoxic agent is released leading to apoptosis, the “programmed” death of the cancerous plasma cells, the agency explained.

Results from open-label study

The recommendation for conditional marketing authorization comes from the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) and was based on a phase 2, open-label, randomized, two-arm study, DREAMM-2.

The study investigated the efficacy and safety of two doses of belantamab mafodotin in patients with multiple myeloma who still had active disease after three or more lines of therapy and who no longer responded to treatment with immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

Six-month results were published in December in The Lancet Oncology. The overall response rate was 31% in the cohort given a 2.5-mg/kg dose of the drug; 30 of 97 patients had outcomes that met the study’s positive threshold.

Another 99 patients in DREAMM-2 received a dose of 3.4 mg/kg, which was judged to have a less favorable safety profile.

The EMA has requested further clinical data, including final results from the phase 2 study, as well as results from a confirmatory phase 3 trial comparing belantamab mafodotin with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (a standard treatment option for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma).

Ocular toxicity

One of the most common side effects of the new drug experienced by participants in clinical trials was keratopathy, which affects the cornea. This ocular toxicity was seen at both drug doses.

The EMA noted that patients taking the drug would need to undergo specific ophthalmic examinations so that any findings can be promptly and adequately managed. As for all medicines, a risk management plan (RMP) will ensure rigorous safety monitoring of the medicine once authorized across the European Union, it added.

At the FDA advisory committee meeting, it was noted that 44% of patients in the group that received the 2.5-mg/kg dose experienced at least one episode of severe keratopathy. In some patients, the ocular side effects caused severe vision loss that interfered with patients’ activities of daily living, such as driving and reading, FDA staff said.

For the United States, the manufacturer proposed a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for the detection and treatment of potential complications of belantamab. This includes recommendations for ophthalmic examinations, including assessment of best corrected visual acuity prior to each treatment cycle and promptly for patients with worsening symptoms.

One of the FDA advisory committee panelists, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn., said belantamab appeared to be well tolerated with the exception of ocular toxicity. Physicians need to acknowledge how severe this risk may be for patients while keeping in mind that belantamab still may be more tolerable for some than current treatments, she said.

“It’s reasonable to leave open the option for decision-making. Patients can express their values and preferences,” Thanarajasingam said. “There’s adequate, albeit not complete, information to guide this risk–benefit discussion in a REMS program.”

Heidi D. Klepin, MD, a professor at Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston Salem, N.C., agreed that the informed consent process should allow patients “to choose whether the trade-off is worth it” with belantamab.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first-in-class drug belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep, GlaxoSmithKline) has been recommended for conditional marketing approval in the European Union (EU) for use in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in patients who have already tried other therapies.

The product was accepted into the European Medicines Agency (EMA) PRIME program for medicines that have potential to address unmet medical needs, the agency noted.

Belantamab mafodotin was also recently recommended for U.S. approval when a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 12-0 in favor of the drug’s benefits outweighing risks in this patient population.

Specifically, these patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma should have already tried treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.

For patients who no longer respond to these drugs, the outlook is bleak, the EMA said. There is an unmet medical need for new treatments that improve survival of these patients beyond the currently observed 3 months or less.

Belantamab mafodotin has a novel mechanism of action: It targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), a protein present on the surface of virtually all multiple myeloma cells, but is absent from normal B-cells, thus “making it an ideal drug target,” the agency remarked.

The product is an antibody–drug conjugate that combines a monoclonal antibody that targets BCMA with the cytotoxic agent maleimidocaproyl monomethylauristatin F (mcMMAF). It homes in on BCMA on myeloma cell surfaces, and once inside the myeloma cell, the cytotoxic agent is released leading to apoptosis, the “programmed” death of the cancerous plasma cells, the agency explained.

Results from open-label study

The recommendation for conditional marketing authorization comes from the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) and was based on a phase 2, open-label, randomized, two-arm study, DREAMM-2.

The study investigated the efficacy and safety of two doses of belantamab mafodotin in patients with multiple myeloma who still had active disease after three or more lines of therapy and who no longer responded to treatment with immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

Six-month results were published in December in The Lancet Oncology. The overall response rate was 31% in the cohort given a 2.5-mg/kg dose of the drug; 30 of 97 patients had outcomes that met the study’s positive threshold.

Another 99 patients in DREAMM-2 received a dose of 3.4 mg/kg, which was judged to have a less favorable safety profile.

The EMA has requested further clinical data, including final results from the phase 2 study, as well as results from a confirmatory phase 3 trial comparing belantamab mafodotin with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (a standard treatment option for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma).

Ocular toxicity

One of the most common side effects of the new drug experienced by participants in clinical trials was keratopathy, which affects the cornea. This ocular toxicity was seen at both drug doses.

The EMA noted that patients taking the drug would need to undergo specific ophthalmic examinations so that any findings can be promptly and adequately managed. As for all medicines, a risk management plan (RMP) will ensure rigorous safety monitoring of the medicine once authorized across the European Union, it added.

At the FDA advisory committee meeting, it was noted that 44% of patients in the group that received the 2.5-mg/kg dose experienced at least one episode of severe keratopathy. In some patients, the ocular side effects caused severe vision loss that interfered with patients’ activities of daily living, such as driving and reading, FDA staff said.

For the United States, the manufacturer proposed a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for the detection and treatment of potential complications of belantamab. This includes recommendations for ophthalmic examinations, including assessment of best corrected visual acuity prior to each treatment cycle and promptly for patients with worsening symptoms.

One of the FDA advisory committee panelists, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn., said belantamab appeared to be well tolerated with the exception of ocular toxicity. Physicians need to acknowledge how severe this risk may be for patients while keeping in mind that belantamab still may be more tolerable for some than current treatments, she said.

“It’s reasonable to leave open the option for decision-making. Patients can express their values and preferences,” Thanarajasingam said. “There’s adequate, albeit not complete, information to guide this risk–benefit discussion in a REMS program.”

Heidi D. Klepin, MD, a professor at Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston Salem, N.C., agreed that the informed consent process should allow patients “to choose whether the trade-off is worth it” with belantamab.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first-in-class drug belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep, GlaxoSmithKline) has been recommended for conditional marketing approval in the European Union (EU) for use in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in patients who have already tried other therapies.

The product was accepted into the European Medicines Agency (EMA) PRIME program for medicines that have potential to address unmet medical needs, the agency noted.

Belantamab mafodotin was also recently recommended for U.S. approval when a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 12-0 in favor of the drug’s benefits outweighing risks in this patient population.

Specifically, these patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma should have already tried treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.

For patients who no longer respond to these drugs, the outlook is bleak, the EMA said. There is an unmet medical need for new treatments that improve survival of these patients beyond the currently observed 3 months or less.

Belantamab mafodotin has a novel mechanism of action: It targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), a protein present on the surface of virtually all multiple myeloma cells, but is absent from normal B-cells, thus “making it an ideal drug target,” the agency remarked.

The product is an antibody–drug conjugate that combines a monoclonal antibody that targets BCMA with the cytotoxic agent maleimidocaproyl monomethylauristatin F (mcMMAF). It homes in on BCMA on myeloma cell surfaces, and once inside the myeloma cell, the cytotoxic agent is released leading to apoptosis, the “programmed” death of the cancerous plasma cells, the agency explained.

Results from open-label study

The recommendation for conditional marketing authorization comes from the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) and was based on a phase 2, open-label, randomized, two-arm study, DREAMM-2.

The study investigated the efficacy and safety of two doses of belantamab mafodotin in patients with multiple myeloma who still had active disease after three or more lines of therapy and who no longer responded to treatment with immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

Six-month results were published in December in The Lancet Oncology. The overall response rate was 31% in the cohort given a 2.5-mg/kg dose of the drug; 30 of 97 patients had outcomes that met the study’s positive threshold.

Another 99 patients in DREAMM-2 received a dose of 3.4 mg/kg, which was judged to have a less favorable safety profile.

The EMA has requested further clinical data, including final results from the phase 2 study, as well as results from a confirmatory phase 3 trial comparing belantamab mafodotin with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (a standard treatment option for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma).

Ocular toxicity

One of the most common side effects of the new drug experienced by participants in clinical trials was keratopathy, which affects the cornea. This ocular toxicity was seen at both drug doses.

The EMA noted that patients taking the drug would need to undergo specific ophthalmic examinations so that any findings can be promptly and adequately managed. As for all medicines, a risk management plan (RMP) will ensure rigorous safety monitoring of the medicine once authorized across the European Union, it added.

At the FDA advisory committee meeting, it was noted that 44% of patients in the group that received the 2.5-mg/kg dose experienced at least one episode of severe keratopathy. In some patients, the ocular side effects caused severe vision loss that interfered with patients’ activities of daily living, such as driving and reading, FDA staff said.

For the United States, the manufacturer proposed a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for the detection and treatment of potential complications of belantamab. This includes recommendations for ophthalmic examinations, including assessment of best corrected visual acuity prior to each treatment cycle and promptly for patients with worsening symptoms.

One of the FDA advisory committee panelists, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn., said belantamab appeared to be well tolerated with the exception of ocular toxicity. Physicians need to acknowledge how severe this risk may be for patients while keeping in mind that belantamab still may be more tolerable for some than current treatments, she said.

“It’s reasonable to leave open the option for decision-making. Patients can express their values and preferences,” Thanarajasingam said. “There’s adequate, albeit not complete, information to guide this risk–benefit discussion in a REMS program.”

Heidi D. Klepin, MD, a professor at Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston Salem, N.C., agreed that the informed consent process should allow patients “to choose whether the trade-off is worth it” with belantamab.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Dear colleagues,

The August issue of The New Gastroenterologist has arrived! The summer of 2020 certainly looks different from years past, as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and we continue to adjust to the new realities of our personal and professional lives. Our third-year fellows have graduated amidst these unusual circumstances, some facing an uncertain job landscape. Yet their hard work is not lost upon us – as we must step back to recognize their achievements and bid them congratulations on the culmination of several years of training.

AGA Institute

The pandemic has been pervasive in medical education with a profound effect on our training programs. Two very resourceful fellows, Indira Bhavsar-Burke and Claire Jansson-Knodell (Indiana University), share their experience with COVID-19 and how they used this time to create an online curriculum for medical students who were pulled from their gastroenterology clinical rotations.

As we remain socially distanced, connecting through virtual platforms and social media seems more important than ever, but digital media can be difficult to navigate as physicians. Austin Chiang (Thomas Jefferson University) offers a candid snapshot of the benefits and pitfalls of social media as a gastroenterologist, with advice on how to optimize one’s professional presence online.

This quarter’s “In Focus” feature is an excellent, high-yield review of eosinophilic esophagitis. Ronak Vashi Patel and Ikuo Hirano (Northwestern University) seek to answer frequently asked questions about diagnostic considerations and the approach to management by reviewing therapeutic options – a truly valuable clinical piece to guide any young gastroenterologist.

Our medical ethics series features a poignant piece written by Diana Anderson (University of California, San Francisco) and David Seres (Columbia University) on the role of nutritional support in patients with restrictive eating disorders. The article addresses the complex interplay between certain diagnoses and our emotive response as clinicians – a critical piece of patient care that is seldom discussed. The authors implore us to consider this difficult question: Could our unconscious partiality as physicians be worse than intentional harm?

Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa (Harvard University) discusses how her interest in health equity and health care policy led her to the Commonwealth Fund Fellowship in Minority Health Policy. Her passion for health care delivery reform and the care of vulnerable populations shines through as she describes how this post-GI fellowship pathway has been formative in shaping her career as a dynamic new gastroenterologist.

For those interested in serving as an expert witness, seasoned malpractice attorneys Daniel Mills and Courtney Lindbert (Cunningham, Meyer & Vedrine P.C.) offer a salient list of the “do’s and don’ts” of the medical expert. Finally, this summer’s DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Michael Weinstein (Capital Digestive Care), offers important considerations for evaluating independent GI practices and how their response to COVID-19 can dictate their preparedness for future crises.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (vijayarao@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu), or Ryan Farrell (rfarrell@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.
 

Stay well,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant professor of medicine, University of Chicago, section of gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition

Dear colleagues,

The August issue of The New Gastroenterologist has arrived! The summer of 2020 certainly looks different from years past, as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and we continue to adjust to the new realities of our personal and professional lives. Our third-year fellows have graduated amidst these unusual circumstances, some facing an uncertain job landscape. Yet their hard work is not lost upon us – as we must step back to recognize their achievements and bid them congratulations on the culmination of several years of training.

AGA Institute

The pandemic has been pervasive in medical education with a profound effect on our training programs. Two very resourceful fellows, Indira Bhavsar-Burke and Claire Jansson-Knodell (Indiana University), share their experience with COVID-19 and how they used this time to create an online curriculum for medical students who were pulled from their gastroenterology clinical rotations.

As we remain socially distanced, connecting through virtual platforms and social media seems more important than ever, but digital media can be difficult to navigate as physicians. Austin Chiang (Thomas Jefferson University) offers a candid snapshot of the benefits and pitfalls of social media as a gastroenterologist, with advice on how to optimize one’s professional presence online.

This quarter’s “In Focus” feature is an excellent, high-yield review of eosinophilic esophagitis. Ronak Vashi Patel and Ikuo Hirano (Northwestern University) seek to answer frequently asked questions about diagnostic considerations and the approach to management by reviewing therapeutic options – a truly valuable clinical piece to guide any young gastroenterologist.

Our medical ethics series features a poignant piece written by Diana Anderson (University of California, San Francisco) and David Seres (Columbia University) on the role of nutritional support in patients with restrictive eating disorders. The article addresses the complex interplay between certain diagnoses and our emotive response as clinicians – a critical piece of patient care that is seldom discussed. The authors implore us to consider this difficult question: Could our unconscious partiality as physicians be worse than intentional harm?

Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa (Harvard University) discusses how her interest in health equity and health care policy led her to the Commonwealth Fund Fellowship in Minority Health Policy. Her passion for health care delivery reform and the care of vulnerable populations shines through as she describes how this post-GI fellowship pathway has been formative in shaping her career as a dynamic new gastroenterologist.

For those interested in serving as an expert witness, seasoned malpractice attorneys Daniel Mills and Courtney Lindbert (Cunningham, Meyer & Vedrine P.C.) offer a salient list of the “do’s and don’ts” of the medical expert. Finally, this summer’s DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Michael Weinstein (Capital Digestive Care), offers important considerations for evaluating independent GI practices and how their response to COVID-19 can dictate their preparedness for future crises.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (vijayarao@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu), or Ryan Farrell (rfarrell@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.
 

Stay well,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant professor of medicine, University of Chicago, section of gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition

Dear colleagues,

The August issue of The New Gastroenterologist has arrived! The summer of 2020 certainly looks different from years past, as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and we continue to adjust to the new realities of our personal and professional lives. Our third-year fellows have graduated amidst these unusual circumstances, some facing an uncertain job landscape. Yet their hard work is not lost upon us – as we must step back to recognize their achievements and bid them congratulations on the culmination of several years of training.

AGA Institute

The pandemic has been pervasive in medical education with a profound effect on our training programs. Two very resourceful fellows, Indira Bhavsar-Burke and Claire Jansson-Knodell (Indiana University), share their experience with COVID-19 and how they used this time to create an online curriculum for medical students who were pulled from their gastroenterology clinical rotations.

As we remain socially distanced, connecting through virtual platforms and social media seems more important than ever, but digital media can be difficult to navigate as physicians. Austin Chiang (Thomas Jefferson University) offers a candid snapshot of the benefits and pitfalls of social media as a gastroenterologist, with advice on how to optimize one’s professional presence online.

This quarter’s “In Focus” feature is an excellent, high-yield review of eosinophilic esophagitis. Ronak Vashi Patel and Ikuo Hirano (Northwestern University) seek to answer frequently asked questions about diagnostic considerations and the approach to management by reviewing therapeutic options – a truly valuable clinical piece to guide any young gastroenterologist.

Our medical ethics series features a poignant piece written by Diana Anderson (University of California, San Francisco) and David Seres (Columbia University) on the role of nutritional support in patients with restrictive eating disorders. The article addresses the complex interplay between certain diagnoses and our emotive response as clinicians – a critical piece of patient care that is seldom discussed. The authors implore us to consider this difficult question: Could our unconscious partiality as physicians be worse than intentional harm?

Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa (Harvard University) discusses how her interest in health equity and health care policy led her to the Commonwealth Fund Fellowship in Minority Health Policy. Her passion for health care delivery reform and the care of vulnerable populations shines through as she describes how this post-GI fellowship pathway has been formative in shaping her career as a dynamic new gastroenterologist.

For those interested in serving as an expert witness, seasoned malpractice attorneys Daniel Mills and Courtney Lindbert (Cunningham, Meyer & Vedrine P.C.) offer a salient list of the “do’s and don’ts” of the medical expert. Finally, this summer’s DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Michael Weinstein (Capital Digestive Care), offers important considerations for evaluating independent GI practices and how their response to COVID-19 can dictate their preparedness for future crises.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (vijayarao@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu), or Ryan Farrell (rfarrell@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.
 

Stay well,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant professor of medicine, University of Chicago, section of gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition

The top three contact allergens in patients younger than 18 years of age are hydroperoxides of linalool, nickel sulfate, and methylisothiazolinone, according to an analysis of data from the Pediatric Allergic Contact Dermatitis Registry.

The registry is the first multicenter prospective database in the United States with a focus on pediatric allergic contact dermatitis. JiaDe (Jeff) Yu, MD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, was awarded a Dermatology Foundation Career Development Grant and formed the registry in 2018 “in an effort to gain a better understanding of allergic contact dermatitis in children,” Idy Tam, MS, said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “There is currently limited data regarding the pediatric allergic contact dermatitis in the U.S., despite as many as 20% of children having allergic contact dermatitis.”

To date, the Pediatric Allergic Contact Dermatitis Registry consists of 10 academic medical centers with high volume pediatric patch testing across the United States: Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; the University of Missouri–Columbia; Stanford (Calif.) University; the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston; Northwestern University, Chicago; Emory University, Atlanta; Washington University, St. Louis; and the University of California, San Diego.

For the current analysis, Ms. Tam, a research fellow in the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, and colleagues collected data on 218 patients under age 18 who were referred for an evaluation of allergic contact dermatitis at one of the 10 participating sites between January 2016 and June 2020.

The mean age of children at the time of their patch testing was 10 years, 62% were girls, and 66% had a history of atopic dermatitis (AD). Most (75%) were White, 14% were Black, 6% were Asian, the rest were from other racial backgrounds. The distribution of dermatitis varied; the top five most commonly affected sites were the face (62%), arms (35%), legs (29%), hands (27%), and neck (20%).

Ms. Tam reported that the mean number of allergens patch tested per child was 78. In all, 81% of children had one or more positive patch test reactions, with a similar rate among those with and without a history of AD (80% vs. 82%, respectively; P = .21). The five most common allergens were hydroperoxides of linalool (22%), nickel sulfate (19%), methylisothiazolinone (17%), cobalt chloride (13%), and fragrance mix I (12%).

The top two treatments at the time of patch testing were a topical corticosteroid (78%) and a topical calcineurin inhibitor (26%).

“This study has allowed for the increased collaboration among dermatologists with expertise in pediatric dermatology and allergic contact dermatitis,” concluded Ms. Tam, a fourth-year medical student at Tufts University, Boston. “We continue to actively seek further collaboration with a goal of creating the most comprehensive pediatric allergic contact dermatitis registry, which can improve our understanding of this condition in children and hopefully guide future research in this field.”

The work was recognized as one of the top poster abstracts at the meeting. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The top three contact allergens in patients younger than 18 years of age are hydroperoxides of linalool, nickel sulfate, and methylisothiazolinone, according to an analysis of data from the Pediatric Allergic Contact Dermatitis Registry.

The registry is the first multicenter prospective database in the United States with a focus on pediatric allergic contact dermatitis. JiaDe (Jeff) Yu, MD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, was awarded a Dermatology Foundation Career Development Grant and formed the registry in 2018 “in an effort to gain a better understanding of allergic contact dermatitis in children,” Idy Tam, MS, said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “There is currently limited data regarding the pediatric allergic contact dermatitis in the U.S., despite as many as 20% of children having allergic contact dermatitis.”

To date, the Pediatric Allergic Contact Dermatitis Registry consists of 10 academic medical centers with high volume pediatric patch testing across the United States: Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; the University of Missouri–Columbia; Stanford (Calif.) University; the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston; Northwestern University, Chicago; Emory University, Atlanta; Washington University, St. Louis; and the University of California, San Diego.

For the current analysis, Ms. Tam, a research fellow in the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, and colleagues collected data on 218 patients under age 18 who were referred for an evaluation of allergic contact dermatitis at one of the 10 participating sites between January 2016 and June 2020.

The mean age of children at the time of their patch testing was 10 years, 62% were girls, and 66% had a history of atopic dermatitis (AD). Most (75%) were White, 14% were Black, 6% were Asian, the rest were from other racial backgrounds. The distribution of dermatitis varied; the top five most commonly affected sites were the face (62%), arms (35%), legs (29%), hands (27%), and neck (20%).

Ms. Tam reported that the mean number of allergens patch tested per child was 78. In all, 81% of children had one or more positive patch test reactions, with a similar rate among those with and without a history of AD (80% vs. 82%, respectively; P = .21). The five most common allergens were hydroperoxides of linalool (22%), nickel sulfate (19%), methylisothiazolinone (17%), cobalt chloride (13%), and fragrance mix I (12%).

The top two treatments at the time of patch testing were a topical corticosteroid (78%) and a topical calcineurin inhibitor (26%).

“This study has allowed for the increased collaboration among dermatologists with expertise in pediatric dermatology and allergic contact dermatitis,” concluded Ms. Tam, a fourth-year medical student at Tufts University, Boston. “We continue to actively seek further collaboration with a goal of creating the most comprehensive pediatric allergic contact dermatitis registry, which can improve our understanding of this condition in children and hopefully guide future research in this field.”

The work was recognized as one of the top poster abstracts at the meeting. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The top three contact allergens in patients younger than 18 years of age are hydroperoxides of linalool, nickel sulfate, and methylisothiazolinone, according to an analysis of data from the Pediatric Allergic Contact Dermatitis Registry.

The registry is the first multicenter prospective database in the United States with a focus on pediatric allergic contact dermatitis. JiaDe (Jeff) Yu, MD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, was awarded a Dermatology Foundation Career Development Grant and formed the registry in 2018 “in an effort to gain a better understanding of allergic contact dermatitis in children,” Idy Tam, MS, said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “There is currently limited data regarding the pediatric allergic contact dermatitis in the U.S., despite as many as 20% of children having allergic contact dermatitis.”

To date, the Pediatric Allergic Contact Dermatitis Registry consists of 10 academic medical centers with high volume pediatric patch testing across the United States: Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; the University of Missouri–Columbia; Stanford (Calif.) University; the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston; Northwestern University, Chicago; Emory University, Atlanta; Washington University, St. Louis; and the University of California, San Diego.

For the current analysis, Ms. Tam, a research fellow in the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, and colleagues collected data on 218 patients under age 18 who were referred for an evaluation of allergic contact dermatitis at one of the 10 participating sites between January 2016 and June 2020.

The mean age of children at the time of their patch testing was 10 years, 62% were girls, and 66% had a history of atopic dermatitis (AD). Most (75%) were White, 14% were Black, 6% were Asian, the rest were from other racial backgrounds. The distribution of dermatitis varied; the top five most commonly affected sites were the face (62%), arms (35%), legs (29%), hands (27%), and neck (20%).

Ms. Tam reported that the mean number of allergens patch tested per child was 78. In all, 81% of children had one or more positive patch test reactions, with a similar rate among those with and without a history of AD (80% vs. 82%, respectively; P = .21). The five most common allergens were hydroperoxides of linalool (22%), nickel sulfate (19%), methylisothiazolinone (17%), cobalt chloride (13%), and fragrance mix I (12%).

The top two treatments at the time of patch testing were a topical corticosteroid (78%) and a topical calcineurin inhibitor (26%).

“This study has allowed for the increased collaboration among dermatologists with expertise in pediatric dermatology and allergic contact dermatitis,” concluded Ms. Tam, a fourth-year medical student at Tufts University, Boston. “We continue to actively seek further collaboration with a goal of creating the most comprehensive pediatric allergic contact dermatitis registry, which can improve our understanding of this condition in children and hopefully guide future research in this field.”

The work was recognized as one of the top poster abstracts at the meeting. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has given a thumbs up to avapritinib and acalabrutinib, paving the way for the drugs’ approval in the European Union (EU). 

The CHMP recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for avapritinib (Ayvakit, Blueprint Medicines) for use in adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) harboring a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exon 18 mutation, including PDGFRA D842V mutations. About 6%-10% of GIST tumors harbor this mutation, and avapritinib is a selective and potent inhibitor of KIT and PDGFRA mutant kinases.

The CHMP also adopted a positive opinion for acalabrutinib (Calquence, AstraZeneca) for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as monotherapy in patients who are treatment-naive or have received at least one prior therapy.

The CHMP opinion on both drugs will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to grant marketing authorization for medicinal products in the EU.

Detailed recommendations for the use of both drugs will be provided in the summary of product characteristics, which will be published in the European public assessment report and made available in all official EU languages after the products receive marketing authorization by the European Commission.

First targeted therapy for mutation

If approved by the European Commission, avapritinib would be the first treatment in the EU indicated for patients with PDGFRA D842V-mutant GIST.

Avapritinib was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) earlier this year for the aforementioned indication. The FDA approval was based on findings from the phase 1 NAVIGATOR trial, which included 43 patients with GIST harboring a PDGFRA exon 18 mutation, including 38 patients with the most common mutation, PDGFRA D842V.

For patients harboring a PDGFRA exon 18 mutation, the overall response rate (ORR) was 84%, with 7% having a complete response and 77% having a partial response. Patients with the PDGFRA D842V mutation achieved an ORR of 89%, with 8% having a complete response and 82% having a partial response.

“GIST harboring a PDGFRA exon 18 mutation do not respond to standard therapies ... Today’s approval provides patients with the first drug specifically approved for GIST harboring this mutation,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, in a statement at the time of approval.

The most common side effects (≥ 20% of patients) observed in patients taking avapritinib include nausea, fatigue, anemia, periorbital edema, face edema, hyperbilirubinemia, diarrhea, vomiting, peripheral edema, increased lacrimation, decreased appetite, and memory impairment. There may also be a risk of intracranial hemorrhage, in which case the dose should be reduced or the drug should be discontinued.

In the EU, conditional marketing authorization is granted to a medicinal product that fulfills an unmet medical need when the benefit to public health of immediate availability outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required, the CHMP notes on its website. 

Avapritinib had received an orphan medicine designation during development, which the EMA will review to determine if the designation can be maintained.

New treatment for CLL

Acalabrutinib is already approved in the United States, Canada, and Australia for the treatment of CLL and small lymphocytic lymphoma. The product was approved at the same time by all three regulatory authorities last year.  In the United States, acalabrutinib had previously been approved for use in mantle cell lymphoma.

The CHMP’s positive opinion of acalabrutinib is based on results from two phase 3 trials, ELEVATE TN and ASCEND.

In the ASCEND trial, acalabrutinib was compared with investigator’s choice of idelalisib or bendamustine with rituximab. The trial, which involved 310 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL, showed that acalabrutinib improved progression-free survival (PFS).

At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, the median PFS was not reached with acalabrutinib and was 16.5 months with investigator’s choice of therapy (P < .0001).

The most commonly reported adverse events seen with acalabrutinib were respiratory tract infections, headache, bruising, contusion, diarrhea, nausea, rash, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, and decreased platelets.

In the ELEVATE TN trial, acalabrutinib was given alone or combined with obinutuzumab and compared to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated CLL. There were 535 patients randomized to receive acalabrutinib alone (n = 179), acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab (n = 179), and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (n = 177).

At a median follow-up of 28 months, the median PFS was not reached with acalabrutinib alone or with acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab, but the median PFS was 22.6 months in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab arm (P < .0001 for both comparisons).

The most common adverse events in the acalabrutinib arms were headache, diarrhea, neutropenia, and nausea.
 

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

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has given a thumbs up to avapritinib and acalabrutinib, paving the way for the drugs’ approval in the European Union (EU). 

The CHMP recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for avapritinib (Ayvakit, Blueprint Medicines) for use in adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) harboring a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exon 18 mutation, including PDGFRA D842V mutations. About 6%-10% of GIST tumors harbor this mutation, and avapritinib is a selective and potent inhibitor of KIT and PDGFRA mutant kinases.

The CHMP also adopted a positive opinion for acalabrutinib (Calquence, AstraZeneca) for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as monotherapy in patients who are treatment-naive or have received at least one prior therapy.

The CHMP opinion on both drugs will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to grant marketing authorization for medicinal products in the EU.

Detailed recommendations for the use of both drugs will be provided in the summary of product characteristics, which will be published in the European public assessment report and made available in all official EU languages after the products receive marketing authorization by the European Commission.

First targeted therapy for mutation

If approved by the European Commission, avapritinib would be the first treatment in the EU indicated for patients with PDGFRA D842V-mutant GIST.

Avapritinib was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) earlier this year for the aforementioned indication. The FDA approval was based on findings from the phase 1 NAVIGATOR trial, which included 43 patients with GIST harboring a PDGFRA exon 18 mutation, including 38 patients with the most common mutation, PDGFRA D842V.

For patients harboring a PDGFRA exon 18 mutation, the overall response rate (ORR) was 84%, with 7% having a complete response and 77% having a partial response. Patients with the PDGFRA D842V mutation achieved an ORR of 89%, with 8% having a complete response and 82% having a partial response.

“GIST harboring a PDGFRA exon 18 mutation do not respond to standard therapies ... Today’s approval provides patients with the first drug specifically approved for GIST harboring this mutation,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, in a statement at the time of approval.

The most common side effects (≥ 20% of patients) observed in patients taking avapritinib include nausea, fatigue, anemia, periorbital edema, face edema, hyperbilirubinemia, diarrhea, vomiting, peripheral edema, increased lacrimation, decreased appetite, and memory impairment. There may also be a risk of intracranial hemorrhage, in which case the dose should be reduced or the drug should be discontinued.

In the EU, conditional marketing authorization is granted to a medicinal product that fulfills an unmet medical need when the benefit to public health of immediate availability outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required, the CHMP notes on its website. 

Avapritinib had received an orphan medicine designation during development, which the EMA will review to determine if the designation can be maintained.

New treatment for CLL

Acalabrutinib is already approved in the United States, Canada, and Australia for the treatment of CLL and small lymphocytic lymphoma. The product was approved at the same time by all three regulatory authorities last year.  In the United States, acalabrutinib had previously been approved for use in mantle cell lymphoma.

The CHMP’s positive opinion of acalabrutinib is based on results from two phase 3 trials, ELEVATE TN and ASCEND.

In the ASCEND trial, acalabrutinib was compared with investigator’s choice of idelalisib or bendamustine with rituximab. The trial, which involved 310 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL, showed that acalabrutinib improved progression-free survival (PFS).

At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, the median PFS was not reached with acalabrutinib and was 16.5 months with investigator’s choice of therapy (P < .0001).

The most commonly reported adverse events seen with acalabrutinib were respiratory tract infections, headache, bruising, contusion, diarrhea, nausea, rash, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, and decreased platelets.

In the ELEVATE TN trial, acalabrutinib was given alone or combined with obinutuzumab and compared to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated CLL. There were 535 patients randomized to receive acalabrutinib alone (n = 179), acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab (n = 179), and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (n = 177).

At a median follow-up of 28 months, the median PFS was not reached with acalabrutinib alone or with acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab, but the median PFS was 22.6 months in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab arm (P < .0001 for both comparisons).

The most common adverse events in the acalabrutinib arms were headache, diarrhea, neutropenia, and nausea.
 

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

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has given a thumbs up to avapritinib and acalabrutinib, paving the way for the drugs’ approval in the European Union (EU). 

The CHMP recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for avapritinib (Ayvakit, Blueprint Medicines) for use in adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) harboring a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exon 18 mutation, including PDGFRA D842V mutations. About 6%-10% of GIST tumors harbor this mutation, and avapritinib is a selective and potent inhibitor of KIT and PDGFRA mutant kinases.

The CHMP also adopted a positive opinion for acalabrutinib (Calquence, AstraZeneca) for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as monotherapy in patients who are treatment-naive or have received at least one prior therapy.

The CHMP opinion on both drugs will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to grant marketing authorization for medicinal products in the EU.

Detailed recommendations for the use of both drugs will be provided in the summary of product characteristics, which will be published in the European public assessment report and made available in all official EU languages after the products receive marketing authorization by the European Commission.

First targeted therapy for mutation

If approved by the European Commission, avapritinib would be the first treatment in the EU indicated for patients with PDGFRA D842V-mutant GIST.

Avapritinib was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) earlier this year for the aforementioned indication. The FDA approval was based on findings from the phase 1 NAVIGATOR trial, which included 43 patients with GIST harboring a PDGFRA exon 18 mutation, including 38 patients with the most common mutation, PDGFRA D842V.

For patients harboring a PDGFRA exon 18 mutation, the overall response rate (ORR) was 84%, with 7% having a complete response and 77% having a partial response. Patients with the PDGFRA D842V mutation achieved an ORR of 89%, with 8% having a complete response and 82% having a partial response.

“GIST harboring a PDGFRA exon 18 mutation do not respond to standard therapies ... Today’s approval provides patients with the first drug specifically approved for GIST harboring this mutation,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, in a statement at the time of approval.

The most common side effects (≥ 20% of patients) observed in patients taking avapritinib include nausea, fatigue, anemia, periorbital edema, face edema, hyperbilirubinemia, diarrhea, vomiting, peripheral edema, increased lacrimation, decreased appetite, and memory impairment. There may also be a risk of intracranial hemorrhage, in which case the dose should be reduced or the drug should be discontinued.

In the EU, conditional marketing authorization is granted to a medicinal product that fulfills an unmet medical need when the benefit to public health of immediate availability outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required, the CHMP notes on its website. 

Avapritinib had received an orphan medicine designation during development, which the EMA will review to determine if the designation can be maintained.

New treatment for CLL

Acalabrutinib is already approved in the United States, Canada, and Australia for the treatment of CLL and small lymphocytic lymphoma. The product was approved at the same time by all three regulatory authorities last year.  In the United States, acalabrutinib had previously been approved for use in mantle cell lymphoma.

The CHMP’s positive opinion of acalabrutinib is based on results from two phase 3 trials, ELEVATE TN and ASCEND.

In the ASCEND trial, acalabrutinib was compared with investigator’s choice of idelalisib or bendamustine with rituximab. The trial, which involved 310 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL, showed that acalabrutinib improved progression-free survival (PFS).

At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, the median PFS was not reached with acalabrutinib and was 16.5 months with investigator’s choice of therapy (P < .0001).

The most commonly reported adverse events seen with acalabrutinib were respiratory tract infections, headache, bruising, contusion, diarrhea, nausea, rash, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, and decreased platelets.

In the ELEVATE TN trial, acalabrutinib was given alone or combined with obinutuzumab and compared to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated CLL. There were 535 patients randomized to receive acalabrutinib alone (n = 179), acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab (n = 179), and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (n = 177).

At a median follow-up of 28 months, the median PFS was not reached with acalabrutinib alone or with acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab, but the median PFS was 22.6 months in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab arm (P < .0001 for both comparisons).

The most common adverse events in the acalabrutinib arms were headache, diarrhea, neutropenia, and nausea.
 

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