The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies were first published in 2010 to help define a specific body of knowledge and measurable skills needed to practice high quality care for hospitalized pediatric patients across all practice settings.¹ Since then, the number of practicing pediatric hospitalists has grown to a conservative estimate of 3,000 physicians and the scope of practice among pediatric hospitalists has matured.² Pediatric hospitalists are increasingly leading or participating in organizational and national efforts that emphasize interprofessional collaboration and the delivery of high value care to hospitalized children and their caregivers—including innovative and family-centered care models, patient safety and quality improvement initiatives, and research and educational enterprises.^3-8 In response to these changes, the American Board of Medical Specialties designated Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) as a pediatric subspecialty in 2016.

The field of PHM in the United States continues to be supported by three core societies—Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and Academic Pediatric Association (APA). Together, these societies serve as tri-sponsors of the annual Pediatric Hospital Medicine national conference, which now welcomes over 1,200 attendees from the United States and abroad.⁹ Each society also individually sponsors a variety of professional development and continuing medical education activities specific to PHM.

In addition, pediatric hospitalists often serve a pivotal role in teaching learners (medical students, residents, and other health profession students), physician colleagues, and other healthcare professionals on the hospital wards and via institutional educational programs. Nearly 50 institutions in the United States offer graduate medical education training in PHM.¹⁰ The PHM Fellowship Directors Council has developed a standardized curricular framework and entrustable professional activities, which reflect the tenets of competency-based medical education, for use in PHM training programs.^11-13

These changes in the practice environment of pediatric hospitalists, as well as the changing landscape of graduate and continuing medical education in PHM, have informed this revision of The PHM Core Competencies. The purpose of this article is to describe the methodology of the review and revision process.

Revision

The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision provide a framework for graduate and continuing medical education that reflects the current roles and expectations for all pediatric hospitalists in the United States. The acuity and complexity of hospitalized children, the availability of pediatric subspecialty care and other resources, and the institutional orientation towards pediatric populations vary across community, tertiary, and children’s hospital settings. In order to unify the practice of PHM across these environments, The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision address the fundamental and most common components of PHM which are encountered by the majority of practicing pediatric hospitalists, as opposed to an extensive review of all aspects of the field.

The compendium includes 66 chapters on both clinical and nonclinical topics, divided into four sections—Common Clinical Diagnoses and Conditions, Core Skills, Specialized Services, and Healthcare Systems: Supporting and Advancing Child Health (Table 1). Within each chapter is an introductory paragraph and learning objectives in three domains of educational outcomes—cognitive (knowledge), psychomotor (skills), and affective (attitudes)—as well as systems organization and improvement, to reflect the emphasis of PHM practice on improving healthcare systems. The objectives encompass a range of observable behaviors and other attributes, from foundational skills such as taking a history and performing a physical exam to more advanced actions such as participating in the development of care models to support the health of complex patient populations. Implicit in these objectives is the expectation that pediatric hospitalists build on experiences in medical school and residency training to attain a level of competency at the advanced levels of a developmental continuum, such as proficient, expert, or master.¹⁴

Project Initiation

Revision of The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision began in early 2017 following SHM’s work on The Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine 2017 Revision.¹⁵ The Executive Committee of the SHM Pediatrics Special Interest Group (SIG) supported the initiation of the revision. The 3 editors from the original compendium created an initial plan for the project that included a proposed timeline, processes for engagement of previously involved experts and new talent, and performance of a needs assessment to guide content selection. The Figure highlights these and other important steps in the revision process.

Editor and Associate Editor Selection

The above editors reviewed best practice examples of roles and responsibilities for editor and associate editor positions from relevant, leading societies and journals. From this review, the editors created an editorial structure specifically for The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision. A new position of Contributing Editor was created to address the need for dedicated attention to the community site perspective and ensure review of all content, within and across chapters, by a pediatric hospitalist who is dedicated to this environment. Solicitation for additional editors and associate editors occurred via the SHM Pediatrics SIG to the wider SHM membership. The criteria for selection included active engagement in regional or national activities related to the growth and operations of PHM, strong organizational and leadership skills, including the ability to manage tasks and foster creativity, among others. In addition, a deliberate effort was made to recruit a diverse editorial cohort, considering geographic location, primary work environment, organizational affiliations, content expertise, time in practice, gender, and other factors.

Chapter Topic Selection

The editors conducted a two-pronged needs assessment related to optimal content for inclusion in The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision. First, the editors reviewed content from conferences, textbooks, and handbooks specific to the field of PHM, including the conference programs for the most recent 5 years of both the annual PHM national conference and annual meetings of PHM’s 3 core societies in the United States—SHM, AAP, and APA. Second, the editors conducted a needs assessment survey with several stakeholder groups, including SHM’s Pediatrics and Medicine-Pediatrics SIGs, AAP Section on Hospital Medicine and its subcommittees, APA Hospital Medicine SIG, PHM Fellowship Directors Council, and PHM Division Directors, with encouragement to pass the survey link to others in the PHM community interested in providing input (Appendix Figure). The solicitation asked for comment on existing chapters and suggestions for new chapters. For any new chapter, respondents were asked to note the intended purpose of the chapter and the anticipated value that chapter would bring to our profession and the children and the caregivers served by pediatric hospitalists.

The entire editorial board then reviewed all of the needs assessment data and considered potential changes (additions or deletions) based on emerging trends in pediatric healthcare, the frequency, relevance, and value of the item across all environments in which pediatric hospitalists function, and the value to or impact on hospitalized children and caregivers. Almost all survey ratings and comments were either incorporated into an existing chapter or used to create a new chapter. There was a paucity of comments related to the deletion of chapters, and thus no chapters were entirely excluded. However, there were several comments supporting the exclusion of the suprapubic bladder tap procedure, and thus related content was eliminated from the relevant section in Core Skills. Of the 66 chapters in this revision, the needs assessment data directly informed the creation of 12 new chapters, as well as adjustments and/or additions to the titles of 7 chapters and the content of 29 chapters. In addition, the title of the Specialized Clinical Services section was changed to Specialized Services to represent that both clinical and nonclinical competencies reside in this section devoted to comprehensive management of these unique patient populations commonly encountered by pediatric hospitalists. Many of these changes are highlighted in Table 2.

Author selection

Authors from the initial work were invited to participate again as author of their given chapter. Subsequently, authors were identified for new chapters and chapters for which previous authors were no longer able to be engaged. Authors with content expertise were found by reviewing content from conferences, textbooks, and handbooks specific to the field of PHM. Any content expert who was not identified as a pediatric hospitalist was paired with a pediatric hospitalist as coauthor. In addition, as with the editorial board, a deliberate effort was made to recruit a diverse author cohort, considering geographic location, primary work environment, time in practice, gender, and other factors.

The editorial board held numerous conference calls to review potential authors, and the SHM Pediatrics SIG was directly engaged to ensure authorship opportunities were extended broadly. This vetting process resulted in a robust author list and included members of all three of PHM’s sponsoring societies in the United States. Once participation was confirmed, authors received an “author packet” detailing the process with the proposed timeline, resources related to writing learning objectives, the past chapter (if applicable), assigned associate editor, and other helpful resources.

Internal and External Review Process

After all chapters were drafted, the editorial board conducted a rigorous, internal review process. Each chapter was reviewed by at least one associate editor and two editors, with a focus on content, scope, and a standard approach to phrasing and formatting. In addition, the contributing editor reviewed all the chapters to ensure the community hospitalist perspective was adequately represented.

Thirty-two agencies and societies were solicited for external review, including both those involved in review of the previous edition and new stakeholder groups. External reviewers were first contacted to ascertain their interest in participating in the review process, and if interested, were provided with information on the review process. Robust feedback was received from the APA Hospital Medicine SIG, SHM Pediatrics and Medicine-Pediatrics SIGs, Association of Pediatric Program Directors Curriculum Committee, and 20 AAP committees, councils, and sections.

The feedback from the external reviewers and subsequent edits for each chapter were reviewed by at least one associate editor, two editors, and the contributing editor. Authors were engaged to address any salient changes recommended. As the final steps in the review process, the SHM Board of Directors approved the compendium and the APA provided their endorsement.

This second edition of The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision addresses the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and systems organization and improvement objectives that define the field of pediatric hospital medicine and the leadership roles of pediatric hospitalists. This compendium reflects the recent changes in the practice and educational environments of pediatric hospitalists and can inform education, training, and career development for pediatric hospitalists across all environments in which comprehensive care is rendered for the hospitalized child. Future work at the local and national level can lead to development of associated curricula, conference content, and other training materials.

Acknowledgments

We wish to humbly and respectfully acknowledge the work of the authors, editors, and reviewers involved in the creation of the first edition, as well as this revision, of The PHM Core Competencies. In addition, we are grateful for the input of all pediatric hospitalists and other stakeholders who informed this compendium via contributions to the needs assessment survey, conference proceedings, publications, and other works. Finally, we acknowledge the support and work of SHM project coordinator, Nyla Nicholson, the SHM Pediatrics SIG, and the SHM Board of Directors.

Disclosures

SHM provided administrative support for project coordination (N. Nicholson). No author, editor, or other involved member received any compensation for efforts related to this work. There are no reported conflicts of interest.

The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies were first published in 2010 to help define a specific body of knowledge and measurable skills needed to practice high quality care for hospitalized pediatric patients across all practice settings.¹ Since then, the number of practicing pediatric hospitalists has grown to a conservative estimate of 3,000 physicians and the scope of practice among pediatric hospitalists has matured.² Pediatric hospitalists are increasingly leading or participating in organizational and national efforts that emphasize interprofessional collaboration and the delivery of high value care to hospitalized children and their caregivers—including innovative and family-centered care models, patient safety and quality improvement initiatives, and research and educational enterprises.^3-8 In response to these changes, the American Board of Medical Specialties designated Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) as a pediatric subspecialty in 2016.

The field of PHM in the United States continues to be supported by three core societies—Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and Academic Pediatric Association (APA). Together, these societies serve as tri-sponsors of the annual Pediatric Hospital Medicine national conference, which now welcomes over 1,200 attendees from the United States and abroad.⁹ Each society also individually sponsors a variety of professional development and continuing medical education activities specific to PHM.

In addition, pediatric hospitalists often serve a pivotal role in teaching learners (medical students, residents, and other health profession students), physician colleagues, and other healthcare professionals on the hospital wards and via institutional educational programs. Nearly 50 institutions in the United States offer graduate medical education training in PHM.¹⁰ The PHM Fellowship Directors Council has developed a standardized curricular framework and entrustable professional activities, which reflect the tenets of competency-based medical education, for use in PHM training programs.^11-13

These changes in the practice environment of pediatric hospitalists, as well as the changing landscape of graduate and continuing medical education in PHM, have informed this revision of The PHM Core Competencies. The purpose of this article is to describe the methodology of the review and revision process.

Revision

The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision provide a framework for graduate and continuing medical education that reflects the current roles and expectations for all pediatric hospitalists in the United States. The acuity and complexity of hospitalized children, the availability of pediatric subspecialty care and other resources, and the institutional orientation towards pediatric populations vary across community, tertiary, and children’s hospital settings. In order to unify the practice of PHM across these environments, The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision address the fundamental and most common components of PHM which are encountered by the majority of practicing pediatric hospitalists, as opposed to an extensive review of all aspects of the field.

The compendium includes 66 chapters on both clinical and nonclinical topics, divided into four sections—Common Clinical Diagnoses and Conditions, Core Skills, Specialized Services, and Healthcare Systems: Supporting and Advancing Child Health (Table 1). Within each chapter is an introductory paragraph and learning objectives in three domains of educational outcomes—cognitive (knowledge), psychomotor (skills), and affective (attitudes)—as well as systems organization and improvement, to reflect the emphasis of PHM practice on improving healthcare systems. The objectives encompass a range of observable behaviors and other attributes, from foundational skills such as taking a history and performing a physical exam to more advanced actions such as participating in the development of care models to support the health of complex patient populations. Implicit in these objectives is the expectation that pediatric hospitalists build on experiences in medical school and residency training to attain a level of competency at the advanced levels of a developmental continuum, such as proficient, expert, or master.¹⁴

Project Initiation

Revision of The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision began in early 2017 following SHM’s work on The Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine 2017 Revision.¹⁵ The Executive Committee of the SHM Pediatrics Special Interest Group (SIG) supported the initiation of the revision. The 3 editors from the original compendium created an initial plan for the project that included a proposed timeline, processes for engagement of previously involved experts and new talent, and performance of a needs assessment to guide content selection. The Figure highlights these and other important steps in the revision process.

Editor and Associate Editor Selection

The above editors reviewed best practice examples of roles and responsibilities for editor and associate editor positions from relevant, leading societies and journals. From this review, the editors created an editorial structure specifically for The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision. A new position of Contributing Editor was created to address the need for dedicated attention to the community site perspective and ensure review of all content, within and across chapters, by a pediatric hospitalist who is dedicated to this environment. Solicitation for additional editors and associate editors occurred via the SHM Pediatrics SIG to the wider SHM membership. The criteria for selection included active engagement in regional or national activities related to the growth and operations of PHM, strong organizational and leadership skills, including the ability to manage tasks and foster creativity, among others. In addition, a deliberate effort was made to recruit a diverse editorial cohort, considering geographic location, primary work environment, organizational affiliations, content expertise, time in practice, gender, and other factors.

Chapter Topic Selection

The editors conducted a two-pronged needs assessment related to optimal content for inclusion in The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision. First, the editors reviewed content from conferences, textbooks, and handbooks specific to the field of PHM, including the conference programs for the most recent 5 years of both the annual PHM national conference and annual meetings of PHM’s 3 core societies in the United States—SHM, AAP, and APA. Second, the editors conducted a needs assessment survey with several stakeholder groups, including SHM’s Pediatrics and Medicine-Pediatrics SIGs, AAP Section on Hospital Medicine and its subcommittees, APA Hospital Medicine SIG, PHM Fellowship Directors Council, and PHM Division Directors, with encouragement to pass the survey link to others in the PHM community interested in providing input (Appendix Figure). The solicitation asked for comment on existing chapters and suggestions for new chapters. For any new chapter, respondents were asked to note the intended purpose of the chapter and the anticipated value that chapter would bring to our profession and the children and the caregivers served by pediatric hospitalists.

The entire editorial board then reviewed all of the needs assessment data and considered potential changes (additions or deletions) based on emerging trends in pediatric healthcare, the frequency, relevance, and value of the item across all environments in which pediatric hospitalists function, and the value to or impact on hospitalized children and caregivers. Almost all survey ratings and comments were either incorporated into an existing chapter or used to create a new chapter. There was a paucity of comments related to the deletion of chapters, and thus no chapters were entirely excluded. However, there were several comments supporting the exclusion of the suprapubic bladder tap procedure, and thus related content was eliminated from the relevant section in Core Skills. Of the 66 chapters in this revision, the needs assessment data directly informed the creation of 12 new chapters, as well as adjustments and/or additions to the titles of 7 chapters and the content of 29 chapters. In addition, the title of the Specialized Clinical Services section was changed to Specialized Services to represent that both clinical and nonclinical competencies reside in this section devoted to comprehensive management of these unique patient populations commonly encountered by pediatric hospitalists. Many of these changes are highlighted in Table 2.

Author selection

Authors from the initial work were invited to participate again as author of their given chapter. Subsequently, authors were identified for new chapters and chapters for which previous authors were no longer able to be engaged. Authors with content expertise were found by reviewing content from conferences, textbooks, and handbooks specific to the field of PHM. Any content expert who was not identified as a pediatric hospitalist was paired with a pediatric hospitalist as coauthor. In addition, as with the editorial board, a deliberate effort was made to recruit a diverse author cohort, considering geographic location, primary work environment, time in practice, gender, and other factors.

The editorial board held numerous conference calls to review potential authors, and the SHM Pediatrics SIG was directly engaged to ensure authorship opportunities were extended broadly. This vetting process resulted in a robust author list and included members of all three of PHM’s sponsoring societies in the United States. Once participation was confirmed, authors received an “author packet” detailing the process with the proposed timeline, resources related to writing learning objectives, the past chapter (if applicable), assigned associate editor, and other helpful resources.

Internal and External Review Process

After all chapters were drafted, the editorial board conducted a rigorous, internal review process. Each chapter was reviewed by at least one associate editor and two editors, with a focus on content, scope, and a standard approach to phrasing and formatting. In addition, the contributing editor reviewed all the chapters to ensure the community hospitalist perspective was adequately represented.

Thirty-two agencies and societies were solicited for external review, including both those involved in review of the previous edition and new stakeholder groups. External reviewers were first contacted to ascertain their interest in participating in the review process, and if interested, were provided with information on the review process. Robust feedback was received from the APA Hospital Medicine SIG, SHM Pediatrics and Medicine-Pediatrics SIGs, Association of Pediatric Program Directors Curriculum Committee, and 20 AAP committees, councils, and sections.

The feedback from the external reviewers and subsequent edits for each chapter were reviewed by at least one associate editor, two editors, and the contributing editor. Authors were engaged to address any salient changes recommended. As the final steps in the review process, the SHM Board of Directors approved the compendium and the APA provided their endorsement.

This second edition of The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision addresses the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and systems organization and improvement objectives that define the field of pediatric hospital medicine and the leadership roles of pediatric hospitalists. This compendium reflects the recent changes in the practice and educational environments of pediatric hospitalists and can inform education, training, and career development for pediatric hospitalists across all environments in which comprehensive care is rendered for the hospitalized child. Future work at the local and national level can lead to development of associated curricula, conference content, and other training materials.

Acknowledgments

We wish to humbly and respectfully acknowledge the work of the authors, editors, and reviewers involved in the creation of the first edition, as well as this revision, of The PHM Core Competencies. In addition, we are grateful for the input of all pediatric hospitalists and other stakeholders who informed this compendium via contributions to the needs assessment survey, conference proceedings, publications, and other works. Finally, we acknowledge the support and work of SHM project coordinator, Nyla Nicholson, the SHM Pediatrics SIG, and the SHM Board of Directors.

Disclosures

SHM provided administrative support for project coordination (N. Nicholson). No author, editor, or other involved member received any compensation for efforts related to this work. There are no reported conflicts of interest.

The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies were first published in 2010 to help define a specific body of knowledge and measurable skills needed to practice high quality care for hospitalized pediatric patients across all practice settings.¹ Since then, the number of practicing pediatric hospitalists has grown to a conservative estimate of 3,000 physicians and the scope of practice among pediatric hospitalists has matured.² Pediatric hospitalists are increasingly leading or participating in organizational and national efforts that emphasize interprofessional collaboration and the delivery of high value care to hospitalized children and their caregivers—including innovative and family-centered care models, patient safety and quality improvement initiatives, and research and educational enterprises.^3-8 In response to these changes, the American Board of Medical Specialties designated Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) as a pediatric subspecialty in 2016.

The field of PHM in the United States continues to be supported by three core societies—Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and Academic Pediatric Association (APA). Together, these societies serve as tri-sponsors of the annual Pediatric Hospital Medicine national conference, which now welcomes over 1,200 attendees from the United States and abroad.⁹ Each society also individually sponsors a variety of professional development and continuing medical education activities specific to PHM.

In addition, pediatric hospitalists often serve a pivotal role in teaching learners (medical students, residents, and other health profession students), physician colleagues, and other healthcare professionals on the hospital wards and via institutional educational programs. Nearly 50 institutions in the United States offer graduate medical education training in PHM.¹⁰ The PHM Fellowship Directors Council has developed a standardized curricular framework and entrustable professional activities, which reflect the tenets of competency-based medical education, for use in PHM training programs.^11-13

These changes in the practice environment of pediatric hospitalists, as well as the changing landscape of graduate and continuing medical education in PHM, have informed this revision of The PHM Core Competencies. The purpose of this article is to describe the methodology of the review and revision process.

Revision

The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision provide a framework for graduate and continuing medical education that reflects the current roles and expectations for all pediatric hospitalists in the United States. The acuity and complexity of hospitalized children, the availability of pediatric subspecialty care and other resources, and the institutional orientation towards pediatric populations vary across community, tertiary, and children’s hospital settings. In order to unify the practice of PHM across these environments, The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision address the fundamental and most common components of PHM which are encountered by the majority of practicing pediatric hospitalists, as opposed to an extensive review of all aspects of the field.

The compendium includes 66 chapters on both clinical and nonclinical topics, divided into four sections—Common Clinical Diagnoses and Conditions, Core Skills, Specialized Services, and Healthcare Systems: Supporting and Advancing Child Health (Table 1). Within each chapter is an introductory paragraph and learning objectives in three domains of educational outcomes—cognitive (knowledge), psychomotor (skills), and affective (attitudes)—as well as systems organization and improvement, to reflect the emphasis of PHM practice on improving healthcare systems. The objectives encompass a range of observable behaviors and other attributes, from foundational skills such as taking a history and performing a physical exam to more advanced actions such as participating in the development of care models to support the health of complex patient populations. Implicit in these objectives is the expectation that pediatric hospitalists build on experiences in medical school and residency training to attain a level of competency at the advanced levels of a developmental continuum, such as proficient, expert, or master.¹⁴

Project Initiation

Revision of The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision began in early 2017 following SHM’s work on The Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine 2017 Revision.¹⁵ The Executive Committee of the SHM Pediatrics Special Interest Group (SIG) supported the initiation of the revision. The 3 editors from the original compendium created an initial plan for the project that included a proposed timeline, processes for engagement of previously involved experts and new talent, and performance of a needs assessment to guide content selection. The Figure highlights these and other important steps in the revision process.

Editor and Associate Editor Selection

The above editors reviewed best practice examples of roles and responsibilities for editor and associate editor positions from relevant, leading societies and journals. From this review, the editors created an editorial structure specifically for The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision. A new position of Contributing Editor was created to address the need for dedicated attention to the community site perspective and ensure review of all content, within and across chapters, by a pediatric hospitalist who is dedicated to this environment. Solicitation for additional editors and associate editors occurred via the SHM Pediatrics SIG to the wider SHM membership. The criteria for selection included active engagement in regional or national activities related to the growth and operations of PHM, strong organizational and leadership skills, including the ability to manage tasks and foster creativity, among others. In addition, a deliberate effort was made to recruit a diverse editorial cohort, considering geographic location, primary work environment, organizational affiliations, content expertise, time in practice, gender, and other factors.

Chapter Topic Selection

The editors conducted a two-pronged needs assessment related to optimal content for inclusion in The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision. First, the editors reviewed content from conferences, textbooks, and handbooks specific to the field of PHM, including the conference programs for the most recent 5 years of both the annual PHM national conference and annual meetings of PHM’s 3 core societies in the United States—SHM, AAP, and APA. Second, the editors conducted a needs assessment survey with several stakeholder groups, including SHM’s Pediatrics and Medicine-Pediatrics SIGs, AAP Section on Hospital Medicine and its subcommittees, APA Hospital Medicine SIG, PHM Fellowship Directors Council, and PHM Division Directors, with encouragement to pass the survey link to others in the PHM community interested in providing input (Appendix Figure). The solicitation asked for comment on existing chapters and suggestions for new chapters. For any new chapter, respondents were asked to note the intended purpose of the chapter and the anticipated value that chapter would bring to our profession and the children and the caregivers served by pediatric hospitalists.

The entire editorial board then reviewed all of the needs assessment data and considered potential changes (additions or deletions) based on emerging trends in pediatric healthcare, the frequency, relevance, and value of the item across all environments in which pediatric hospitalists function, and the value to or impact on hospitalized children and caregivers. Almost all survey ratings and comments were either incorporated into an existing chapter or used to create a new chapter. There was a paucity of comments related to the deletion of chapters, and thus no chapters were entirely excluded. However, there were several comments supporting the exclusion of the suprapubic bladder tap procedure, and thus related content was eliminated from the relevant section in Core Skills. Of the 66 chapters in this revision, the needs assessment data directly informed the creation of 12 new chapters, as well as adjustments and/or additions to the titles of 7 chapters and the content of 29 chapters. In addition, the title of the Specialized Clinical Services section was changed to Specialized Services to represent that both clinical and nonclinical competencies reside in this section devoted to comprehensive management of these unique patient populations commonly encountered by pediatric hospitalists. Many of these changes are highlighted in Table 2.

Author selection

Authors from the initial work were invited to participate again as author of their given chapter. Subsequently, authors were identified for new chapters and chapters for which previous authors were no longer able to be engaged. Authors with content expertise were found by reviewing content from conferences, textbooks, and handbooks specific to the field of PHM. Any content expert who was not identified as a pediatric hospitalist was paired with a pediatric hospitalist as coauthor. In addition, as with the editorial board, a deliberate effort was made to recruit a diverse author cohort, considering geographic location, primary work environment, time in practice, gender, and other factors.

The editorial board held numerous conference calls to review potential authors, and the SHM Pediatrics SIG was directly engaged to ensure authorship opportunities were extended broadly. This vetting process resulted in a robust author list and included members of all three of PHM’s sponsoring societies in the United States. Once participation was confirmed, authors received an “author packet” detailing the process with the proposed timeline, resources related to writing learning objectives, the past chapter (if applicable), assigned associate editor, and other helpful resources.

Internal and External Review Process

After all chapters were drafted, the editorial board conducted a rigorous, internal review process. Each chapter was reviewed by at least one associate editor and two editors, with a focus on content, scope, and a standard approach to phrasing and formatting. In addition, the contributing editor reviewed all the chapters to ensure the community hospitalist perspective was adequately represented.

Thirty-two agencies and societies were solicited for external review, including both those involved in review of the previous edition and new stakeholder groups. External reviewers were first contacted to ascertain their interest in participating in the review process, and if interested, were provided with information on the review process. Robust feedback was received from the APA Hospital Medicine SIG, SHM Pediatrics and Medicine-Pediatrics SIGs, Association of Pediatric Program Directors Curriculum Committee, and 20 AAP committees, councils, and sections.

The feedback from the external reviewers and subsequent edits for each chapter were reviewed by at least one associate editor, two editors, and the contributing editor. Authors were engaged to address any salient changes recommended. As the final steps in the review process, the SHM Board of Directors approved the compendium and the APA provided their endorsement.

This second edition of The PHM Core Competencies: 2020 Revision addresses the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and systems organization and improvement objectives that define the field of pediatric hospital medicine and the leadership roles of pediatric hospitalists. This compendium reflects the recent changes in the practice and educational environments of pediatric hospitalists and can inform education, training, and career development for pediatric hospitalists across all environments in which comprehensive care is rendered for the hospitalized child. Future work at the local and national level can lead to development of associated curricula, conference content, and other training materials.

Acknowledgments

We wish to humbly and respectfully acknowledge the work of the authors, editors, and reviewers involved in the creation of the first edition, as well as this revision, of The PHM Core Competencies. In addition, we are grateful for the input of all pediatric hospitalists and other stakeholders who informed this compendium via contributions to the needs assessment survey, conference proceedings, publications, and other works. Finally, we acknowledge the support and work of SHM project coordinator, Nyla Nicholson, the SHM Pediatrics SIG, and the SHM Board of Directors.

Disclosures

SHM provided administrative support for project coordination (N. Nicholson). No author, editor, or other involved member received any compensation for efforts related to this work. There are no reported conflicts of interest.

The AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org) received a makeover – the upgraded networking platform now features a newsfeed for difficult patient scenarios and regularly scheduled Roundtable discussions with experts in the field. In case you missed it, here are the most popular clinical discussions happening in the newsfeed:

• UC patient with new diagnosis of breast cancer (https://community.gastro.org/posts/20142)
• COVID testing before elective procedures (https://community.gastro.org/posts/21106)
• Remdesivir and hepatic failure (https://community.gastro.org/posts/21130)
• Doses of antibiotics for IBS-D patient (https://community.gastro.org/posts/19749)
• Vedolizumab and sinus migraines (https://community.gastro.org/posts/20204)

Follow and ask experts your questions in Roundtable:

• Resumption of elective endoscopy during COVID-19
• COVID-19 and GI: Caring for IBD
• Q&A with EoE guideline authors
• Q&A with the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer: follow-up after normal colonoscopy and polypectomy

View all upcoming Roundtables in the community at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.

The AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org) received a makeover – the upgraded networking platform now features a newsfeed for difficult patient scenarios and regularly scheduled Roundtable discussions with experts in the field. In case you missed it, here are the most popular clinical discussions happening in the newsfeed:

• UC patient with new diagnosis of breast cancer (https://community.gastro.org/posts/20142)
• COVID testing before elective procedures (https://community.gastro.org/posts/21106)
• Remdesivir and hepatic failure (https://community.gastro.org/posts/21130)
• Doses of antibiotics for IBS-D patient (https://community.gastro.org/posts/19749)
• Vedolizumab and sinus migraines (https://community.gastro.org/posts/20204)

Follow and ask experts your questions in Roundtable:

• Resumption of elective endoscopy during COVID-19
• COVID-19 and GI: Caring for IBD
• Q&A with EoE guideline authors
• Q&A with the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer: follow-up after normal colonoscopy and polypectomy

View all upcoming Roundtables in the community at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.

The AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org) received a makeover – the upgraded networking platform now features a newsfeed for difficult patient scenarios and regularly scheduled Roundtable discussions with experts in the field. In case you missed it, here are the most popular clinical discussions happening in the newsfeed:

• UC patient with new diagnosis of breast cancer (https://community.gastro.org/posts/20142)
• COVID testing before elective procedures (https://community.gastro.org/posts/21106)
• Remdesivir and hepatic failure (https://community.gastro.org/posts/21130)
• Doses of antibiotics for IBS-D patient (https://community.gastro.org/posts/19749)
• Vedolizumab and sinus migraines (https://community.gastro.org/posts/20204)

Follow and ask experts your questions in Roundtable:

• Resumption of elective endoscopy during COVID-19
• COVID-19 and GI: Caring for IBD
• Q&A with EoE guideline authors
• Q&A with the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer: follow-up after normal colonoscopy and polypectomy

View all upcoming Roundtables in the community at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.

This article is brought you by AGA PAC, a voluntary, non-partisan political organization affiliated with and supported by AGA and the only political action committee supported by a national gastroenterology society. Its mission is to give gastroenterologists a greater presence on Capitol Hill and a more effective voice in policy discussions.

The 116th Congress is well represented by the physician community, featuring a total of 17 physicians: 3 in the U.S. Senate and 14 in the House of Representatives. One of the physicians in the House, Rep. Roger Marshall, MD, R-KS, is an OBGYN by trade who is currently serving his second term in Congress. First elected in 2016, he arrived in Washington as one of only two physicians in his freshman class. He actively engaged in health care policy from the very beginning, working across party lines on a range of health care issues facing Capitol Hill. Upon entering Congress, he proactively reached out to AGA as well as other specialty physician organizations to learn our priority issues and expressed his desire to serve as a champion of the physician community.

In addition to the two committees he sits on, Dr. Marshall also serves as the chairman of the health task force for the Republican Study Committee. Additionally, Dr. Marshall is a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus, a coalition of 21 Republican medical providers with a mission statement “to utilize medical expertise to develop patient-centered health care reforms focused on quality, access, affordability, portability, and choice.” The GOP Doctors Caucus was instrumental in pushing for a permanent repeal of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) and helped to coalesce bipartisan, bicameral support for repeal legislation in the 113th Congress. The GOP Doctors Caucus continues to be active in the current Congress, advocating for policies that strengthen both the patient and provider communities.

As a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus and as a physician held in high regard by his House colleagues, Dr. Marshall is uniquely situated to advance agendas and legislative priorities that promote sound health care policy. He willingly works across the aisle with his Democratic counterparts on legislation of importance to the physician and patient community. Dr. Marshall recently worked with one of his Democratic, physician colleagues, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, D-CA, on the Improving Seniors Timely Access to Care Act, legislation addressing prior authorization burdens in Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Marshall has vocalized the importance of physicians getting involved in the political process and to that effect, spoke to AGA members at AGA’s annual Advocacy Day about his experience as a physician running for Congress and the importance of physician advocacy.

Dr. Marshall is running for the open Senate seat in Kansas. Given that Dr. Marshall has reiterated his desire to continue to work with the physician community to ensure access to care for our patients, AGA looks forward to supporting Dr. Marshall’s Senate candidacy and continuing to work with him and his office on issues and initiatives to advance the science and practice of gastroenterology.

ginews@gastro.org

This article is brought you by AGA PAC, a voluntary, non-partisan political organization affiliated with and supported by AGA and the only political action committee supported by a national gastroenterology society. Its mission is to give gastroenterologists a greater presence on Capitol Hill and a more effective voice in policy discussions.

The 116th Congress is well represented by the physician community, featuring a total of 17 physicians: 3 in the U.S. Senate and 14 in the House of Representatives. One of the physicians in the House, Rep. Roger Marshall, MD, R-KS, is an OBGYN by trade who is currently serving his second term in Congress. First elected in 2016, he arrived in Washington as one of only two physicians in his freshman class. He actively engaged in health care policy from the very beginning, working across party lines on a range of health care issues facing Capitol Hill. Upon entering Congress, he proactively reached out to AGA as well as other specialty physician organizations to learn our priority issues and expressed his desire to serve as a champion of the physician community.

In addition to the two committees he sits on, Dr. Marshall also serves as the chairman of the health task force for the Republican Study Committee. Additionally, Dr. Marshall is a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus, a coalition of 21 Republican medical providers with a mission statement “to utilize medical expertise to develop patient-centered health care reforms focused on quality, access, affordability, portability, and choice.” The GOP Doctors Caucus was instrumental in pushing for a permanent repeal of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) and helped to coalesce bipartisan, bicameral support for repeal legislation in the 113th Congress. The GOP Doctors Caucus continues to be active in the current Congress, advocating for policies that strengthen both the patient and provider communities.

As a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus and as a physician held in high regard by his House colleagues, Dr. Marshall is uniquely situated to advance agendas and legislative priorities that promote sound health care policy. He willingly works across the aisle with his Democratic counterparts on legislation of importance to the physician and patient community. Dr. Marshall recently worked with one of his Democratic, physician colleagues, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, D-CA, on the Improving Seniors Timely Access to Care Act, legislation addressing prior authorization burdens in Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Marshall has vocalized the importance of physicians getting involved in the political process and to that effect, spoke to AGA members at AGA’s annual Advocacy Day about his experience as a physician running for Congress and the importance of physician advocacy.

Dr. Marshall is running for the open Senate seat in Kansas. Given that Dr. Marshall has reiterated his desire to continue to work with the physician community to ensure access to care for our patients, AGA looks forward to supporting Dr. Marshall’s Senate candidacy and continuing to work with him and his office on issues and initiatives to advance the science and practice of gastroenterology.

ginews@gastro.org

This article is brought you by AGA PAC, a voluntary, non-partisan political organization affiliated with and supported by AGA and the only political action committee supported by a national gastroenterology society. Its mission is to give gastroenterologists a greater presence on Capitol Hill and a more effective voice in policy discussions.

The 116th Congress is well represented by the physician community, featuring a total of 17 physicians: 3 in the U.S. Senate and 14 in the House of Representatives. One of the physicians in the House, Rep. Roger Marshall, MD, R-KS, is an OBGYN by trade who is currently serving his second term in Congress. First elected in 2016, he arrived in Washington as one of only two physicians in his freshman class. He actively engaged in health care policy from the very beginning, working across party lines on a range of health care issues facing Capitol Hill. Upon entering Congress, he proactively reached out to AGA as well as other specialty physician organizations to learn our priority issues and expressed his desire to serve as a champion of the physician community.

In addition to the two committees he sits on, Dr. Marshall also serves as the chairman of the health task force for the Republican Study Committee. Additionally, Dr. Marshall is a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus, a coalition of 21 Republican medical providers with a mission statement “to utilize medical expertise to develop patient-centered health care reforms focused on quality, access, affordability, portability, and choice.” The GOP Doctors Caucus was instrumental in pushing for a permanent repeal of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) and helped to coalesce bipartisan, bicameral support for repeal legislation in the 113th Congress. The GOP Doctors Caucus continues to be active in the current Congress, advocating for policies that strengthen both the patient and provider communities.

As a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus and as a physician held in high regard by his House colleagues, Dr. Marshall is uniquely situated to advance agendas and legislative priorities that promote sound health care policy. He willingly works across the aisle with his Democratic counterparts on legislation of importance to the physician and patient community. Dr. Marshall recently worked with one of his Democratic, physician colleagues, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, D-CA, on the Improving Seniors Timely Access to Care Act, legislation addressing prior authorization burdens in Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Marshall has vocalized the importance of physicians getting involved in the political process and to that effect, spoke to AGA members at AGA’s annual Advocacy Day about his experience as a physician running for Congress and the importance of physician advocacy.

Dr. Marshall is running for the open Senate seat in Kansas. Given that Dr. Marshall has reiterated his desire to continue to work with the physician community to ensure access to care for our patients, AGA looks forward to supporting Dr. Marshall’s Senate candidacy and continuing to work with him and his office on issues and initiatives to advance the science and practice of gastroenterology.

ginews@gastro.org

Patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer, according to data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Shutterstock

Other independent risk factors for death in patients with COVID-19 and cancer were older age, male sex, former smoking, number of comorbidities, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or greater, and treatment with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin.

In fact, patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin had a nearly threefold higher risk of death than did patients who had not received the combination. However, this finding was of “uncertain validity due to a high risk of residual confounding; for example, patients receiving this combination were more likely to have severe disease or more likely to be hospitalized,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Warner presented these findings in an online press briefing. Additional findings from the CCC19 registry are set to be presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program. The findings were also published in The Lancet.

‘Severe impact’ in cancer patients

“For people with cancer, the impact of COVID-19 is especially severe, whether they have been exposed to the virus or not. Patients with cancer are typically older adults, often with other underlying conditions, and their immune systems may be suppressed by the cancer, or due to chemotherapy, radiation, or other treatment,” commented ASCO President Howard A. Burris III, MD, who moderated the press briefing but was not involved in the study of CCC19 registry data.

“ASCO members tell us that they have had to delay or modify treatment plans to reduce patients’ risk of infection, and we’re unclear what the impact of these changes will be. Delays in cancer screening and diagnosis are also a major concern,” Dr. Burris continued.

“This does confirm reports that have come out from other centers, including other parts of the world, where they have found that people who have cancer and COVID-19 have a worse outcome,” said Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Chan’s group has developed a COVID-19 symptom study app with the aim of defining whether people living with cancer are at increased risk for infections, in addition to whether cancer is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity or mortality.

“Using data from our app, we were able to show that people who reported living with cancer did have a higher risk of developing COVID and were more likely to be hospitalized related to COVID,” Dr. Chan said in an interview.
 

Study details

The CCC19 registry collects information from 104 participating institutions in the United States and Canada, as well as anonymous data from individuals in the United States, Argentina, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.

The sample of 928 patients Dr. Warner presented was evenly balanced by sex. The median age was 66 years, and 30% of patients were aged 75 years or older.

In all, 39% of patients were on active anticancer therapy, and 43% had measurable disease. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis, followed by prostate cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, lymphomas, and thoracic cancers.

Two-thirds of the patients (68%) had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 8% had a performance status of 2, and 5% a status of 3 or 4. The remaining patients had unknown performance status.

Slightly more than half of patients (52%) were never smokers, 37% were former smokers, and 5% were current smokers. The remaining 6% of patients had unknown smoking status.

At a median follow-up of 21 days, 121 patients (13%) had died. All deaths occurred within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Among patients who died, 78 were male, 64 were former smokers, 70 were aged 75 years or older, 41 had active stable or responding cancer, 25 had progressing cancer, and 42 had an ECOG performance status of 2 or higher.

In all, 466 patients were hospitalized, and 106 in this group (23%) died. Among the 132 patients admitted to an ICU, 50 (38%) died, including 27 patients aged 75 years or older, and 15 with an ECOG performance status of 2 or greater. Of the 116 patients who required intubation, 50 (43%) died, including 26 who were 75 years or older, and 11 who had a performance status of 2 or greater.

It’s early days yet, and a larger sample size with longer follow-up will be needed to get a more complete picture of how COVID-19 affects specific patient subsets over time, Dr. Warner said.

ASCO has established its own COVID-19 registry to collect both near-term and longitudinal data during the pandemic.

“We’ll be able to learn about both how the pandemic has impacted delivery of cancer care, as well as the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients and understand what care approaches are working best,” said Richard L. Schilsky, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, during the briefing.

The study of CCC19 registry data was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Warner disclosed stock/ownership in HemOnc.org, consulting for IBM and Westat, and travel expenses from IBM. Dr. Burris, Dr. Schilsky, and Dr. Chan reported no disclosures relevant to the study.
 

SOURCE: Warner J L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA110.

Patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer, according to data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Shutterstock

Other independent risk factors for death in patients with COVID-19 and cancer were older age, male sex, former smoking, number of comorbidities, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or greater, and treatment with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin.

In fact, patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin had a nearly threefold higher risk of death than did patients who had not received the combination. However, this finding was of “uncertain validity due to a high risk of residual confounding; for example, patients receiving this combination were more likely to have severe disease or more likely to be hospitalized,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Warner presented these findings in an online press briefing. Additional findings from the CCC19 registry are set to be presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program. The findings were also published in The Lancet.

‘Severe impact’ in cancer patients

“For people with cancer, the impact of COVID-19 is especially severe, whether they have been exposed to the virus or not. Patients with cancer are typically older adults, often with other underlying conditions, and their immune systems may be suppressed by the cancer, or due to chemotherapy, radiation, or other treatment,” commented ASCO President Howard A. Burris III, MD, who moderated the press briefing but was not involved in the study of CCC19 registry data.

“ASCO members tell us that they have had to delay or modify treatment plans to reduce patients’ risk of infection, and we’re unclear what the impact of these changes will be. Delays in cancer screening and diagnosis are also a major concern,” Dr. Burris continued.

“This does confirm reports that have come out from other centers, including other parts of the world, where they have found that people who have cancer and COVID-19 have a worse outcome,” said Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Chan’s group has developed a COVID-19 symptom study app with the aim of defining whether people living with cancer are at increased risk for infections, in addition to whether cancer is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity or mortality.

“Using data from our app, we were able to show that people who reported living with cancer did have a higher risk of developing COVID and were more likely to be hospitalized related to COVID,” Dr. Chan said in an interview.
 

Study details

The CCC19 registry collects information from 104 participating institutions in the United States and Canada, as well as anonymous data from individuals in the United States, Argentina, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.

The sample of 928 patients Dr. Warner presented was evenly balanced by sex. The median age was 66 years, and 30% of patients were aged 75 years or older.

In all, 39% of patients were on active anticancer therapy, and 43% had measurable disease. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis, followed by prostate cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, lymphomas, and thoracic cancers.

Two-thirds of the patients (68%) had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 8% had a performance status of 2, and 5% a status of 3 or 4. The remaining patients had unknown performance status.

Slightly more than half of patients (52%) were never smokers, 37% were former smokers, and 5% were current smokers. The remaining 6% of patients had unknown smoking status.

At a median follow-up of 21 days, 121 patients (13%) had died. All deaths occurred within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Among patients who died, 78 were male, 64 were former smokers, 70 were aged 75 years or older, 41 had active stable or responding cancer, 25 had progressing cancer, and 42 had an ECOG performance status of 2 or higher.

In all, 466 patients were hospitalized, and 106 in this group (23%) died. Among the 132 patients admitted to an ICU, 50 (38%) died, including 27 patients aged 75 years or older, and 15 with an ECOG performance status of 2 or greater. Of the 116 patients who required intubation, 50 (43%) died, including 26 who were 75 years or older, and 11 who had a performance status of 2 or greater.

It’s early days yet, and a larger sample size with longer follow-up will be needed to get a more complete picture of how COVID-19 affects specific patient subsets over time, Dr. Warner said.

ASCO has established its own COVID-19 registry to collect both near-term and longitudinal data during the pandemic.

“We’ll be able to learn about both how the pandemic has impacted delivery of cancer care, as well as the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients and understand what care approaches are working best,” said Richard L. Schilsky, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, during the briefing.

The study of CCC19 registry data was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Warner disclosed stock/ownership in HemOnc.org, consulting for IBM and Westat, and travel expenses from IBM. Dr. Burris, Dr. Schilsky, and Dr. Chan reported no disclosures relevant to the study.
 

SOURCE: Warner J L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA110.

Patients with COVID-19 and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer, according to data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Shutterstock

Other independent risk factors for death in patients with COVID-19 and cancer were older age, male sex, former smoking, number of comorbidities, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or greater, and treatment with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin.

In fact, patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin had a nearly threefold higher risk of death than did patients who had not received the combination. However, this finding was of “uncertain validity due to a high risk of residual confounding; for example, patients receiving this combination were more likely to have severe disease or more likely to be hospitalized,” said Jeremy L. Warner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Warner presented these findings in an online press briefing. Additional findings from the CCC19 registry are set to be presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program. The findings were also published in The Lancet.

‘Severe impact’ in cancer patients

“For people with cancer, the impact of COVID-19 is especially severe, whether they have been exposed to the virus or not. Patients with cancer are typically older adults, often with other underlying conditions, and their immune systems may be suppressed by the cancer, or due to chemotherapy, radiation, or other treatment,” commented ASCO President Howard A. Burris III, MD, who moderated the press briefing but was not involved in the study of CCC19 registry data.

“ASCO members tell us that they have had to delay or modify treatment plans to reduce patients’ risk of infection, and we’re unclear what the impact of these changes will be. Delays in cancer screening and diagnosis are also a major concern,” Dr. Burris continued.

“This does confirm reports that have come out from other centers, including other parts of the world, where they have found that people who have cancer and COVID-19 have a worse outcome,” said Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Chan’s group has developed a COVID-19 symptom study app with the aim of defining whether people living with cancer are at increased risk for infections, in addition to whether cancer is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity or mortality.

“Using data from our app, we were able to show that people who reported living with cancer did have a higher risk of developing COVID and were more likely to be hospitalized related to COVID,” Dr. Chan said in an interview.
 

Study details

The CCC19 registry collects information from 104 participating institutions in the United States and Canada, as well as anonymous data from individuals in the United States, Argentina, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.

The sample of 928 patients Dr. Warner presented was evenly balanced by sex. The median age was 66 years, and 30% of patients were aged 75 years or older.

In all, 39% of patients were on active anticancer therapy, and 43% had measurable disease. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis, followed by prostate cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, lymphomas, and thoracic cancers.

Two-thirds of the patients (68%) had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 8% had a performance status of 2, and 5% a status of 3 or 4. The remaining patients had unknown performance status.

Slightly more than half of patients (52%) were never smokers, 37% were former smokers, and 5% were current smokers. The remaining 6% of patients had unknown smoking status.

At a median follow-up of 21 days, 121 patients (13%) had died. All deaths occurred within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Among patients who died, 78 were male, 64 were former smokers, 70 were aged 75 years or older, 41 had active stable or responding cancer, 25 had progressing cancer, and 42 had an ECOG performance status of 2 or higher.

In all, 466 patients were hospitalized, and 106 in this group (23%) died. Among the 132 patients admitted to an ICU, 50 (38%) died, including 27 patients aged 75 years or older, and 15 with an ECOG performance status of 2 or greater. Of the 116 patients who required intubation, 50 (43%) died, including 26 who were 75 years or older, and 11 who had a performance status of 2 or greater.

It’s early days yet, and a larger sample size with longer follow-up will be needed to get a more complete picture of how COVID-19 affects specific patient subsets over time, Dr. Warner said.

ASCO has established its own COVID-19 registry to collect both near-term and longitudinal data during the pandemic.

“We’ll be able to learn about both how the pandemic has impacted delivery of cancer care, as well as the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients and understand what care approaches are working best,” said Richard L. Schilsky, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, during the briefing.

The study of CCC19 registry data was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Warner disclosed stock/ownership in HemOnc.org, consulting for IBM and Westat, and travel expenses from IBM. Dr. Burris, Dr. Schilsky, and Dr. Chan reported no disclosures relevant to the study.
 

SOURCE: Warner J L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA110.

Adjuvant therapy with osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death in patients with stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing EGFR mutations, results of the ADAURA trial showed.

The randomized, phase 3 trial was a comparison of osimertinib treatment with placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced NSCLC with negative margins. The trial was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee, due to the efficacy of osimertinib.

“If I were on the committee, I would have done the same thing. These are extraordinary results,” said study investigator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at the Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Center at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Herbst is scheduled to present results from ADAURA as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

In an online briefing prior to the meeting, Dr. Herbst said the impressive results reminded him of a lesson imparted by his mentor, the late Isaiah Fidler, DVM, PhD.

“He taught me, he taught all of us, that metastasis is a spread of tumor that kills patients,” Dr. Herbst said. “Drugs such as this, based on biology, given to patients at the earliest possible time, prevent those metastases and allow patients to live longer and with a better quality of life.”

Results from the ADAURA trial provide compelling evidence of the benefit of adjuvant osimertinib for a select group of patients, according to Tina Cascone, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of thoracic head and neck medical oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. She was not involved in the study.

“These are unprecedented results for a potentially curable, resected population of patients,” Dr. Cascone said in an interview. “This definitely has the potential to shift the paradigm in the treatments that we have available for patients with resected disease. It’s very important to emphasize how much we’ve learned from the metastatic setting and how we’re bringing what we’ve learned into early stage disease.”

 

High recurrence rates

An estimated 30% of patients with NSCLC present with resectable disease at diagnosis, but 5-year recurrence rates following surgery and cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy remain high, ranging from 45% among patients with stage IB disease to 62% for patients with stage II NSCLC and 76% for patients with stage III disease, Dr. Herbst noted.

Osimertinib is a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeted to EGFR. It has been shown to offer improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with the EGFR-TKIs erlotinib and gefitinib for patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC, as well as in patients with central nervous system metastases.

Osimertinib’s efficacy and safety profile against advanced disease suggests it may also be effective against early stage disease, a hypothesis the ADAURA trial was designed to test.
 

Study details

The phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted at centers in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. A total of 682 patients with completely resected stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC, with or without planned adjuvant chemotherapy, were enrolled.

After stratification by stage, EGFR mutation, and race (Asian vs. non-Asian), patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either osimertinib at 80 mg once daily or placebo. The planned treatment duration was a maximum of 3 years.

Members of the independent data-monitoring committee held a meeting in April 2020. Although they had not planned an efficacy analysis at that time, they decided the results were clearly in favor of osimertinib. So they recommended unblinding and halting of the trial.

At the time of unblinding, the study had completed enrollment, and all patients had been followed for at least 1 year.
 

Efficacy and safety

For the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage II to IIIA disease, the median DFS was not reached for patients assigned to osimertinib, but it was 20.4 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.17; P < .0001).

The numbers were similar for the secondary endpoint of DFS in the overall population, including patients with stage IB disease. The median DFS was not reached for patients on osimertinib but was 28.1 months for patients on placebo (HR, 0.21; P < .0001).

DFS was significantly superior with osimertinib across all subgroups in the overall population, including sex, age, smoking status, race, stage, EGFR mutation, and adjuvant chemotherapy (yes or no).

Dr. Herbst said patients tolerated osimertinib well, and the drug’s safety profile was consistent with that already known. There were no adverse events leading to death in the osimertinib arm, and the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any kind was low.

In all, 10 patients (3%) in the osimertinib arm were reported to have interstitial lung disease. Prolongation of the QT interval was reported in 22 patients (7%) on osimertinib and 4 patients (1%) in the placebo arm.

The results show that “adjuvant osimertinib provides a highly effective, practice-changing treatment for patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, EGFR mutation-positive non–small cell lung cancer after complete tumor resection,” Dr. Herbst said.

Dr. Herbst disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, which funded the study, as well as Jun Shi Pharmaceuticals and other companies. Dr. Cascone is the international principal investigator of the NeoCOAST trial evaluating durvalumab, an AstraZeneca product.

SOURCE: Herbst RS et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA5.

Adjuvant therapy with osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death in patients with stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing EGFR mutations, results of the ADAURA trial showed.

The randomized, phase 3 trial was a comparison of osimertinib treatment with placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced NSCLC with negative margins. The trial was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee, due to the efficacy of osimertinib.

“If I were on the committee, I would have done the same thing. These are extraordinary results,” said study investigator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at the Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Center at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Herbst is scheduled to present results from ADAURA as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

In an online briefing prior to the meeting, Dr. Herbst said the impressive results reminded him of a lesson imparted by his mentor, the late Isaiah Fidler, DVM, PhD.

“He taught me, he taught all of us, that metastasis is a spread of tumor that kills patients,” Dr. Herbst said. “Drugs such as this, based on biology, given to patients at the earliest possible time, prevent those metastases and allow patients to live longer and with a better quality of life.”

Results from the ADAURA trial provide compelling evidence of the benefit of adjuvant osimertinib for a select group of patients, according to Tina Cascone, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of thoracic head and neck medical oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. She was not involved in the study.

“These are unprecedented results for a potentially curable, resected population of patients,” Dr. Cascone said in an interview. “This definitely has the potential to shift the paradigm in the treatments that we have available for patients with resected disease. It’s very important to emphasize how much we’ve learned from the metastatic setting and how we’re bringing what we’ve learned into early stage disease.”

 

High recurrence rates

An estimated 30% of patients with NSCLC present with resectable disease at diagnosis, but 5-year recurrence rates following surgery and cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy remain high, ranging from 45% among patients with stage IB disease to 62% for patients with stage II NSCLC and 76% for patients with stage III disease, Dr. Herbst noted.

Osimertinib is a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeted to EGFR. It has been shown to offer improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with the EGFR-TKIs erlotinib and gefitinib for patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC, as well as in patients with central nervous system metastases.

Osimertinib’s efficacy and safety profile against advanced disease suggests it may also be effective against early stage disease, a hypothesis the ADAURA trial was designed to test.
 

Study details

The phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted at centers in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. A total of 682 patients with completely resected stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC, with or without planned adjuvant chemotherapy, were enrolled.

After stratification by stage, EGFR mutation, and race (Asian vs. non-Asian), patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either osimertinib at 80 mg once daily or placebo. The planned treatment duration was a maximum of 3 years.

Members of the independent data-monitoring committee held a meeting in April 2020. Although they had not planned an efficacy analysis at that time, they decided the results were clearly in favor of osimertinib. So they recommended unblinding and halting of the trial.

At the time of unblinding, the study had completed enrollment, and all patients had been followed for at least 1 year.
 

Efficacy and safety

For the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage II to IIIA disease, the median DFS was not reached for patients assigned to osimertinib, but it was 20.4 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.17; P < .0001).

The numbers were similar for the secondary endpoint of DFS in the overall population, including patients with stage IB disease. The median DFS was not reached for patients on osimertinib but was 28.1 months for patients on placebo (HR, 0.21; P < .0001).

DFS was significantly superior with osimertinib across all subgroups in the overall population, including sex, age, smoking status, race, stage, EGFR mutation, and adjuvant chemotherapy (yes or no).

Dr. Herbst said patients tolerated osimertinib well, and the drug’s safety profile was consistent with that already known. There were no adverse events leading to death in the osimertinib arm, and the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any kind was low.

In all, 10 patients (3%) in the osimertinib arm were reported to have interstitial lung disease. Prolongation of the QT interval was reported in 22 patients (7%) on osimertinib and 4 patients (1%) in the placebo arm.

The results show that “adjuvant osimertinib provides a highly effective, practice-changing treatment for patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, EGFR mutation-positive non–small cell lung cancer after complete tumor resection,” Dr. Herbst said.

Dr. Herbst disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, which funded the study, as well as Jun Shi Pharmaceuticals and other companies. Dr. Cascone is the international principal investigator of the NeoCOAST trial evaluating durvalumab, an AstraZeneca product.

SOURCE: Herbst RS et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA5.

Adjuvant therapy with osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death in patients with stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing EGFR mutations, results of the ADAURA trial showed.

The randomized, phase 3 trial was a comparison of osimertinib treatment with placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced NSCLC with negative margins. The trial was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee, due to the efficacy of osimertinib.

“If I were on the committee, I would have done the same thing. These are extraordinary results,” said study investigator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at the Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Center at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Herbst is scheduled to present results from ADAURA as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

In an online briefing prior to the meeting, Dr. Herbst said the impressive results reminded him of a lesson imparted by his mentor, the late Isaiah Fidler, DVM, PhD.

“He taught me, he taught all of us, that metastasis is a spread of tumor that kills patients,” Dr. Herbst said. “Drugs such as this, based on biology, given to patients at the earliest possible time, prevent those metastases and allow patients to live longer and with a better quality of life.”

Results from the ADAURA trial provide compelling evidence of the benefit of adjuvant osimertinib for a select group of patients, according to Tina Cascone, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of thoracic head and neck medical oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. She was not involved in the study.

“These are unprecedented results for a potentially curable, resected population of patients,” Dr. Cascone said in an interview. “This definitely has the potential to shift the paradigm in the treatments that we have available for patients with resected disease. It’s very important to emphasize how much we’ve learned from the metastatic setting and how we’re bringing what we’ve learned into early stage disease.”

 

High recurrence rates

An estimated 30% of patients with NSCLC present with resectable disease at diagnosis, but 5-year recurrence rates following surgery and cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy remain high, ranging from 45% among patients with stage IB disease to 62% for patients with stage II NSCLC and 76% for patients with stage III disease, Dr. Herbst noted.

Osimertinib is a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeted to EGFR. It has been shown to offer improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with the EGFR-TKIs erlotinib and gefitinib for patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC, as well as in patients with central nervous system metastases.

Osimertinib’s efficacy and safety profile against advanced disease suggests it may also be effective against early stage disease, a hypothesis the ADAURA trial was designed to test.
 

Study details

The phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted at centers in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. A total of 682 patients with completely resected stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC, with or without planned adjuvant chemotherapy, were enrolled.

After stratification by stage, EGFR mutation, and race (Asian vs. non-Asian), patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either osimertinib at 80 mg once daily or placebo. The planned treatment duration was a maximum of 3 years.

Members of the independent data-monitoring committee held a meeting in April 2020. Although they had not planned an efficacy analysis at that time, they decided the results were clearly in favor of osimertinib. So they recommended unblinding and halting of the trial.

At the time of unblinding, the study had completed enrollment, and all patients had been followed for at least 1 year.
 

Efficacy and safety

For the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage II to IIIA disease, the median DFS was not reached for patients assigned to osimertinib, but it was 20.4 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.17; P < .0001).

The numbers were similar for the secondary endpoint of DFS in the overall population, including patients with stage IB disease. The median DFS was not reached for patients on osimertinib but was 28.1 months for patients on placebo (HR, 0.21; P < .0001).

DFS was significantly superior with osimertinib across all subgroups in the overall population, including sex, age, smoking status, race, stage, EGFR mutation, and adjuvant chemotherapy (yes or no).

Dr. Herbst said patients tolerated osimertinib well, and the drug’s safety profile was consistent with that already known. There were no adverse events leading to death in the osimertinib arm, and the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any kind was low.

In all, 10 patients (3%) in the osimertinib arm were reported to have interstitial lung disease. Prolongation of the QT interval was reported in 22 patients (7%) on osimertinib and 4 patients (1%) in the placebo arm.

The results show that “adjuvant osimertinib provides a highly effective, practice-changing treatment for patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, EGFR mutation-positive non–small cell lung cancer after complete tumor resection,” Dr. Herbst said.

Dr. Herbst disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, which funded the study, as well as Jun Shi Pharmaceuticals and other companies. Dr. Cascone is the international principal investigator of the NeoCOAST trial evaluating durvalumab, an AstraZeneca product.

SOURCE: Herbst RS et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA5.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Long road to recovery includes lung rehab

For seriously ill COVID-19 patients, there may a long recovery period even after leaving the intensive care unit. Eladio (“Lad”) Braganza, age 77, is one of those patients. For 28 days, he was on a ventilator in a Seattle ICU. Now – after a 46-day hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 infection – he’s making progress in inpatient rehab. “The vast majority of COVID patients in the ICU have lung disease that is quite severe, much more severe than I have seen in my 20 years of doing this,” said critical care specialist Anna Nolan, MD, of the department of medicine at New York University. READ MORE.

Detox unit keeps running during COVID-19

Substance use disorder doesn’t take a break for a pandemic. In fact, the stressors from the current COVID-19 situation have increased substance use. In a commentary published on MDedge, Keji Fagbemi, MD, a hospitalist at the BronxCare Health System, shared how his hospital kept its inpatient detoxification unit running, despite the challenges presented by COVID-19. “At a time when many inpatient detoxification units within the city were temporarily closed due to fear of inpatient spread of the virus or to provide extra COVID beds in anticipation for the peak surge, we have been able to provide a needed service,” he wrote. “In fact, several other inpatient detoxification programs within the city have been able to refer their patients to our facility.” READ MORE.

Air pollution linked to MS risk

Air pollution may be another environmental risk factor for developing multiple sclerosis, suggests new research released as part of the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020. The findings, which are based on a large cohort study of nearly 550,000 individuals in Italy, appear to confirm the relationship between exposure to air pollutants and risk for MS that has been shown in prior studies. “Countermeasures that cut air pollution can be important for public health, not only to reduce deaths related to cardiac and pulmonary diseases but also the risk of chronic autoimmune diseases such as MS,” said Roberto Bergamaschi, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy. READ MORE.
 

Trials produce conflicting results in Alzheimer’s disease

High-dose aducanumab, a human monoclonal antibody in development for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, significantly reduced clinical decline in people with early disease in one randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. But there was no statistically significant change in outcomes in an identical study. “We believe that the difference between the results was largely due to patients’ greater exposure to the high dose of aducanumab,” said Samantha Budd Haeberlein, PhD, one of the study investigators and senior vice president and head of the neurodegeneration development unit at Biogen, which is developing the drug. READ MORE.

Pregnant patients have asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

The rate of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 16% among women with a planned delivery in a New York City health system during the first half of April, according to recent study results. “If universal testing of pregnant patients in a high prevalence area is not performed, health care workers will be inadvertently exposed to COVID-19, unless universal precautions with personal protective equipment are taken,” researchers wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology. READ MORE.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Long road to recovery includes lung rehab

For seriously ill COVID-19 patients, there may a long recovery period even after leaving the intensive care unit. Eladio (“Lad”) Braganza, age 77, is one of those patients. For 28 days, he was on a ventilator in a Seattle ICU. Now – after a 46-day hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 infection – he’s making progress in inpatient rehab. “The vast majority of COVID patients in the ICU have lung disease that is quite severe, much more severe than I have seen in my 20 years of doing this,” said critical care specialist Anna Nolan, MD, of the department of medicine at New York University. READ MORE.

Detox unit keeps running during COVID-19

Substance use disorder doesn’t take a break for a pandemic. In fact, the stressors from the current COVID-19 situation have increased substance use. In a commentary published on MDedge, Keji Fagbemi, MD, a hospitalist at the BronxCare Health System, shared how his hospital kept its inpatient detoxification unit running, despite the challenges presented by COVID-19. “At a time when many inpatient detoxification units within the city were temporarily closed due to fear of inpatient spread of the virus or to provide extra COVID beds in anticipation for the peak surge, we have been able to provide a needed service,” he wrote. “In fact, several other inpatient detoxification programs within the city have been able to refer their patients to our facility.” READ MORE.

Air pollution linked to MS risk

Air pollution may be another environmental risk factor for developing multiple sclerosis, suggests new research released as part of the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020. The findings, which are based on a large cohort study of nearly 550,000 individuals in Italy, appear to confirm the relationship between exposure to air pollutants and risk for MS that has been shown in prior studies. “Countermeasures that cut air pollution can be important for public health, not only to reduce deaths related to cardiac and pulmonary diseases but also the risk of chronic autoimmune diseases such as MS,” said Roberto Bergamaschi, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy. READ MORE.
 

Trials produce conflicting results in Alzheimer’s disease

High-dose aducanumab, a human monoclonal antibody in development for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, significantly reduced clinical decline in people with early disease in one randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. But there was no statistically significant change in outcomes in an identical study. “We believe that the difference between the results was largely due to patients’ greater exposure to the high dose of aducanumab,” said Samantha Budd Haeberlein, PhD, one of the study investigators and senior vice president and head of the neurodegeneration development unit at Biogen, which is developing the drug. READ MORE.

Pregnant patients have asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

The rate of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 16% among women with a planned delivery in a New York City health system during the first half of April, according to recent study results. “If universal testing of pregnant patients in a high prevalence area is not performed, health care workers will be inadvertently exposed to COVID-19, unless universal precautions with personal protective equipment are taken,” researchers wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology. READ MORE.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Long road to recovery includes lung rehab

For seriously ill COVID-19 patients, there may a long recovery period even after leaving the intensive care unit. Eladio (“Lad”) Braganza, age 77, is one of those patients. For 28 days, he was on a ventilator in a Seattle ICU. Now – after a 46-day hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 infection – he’s making progress in inpatient rehab. “The vast majority of COVID patients in the ICU have lung disease that is quite severe, much more severe than I have seen in my 20 years of doing this,” said critical care specialist Anna Nolan, MD, of the department of medicine at New York University. READ MORE.

Detox unit keeps running during COVID-19

Substance use disorder doesn’t take a break for a pandemic. In fact, the stressors from the current COVID-19 situation have increased substance use. In a commentary published on MDedge, Keji Fagbemi, MD, a hospitalist at the BronxCare Health System, shared how his hospital kept its inpatient detoxification unit running, despite the challenges presented by COVID-19. “At a time when many inpatient detoxification units within the city were temporarily closed due to fear of inpatient spread of the virus or to provide extra COVID beds in anticipation for the peak surge, we have been able to provide a needed service,” he wrote. “In fact, several other inpatient detoxification programs within the city have been able to refer their patients to our facility.” READ MORE.

Air pollution linked to MS risk

Air pollution may be another environmental risk factor for developing multiple sclerosis, suggests new research released as part of the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020. The findings, which are based on a large cohort study of nearly 550,000 individuals in Italy, appear to confirm the relationship between exposure to air pollutants and risk for MS that has been shown in prior studies. “Countermeasures that cut air pollution can be important for public health, not only to reduce deaths related to cardiac and pulmonary diseases but also the risk of chronic autoimmune diseases such as MS,” said Roberto Bergamaschi, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy. READ MORE.
 

Trials produce conflicting results in Alzheimer’s disease

High-dose aducanumab, a human monoclonal antibody in development for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, significantly reduced clinical decline in people with early disease in one randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. But there was no statistically significant change in outcomes in an identical study. “We believe that the difference between the results was largely due to patients’ greater exposure to the high dose of aducanumab,” said Samantha Budd Haeberlein, PhD, one of the study investigators and senior vice president and head of the neurodegeneration development unit at Biogen, which is developing the drug. READ MORE.

Pregnant patients have asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

The rate of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 16% among women with a planned delivery in a New York City health system during the first half of April, according to recent study results. “If universal testing of pregnant patients in a high prevalence area is not performed, health care workers will be inadvertently exposed to COVID-19, unless universal precautions with personal protective equipment are taken,” researchers wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology. READ MORE.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

AGA just released GI Distance Learning, agau.gastro.org/diweb/catalog/q/GI-Distance-Learning, a new initiative providing AGA trainee members and medical residents a complementary set of curated education and career development resources available online. A part of AGA University, GI Distance Learning enables you to enhance your knowledge in a number of GI-related topics at your own pace from the comfort of home.

Through GI Distance Learning, you will have free access until Aug. 1 to the 800+ questions and answers included in the DDSEP^® 9 Question Bank. Assess your knowledge, identify gaps in learning, and stay current on the latest advances in GI and liver disease.

To access the Question Bank free of charge:

• Visit AGA University and sign in to your AGA account.
• Go to the DDSEP 9 Question Bank.
• Add the Question Bank to your Cart and Checkout.
• Type DDSEP9Distance in the Discount Code box.
• Apply the discount and submit your order.
• Use the My Courses link to access the Question Bank.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many of us are struggling with the new normal and changes in our daily routines. Resiliency, emotional intelligence, and strategies for combatting burnout become increasingly important. The following on-demand resources from GI Distance Learning can help.

• Resilient Leadership
• Emotional Intelligence
• Strategies to Combat Burnout in GI and Maintaining Work/Life Balance

Continue to check back regularly at AGA University as we will continue to add resources to GI Distance Learning in the coming weeks.

ginews@gastro.org

AGA just released GI Distance Learning, agau.gastro.org/diweb/catalog/q/GI-Distance-Learning, a new initiative providing AGA trainee members and medical residents a complementary set of curated education and career development resources available online. A part of AGA University, GI Distance Learning enables you to enhance your knowledge in a number of GI-related topics at your own pace from the comfort of home.

Through GI Distance Learning, you will have free access until Aug. 1 to the 800+ questions and answers included in the DDSEP^® 9 Question Bank. Assess your knowledge, identify gaps in learning, and stay current on the latest advances in GI and liver disease.

To access the Question Bank free of charge:

• Visit AGA University and sign in to your AGA account.
• Go to the DDSEP 9 Question Bank.
• Add the Question Bank to your Cart and Checkout.
• Type DDSEP9Distance in the Discount Code box.
• Apply the discount and submit your order.
• Use the My Courses link to access the Question Bank.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many of us are struggling with the new normal and changes in our daily routines. Resiliency, emotional intelligence, and strategies for combatting burnout become increasingly important. The following on-demand resources from GI Distance Learning can help.

• Resilient Leadership
• Emotional Intelligence
• Strategies to Combat Burnout in GI and Maintaining Work/Life Balance

Continue to check back regularly at AGA University as we will continue to add resources to GI Distance Learning in the coming weeks.

ginews@gastro.org

AGA just released GI Distance Learning, agau.gastro.org/diweb/catalog/q/GI-Distance-Learning, a new initiative providing AGA trainee members and medical residents a complementary set of curated education and career development resources available online. A part of AGA University, GI Distance Learning enables you to enhance your knowledge in a number of GI-related topics at your own pace from the comfort of home.

Through GI Distance Learning, you will have free access until Aug. 1 to the 800+ questions and answers included in the DDSEP^® 9 Question Bank. Assess your knowledge, identify gaps in learning, and stay current on the latest advances in GI and liver disease.

To access the Question Bank free of charge:

• Visit AGA University and sign in to your AGA account.
• Go to the DDSEP 9 Question Bank.
• Add the Question Bank to your Cart and Checkout.
• Type DDSEP9Distance in the Discount Code box.
• Apply the discount and submit your order.
• Use the My Courses link to access the Question Bank.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many of us are struggling with the new normal and changes in our daily routines. Resiliency, emotional intelligence, and strategies for combatting burnout become increasingly important. The following on-demand resources from GI Distance Learning can help.

• Resilient Leadership
• Emotional Intelligence
• Strategies to Combat Burnout in GI and Maintaining Work/Life Balance

Continue to check back regularly at AGA University as we will continue to add resources to GI Distance Learning in the coming weeks.

ginews@gastro.org

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who switch from treatment with the highly effective disease-modifying therapy natalizumab to a moderate-efficacy DMT show an increased risk of disability accumulation and disease activity over 2 years compared with switching to another highly effective DMT, new research shows.

“Owing to the vast number of available DMTs, not only understanding DMT performance but answering the question of what can come next if a patient needs to discontinue treatment due to safety or breakthrough disease is important,” said lead author Carrie M. Hersh, DO, of the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Cleveland Clinic, Las Vegas.

The study shows that, “patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy therapy have better inflammatory and disability outcomes compared with those who de-escalate their therapy to a moderate-efficacy DMT,” she said.

Natalizumab (Tysabri) offers significant benefits in the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, however, its long-term use is associated with safety concerns, notably an increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Although the risk can be reduced with a switch to a different DMT, the transition can have risks of its own, including a rebound of disease activity that could prove to be worse than the pre-natalizumab treatment period, and there is a lack of consensus on the safest avenues for switching to another DMT following discontinuation of natalizumab.

In research presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Dr. Hersh and colleagues explored the issue in a real-world population of 556 patients discontinuing natalizumab at two MS centers. Of these, 270 switched to a moderate DMT (dimethyl fumarate, n = 130; or fingolimod, n = 140) and 130 switched to a highly effective DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 106; rituximab, n = 17; or alemtuzumab, n = 7).

Reasons for switching included a PML risk for 54.9%, breakthrough disease for 15.3%, and adverse effects for 17.3%.

At 24-month follow-up after the switch and after adjustment for propensity score matching, no differences were seen between the moderate and highly effective DMT groups in terms of the annualized relapse rate (ARR; P = 0.33) or the time to first relapse (P = 0.09).

However, significantly higher proportions of patients switching to moderate DMTs showed new T2 lesions (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .01), as well as new gadolinium-enhancing lesions (OR, 1.99; P = .02), and a 20% worsening of the timed 25-foot walk test (T25FW; OR, 1.83; P = .04) and 9-hole peg test (9-HPT; OR, 1.81; P = .04)

Those switching to moderate DMTs also had significantly lower rates of absence of disease activity over the 24 months (OR, 0.41, P = .004), and they had a higher risk of earlier time-to-first gadolinium-enhancing lesion (hazard ratio, 6.67, P = .002), compared with those switching to a high-efficacy DMT.

Other factors that have previously been shown to be associated with rebounds that are worse than pre-natalizumab treatment include washout periods that are longer than 3 months.

The authors noted that there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of mean washout duration, which were relatively short (moderate DMT, 1.4 months; highly effective treatment, 1.8 months; P = .34), In addition, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the average duration of natalizumab treatment.

Dr. Hersh speculated that the lack of ARR differences may reflect that the measure is not as objective as the more specific determinants of performance. “One could consider the comparable ARR as a little surprising, but relapse evaluation in a retrospective manner is limited,” she explained.

“Historically, radiographic markers of new inflammation via brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and neuroperformance measures (T25FW and 9-HPT) are more objective compared to assessing clinical relapses, especially in a retrospective cohort where relapses cannot be validated by a central agency or the principal investigator. Therefore, one can surmise that patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy DMT fare better than de-escalating treatment to a moderate-efficacy DMT.”

Dr. Hersh and team plan a larger, multicenter study to investigate the short- and long-term effects of post-natalizumab DMT sequencing to help validate the current findings.

Commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the results are consistent with natalizumab’s general profile.

“In general, natalizumab has been used in patients with highly active disease, so I would expect fewer patients with no evidence of disease activity when switched to a moderately active drug rather than a highly active one,” he said in an interview.

Caveats of the findings include the trial’s observational nature, meaning potential confounding factors of baseline characteristics among patients who switched regimens are not known, noted Dr. Kamin, who was not involved with the study.

“Also, the patients were switched to a variety of drugs and even within a class there may be differences in outcome,” he explained.

Dr. Hersh reported consulting or research relationships with Biogen, Genentech, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and PCORI. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis, and the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who switch from treatment with the highly effective disease-modifying therapy natalizumab to a moderate-efficacy DMT show an increased risk of disability accumulation and disease activity over 2 years compared with switching to another highly effective DMT, new research shows.

“Owing to the vast number of available DMTs, not only understanding DMT performance but answering the question of what can come next if a patient needs to discontinue treatment due to safety or breakthrough disease is important,” said lead author Carrie M. Hersh, DO, of the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Cleveland Clinic, Las Vegas.

The study shows that, “patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy therapy have better inflammatory and disability outcomes compared with those who de-escalate their therapy to a moderate-efficacy DMT,” she said.

Natalizumab (Tysabri) offers significant benefits in the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, however, its long-term use is associated with safety concerns, notably an increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Although the risk can be reduced with a switch to a different DMT, the transition can have risks of its own, including a rebound of disease activity that could prove to be worse than the pre-natalizumab treatment period, and there is a lack of consensus on the safest avenues for switching to another DMT following discontinuation of natalizumab.

In research presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Dr. Hersh and colleagues explored the issue in a real-world population of 556 patients discontinuing natalizumab at two MS centers. Of these, 270 switched to a moderate DMT (dimethyl fumarate, n = 130; or fingolimod, n = 140) and 130 switched to a highly effective DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 106; rituximab, n = 17; or alemtuzumab, n = 7).

Reasons for switching included a PML risk for 54.9%, breakthrough disease for 15.3%, and adverse effects for 17.3%.

At 24-month follow-up after the switch and after adjustment for propensity score matching, no differences were seen between the moderate and highly effective DMT groups in terms of the annualized relapse rate (ARR; P = 0.33) or the time to first relapse (P = 0.09).

However, significantly higher proportions of patients switching to moderate DMTs showed new T2 lesions (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .01), as well as new gadolinium-enhancing lesions (OR, 1.99; P = .02), and a 20% worsening of the timed 25-foot walk test (T25FW; OR, 1.83; P = .04) and 9-hole peg test (9-HPT; OR, 1.81; P = .04)

Those switching to moderate DMTs also had significantly lower rates of absence of disease activity over the 24 months (OR, 0.41, P = .004), and they had a higher risk of earlier time-to-first gadolinium-enhancing lesion (hazard ratio, 6.67, P = .002), compared with those switching to a high-efficacy DMT.

Other factors that have previously been shown to be associated with rebounds that are worse than pre-natalizumab treatment include washout periods that are longer than 3 months.

The authors noted that there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of mean washout duration, which were relatively short (moderate DMT, 1.4 months; highly effective treatment, 1.8 months; P = .34), In addition, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the average duration of natalizumab treatment.

Dr. Hersh speculated that the lack of ARR differences may reflect that the measure is not as objective as the more specific determinants of performance. “One could consider the comparable ARR as a little surprising, but relapse evaluation in a retrospective manner is limited,” she explained.

“Historically, radiographic markers of new inflammation via brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and neuroperformance measures (T25FW and 9-HPT) are more objective compared to assessing clinical relapses, especially in a retrospective cohort where relapses cannot be validated by a central agency or the principal investigator. Therefore, one can surmise that patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy DMT fare better than de-escalating treatment to a moderate-efficacy DMT.”

Dr. Hersh and team plan a larger, multicenter study to investigate the short- and long-term effects of post-natalizumab DMT sequencing to help validate the current findings.

Commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the results are consistent with natalizumab’s general profile.

“In general, natalizumab has been used in patients with highly active disease, so I would expect fewer patients with no evidence of disease activity when switched to a moderately active drug rather than a highly active one,” he said in an interview.

Caveats of the findings include the trial’s observational nature, meaning potential confounding factors of baseline characteristics among patients who switched regimens are not known, noted Dr. Kamin, who was not involved with the study.

“Also, the patients were switched to a variety of drugs and even within a class there may be differences in outcome,” he explained.

Dr. Hersh reported consulting or research relationships with Biogen, Genentech, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and PCORI. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis, and the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who switch from treatment with the highly effective disease-modifying therapy natalizumab to a moderate-efficacy DMT show an increased risk of disability accumulation and disease activity over 2 years compared with switching to another highly effective DMT, new research shows.

“Owing to the vast number of available DMTs, not only understanding DMT performance but answering the question of what can come next if a patient needs to discontinue treatment due to safety or breakthrough disease is important,” said lead author Carrie M. Hersh, DO, of the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Cleveland Clinic, Las Vegas.

The study shows that, “patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy therapy have better inflammatory and disability outcomes compared with those who de-escalate their therapy to a moderate-efficacy DMT,” she said.

Natalizumab (Tysabri) offers significant benefits in the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, however, its long-term use is associated with safety concerns, notably an increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Although the risk can be reduced with a switch to a different DMT, the transition can have risks of its own, including a rebound of disease activity that could prove to be worse than the pre-natalizumab treatment period, and there is a lack of consensus on the safest avenues for switching to another DMT following discontinuation of natalizumab.

In research presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Dr. Hersh and colleagues explored the issue in a real-world population of 556 patients discontinuing natalizumab at two MS centers. Of these, 270 switched to a moderate DMT (dimethyl fumarate, n = 130; or fingolimod, n = 140) and 130 switched to a highly effective DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 106; rituximab, n = 17; or alemtuzumab, n = 7).

Reasons for switching included a PML risk for 54.9%, breakthrough disease for 15.3%, and adverse effects for 17.3%.

At 24-month follow-up after the switch and after adjustment for propensity score matching, no differences were seen between the moderate and highly effective DMT groups in terms of the annualized relapse rate (ARR; P = 0.33) or the time to first relapse (P = 0.09).

However, significantly higher proportions of patients switching to moderate DMTs showed new T2 lesions (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .01), as well as new gadolinium-enhancing lesions (OR, 1.99; P = .02), and a 20% worsening of the timed 25-foot walk test (T25FW; OR, 1.83; P = .04) and 9-hole peg test (9-HPT; OR, 1.81; P = .04)

Those switching to moderate DMTs also had significantly lower rates of absence of disease activity over the 24 months (OR, 0.41, P = .004), and they had a higher risk of earlier time-to-first gadolinium-enhancing lesion (hazard ratio, 6.67, P = .002), compared with those switching to a high-efficacy DMT.

Other factors that have previously been shown to be associated with rebounds that are worse than pre-natalizumab treatment include washout periods that are longer than 3 months.

The authors noted that there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of mean washout duration, which were relatively short (moderate DMT, 1.4 months; highly effective treatment, 1.8 months; P = .34), In addition, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the average duration of natalizumab treatment.

Dr. Hersh speculated that the lack of ARR differences may reflect that the measure is not as objective as the more specific determinants of performance. “One could consider the comparable ARR as a little surprising, but relapse evaluation in a retrospective manner is limited,” she explained.

“Historically, radiographic markers of new inflammation via brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and neuroperformance measures (T25FW and 9-HPT) are more objective compared to assessing clinical relapses, especially in a retrospective cohort where relapses cannot be validated by a central agency or the principal investigator. Therefore, one can surmise that patients transitioning from natalizumab to another high-efficacy DMT fare better than de-escalating treatment to a moderate-efficacy DMT.”

Dr. Hersh and team plan a larger, multicenter study to investigate the short- and long-term effects of post-natalizumab DMT sequencing to help validate the current findings.

Commenting on the research, Stephen Kamin, MD, professor, vice chair and chief of service, department of neurology, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the results are consistent with natalizumab’s general profile.

“In general, natalizumab has been used in patients with highly active disease, so I would expect fewer patients with no evidence of disease activity when switched to a moderately active drug rather than a highly active one,” he said in an interview.

Caveats of the findings include the trial’s observational nature, meaning potential confounding factors of baseline characteristics among patients who switched regimens are not known, noted Dr. Kamin, who was not involved with the study.

“Also, the patients were switched to a variety of drugs and even within a class there may be differences in outcome,” he explained.

Dr. Hersh reported consulting or research relationships with Biogen, Genentech, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and PCORI. Dr. Kamin has received research support from Biogen, Novartis, and the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Air pollution may be another environmental risk factor for developing multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. A large cohort study of almost 550,000 individuals living in Italy showed that participants living in areas with high levels of pollutants had a significantly greater risk of developing MS than those who lived in areas with low levels of pollutants.

The findings further confirm a relationship between exposure to air pollutants and risk for MS that has been shown in previous research, said Roberto Bergamaschi, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy.

“Countermeasures that cut air pollution can be important for public health, not only to reduce deaths related to cardiac and pulmonary diseases but also the risk of chronic autoimmune diseases such as MS,” Dr. Bergamaschi said.

The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020, which transitioned to a virtual/online meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Toxic pollutants

Several environmental factors may trigger an abnormal immune response that manifests in MS. The most studied of these are low vitamin D level, cigarette smoking, and an unhealthy diet, Dr. Bergamaschi said. However, “other environmental factors deserve to be studied—pollution included,” he added.

Among the most toxic air pollutants are particulate matter (PM), which is a mixture of fine solid and liquid particles suspended in the earth’s atmosphere. PM may range from 2.5 microns (PM_2.5) to 10 microns (PM₁₀) in diameter.

The main sources of such pollutants are household and commercial heating (53%) and industrial activities (17%), followed by road vehicle and non–road vehicle use, agriculture, and electricity production.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 3.2 million individuals worldwide die prematurely every year because of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other diseases related to air pollutants, said Dr. Bergamaschi.

Epidemiologic research has uncovered a relationship between air pollution and MS. A large American study published in 2008 in Science of the Total Environment showed a significant association between MS prevalence and PM₁₀ levels (P < 0.001). Other studies have shown an increase in the number of clinical relapses of MS that were linked to air pollution.

The current investigators assessed the association between PM_2.5 levels and MS prevalence in the northern province of Pavia, which has a population of 547,251 individuals in 188 municipalities.
 

Peculiar features

Pavia is situated in a flat territory that encompasses the highly industrialized regions of Piedmont, Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna, and Veneto. It has a high level of anthropogenic emissions, or environmental pollutants, originating from human activity, Dr. Bergamaschi reported. The region also has “peculiar” geographical features that “favor the accumulation of pollutants,” such as the natural barrier of the Alps in the north and low wind speed, he said.

The researchers identified 927 individuals with MS (315 male and 612 female) in the province. The overall MS prevalence rate was 169.4 per 100,000 population (95% confidence interval [CI], 158.8 – 180.6), which is 10-fold higher than 50 years ago, Dr. Bergamaschi said. In addition, this MS prevalence is higher than that in the United States, which is about 150 per 100,000 population.

Using sophisticated Bayesian disease mapping, the investigators looked for clusters of MS. They also gathered emission data for PM_2.5 from 2010 to 2017 from the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme database. They then divided the region on the basis of average winter concentrations of PM_2.5.

Three distinct lateral areas of air pollution were identified. The more northern region, which includes the large urban center of Milan, had the highest level of air pollution. Concentrations decreased the further south the investigators looked.

After adjusting for age, urbanization (population density), and deprivation index, results showed that living in areas with high levels of pollutants was associated with increased MS risk. When controlling for PM_2.5 pollution, participants in urban areas had an increased risk for MS compared with rural dwellers (relative risk [RR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 – 1.30; P = 0.003)

Dr. Bergamaschi said it is unclear whether this risk is higher for certain types of MS. “To my knowledge, no study has analyzed possible relationships between MS phenotypes and air pollution,” he noted.
 

Vitamin D’s role?

Several mechanisms might help explain the relationship between air pollution and MS risk, he added. These include oxidative stress, which results in cell damage, inflammation, and proinflammatory cytokine release. Vitamin D also likely plays some role, Dr. Bergamaschi said. Upon penetrating the lower strata of the earth’s atmosphere, ultraviolet B radiation is absorbed and scattered by suspended pollutants.

Several studies have highlighted the correlation between living in a polluted area and vitamin D hypovitaminosis; “so air pollution can contribute to increasing the risk of MS by reducing vitamin D synthesis,” he said.

Recent research has also shown that air pollution is associated with a higher risk for other autoimmune disorders, including systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and type 1 diabetes mellitus.

However, pollution alone is only part of the picture. MS prevalence in highly populated and polluted countries such as China and India is low, with no more than 30 to 40 cases per 100,000 population, Dr. Bergamaschi noted. “This discrepancy is explained by different genetic backgrounds. While Caucasians are particularly susceptible to MS, Asians are not,” he said.

Study limitations cited included a possible bias because the analysis did not include other possible contributing risk factors, particularly other pollutants, Dr. Bergamaschi said.

Commenting on the research, Lily Jung Henson, MD, chief of neurology at Piedmont Healthcare in Stockbridge, Georgia, said the findings provide “a fascinating glimpse” into possible causative factors for MS and warrant further investigation.

“This research also suggests other opportunities to look at, such as progression of the degree of air pollution and the incidence of MS over time,” said Dr. Henson, who was not involved with the study.

Drs. Bergamaschi and Dr. Henson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Air pollution may be another environmental risk factor for developing multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. A large cohort study of almost 550,000 individuals living in Italy showed that participants living in areas with high levels of pollutants had a significantly greater risk of developing MS than those who lived in areas with low levels of pollutants.

The findings further confirm a relationship between exposure to air pollutants and risk for MS that has been shown in previous research, said Roberto Bergamaschi, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy.

“Countermeasures that cut air pollution can be important for public health, not only to reduce deaths related to cardiac and pulmonary diseases but also the risk of chronic autoimmune diseases such as MS,” Dr. Bergamaschi said.

The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020, which transitioned to a virtual/online meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Toxic pollutants

Several environmental factors may trigger an abnormal immune response that manifests in MS. The most studied of these are low vitamin D level, cigarette smoking, and an unhealthy diet, Dr. Bergamaschi said. However, “other environmental factors deserve to be studied—pollution included,” he added.

Among the most toxic air pollutants are particulate matter (PM), which is a mixture of fine solid and liquid particles suspended in the earth’s atmosphere. PM may range from 2.5 microns (PM_2.5) to 10 microns (PM₁₀) in diameter.

The main sources of such pollutants are household and commercial heating (53%) and industrial activities (17%), followed by road vehicle and non–road vehicle use, agriculture, and electricity production.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 3.2 million individuals worldwide die prematurely every year because of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other diseases related to air pollutants, said Dr. Bergamaschi.

Epidemiologic research has uncovered a relationship between air pollution and MS. A large American study published in 2008 in Science of the Total Environment showed a significant association between MS prevalence and PM₁₀ levels (P < 0.001). Other studies have shown an increase in the number of clinical relapses of MS that were linked to air pollution.

The current investigators assessed the association between PM_2.5 levels and MS prevalence in the northern province of Pavia, which has a population of 547,251 individuals in 188 municipalities.
 

Peculiar features

Pavia is situated in a flat territory that encompasses the highly industrialized regions of Piedmont, Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna, and Veneto. It has a high level of anthropogenic emissions, or environmental pollutants, originating from human activity, Dr. Bergamaschi reported. The region also has “peculiar” geographical features that “favor the accumulation of pollutants,” such as the natural barrier of the Alps in the north and low wind speed, he said.

The researchers identified 927 individuals with MS (315 male and 612 female) in the province. The overall MS prevalence rate was 169.4 per 100,000 population (95% confidence interval [CI], 158.8 – 180.6), which is 10-fold higher than 50 years ago, Dr. Bergamaschi said. In addition, this MS prevalence is higher than that in the United States, which is about 150 per 100,000 population.

Using sophisticated Bayesian disease mapping, the investigators looked for clusters of MS. They also gathered emission data for PM_2.5 from 2010 to 2017 from the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme database. They then divided the region on the basis of average winter concentrations of PM_2.5.

Three distinct lateral areas of air pollution were identified. The more northern region, which includes the large urban center of Milan, had the highest level of air pollution. Concentrations decreased the further south the investigators looked.

After adjusting for age, urbanization (population density), and deprivation index, results showed that living in areas with high levels of pollutants was associated with increased MS risk. When controlling for PM_2.5 pollution, participants in urban areas had an increased risk for MS compared with rural dwellers (relative risk [RR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 – 1.30; P = 0.003)

Dr. Bergamaschi said it is unclear whether this risk is higher for certain types of MS. “To my knowledge, no study has analyzed possible relationships between MS phenotypes and air pollution,” he noted.
 

Vitamin D’s role?

Several mechanisms might help explain the relationship between air pollution and MS risk, he added. These include oxidative stress, which results in cell damage, inflammation, and proinflammatory cytokine release. Vitamin D also likely plays some role, Dr. Bergamaschi said. Upon penetrating the lower strata of the earth’s atmosphere, ultraviolet B radiation is absorbed and scattered by suspended pollutants.

Several studies have highlighted the correlation between living in a polluted area and vitamin D hypovitaminosis; “so air pollution can contribute to increasing the risk of MS by reducing vitamin D synthesis,” he said.

Recent research has also shown that air pollution is associated with a higher risk for other autoimmune disorders, including systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and type 1 diabetes mellitus.

However, pollution alone is only part of the picture. MS prevalence in highly populated and polluted countries such as China and India is low, with no more than 30 to 40 cases per 100,000 population, Dr. Bergamaschi noted. “This discrepancy is explained by different genetic backgrounds. While Caucasians are particularly susceptible to MS, Asians are not,” he said.

Study limitations cited included a possible bias because the analysis did not include other possible contributing risk factors, particularly other pollutants, Dr. Bergamaschi said.

Commenting on the research, Lily Jung Henson, MD, chief of neurology at Piedmont Healthcare in Stockbridge, Georgia, said the findings provide “a fascinating glimpse” into possible causative factors for MS and warrant further investigation.

“This research also suggests other opportunities to look at, such as progression of the degree of air pollution and the incidence of MS over time,” said Dr. Henson, who was not involved with the study.

Drs. Bergamaschi and Dr. Henson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Air pollution may be another environmental risk factor for developing multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. A large cohort study of almost 550,000 individuals living in Italy showed that participants living in areas with high levels of pollutants had a significantly greater risk of developing MS than those who lived in areas with low levels of pollutants.

The findings further confirm a relationship between exposure to air pollutants and risk for MS that has been shown in previous research, said Roberto Bergamaschi, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Center, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy.

“Countermeasures that cut air pollution can be important for public health, not only to reduce deaths related to cardiac and pulmonary diseases but also the risk of chronic autoimmune diseases such as MS,” Dr. Bergamaschi said.

The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020, which transitioned to a virtual/online meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Toxic pollutants

Several environmental factors may trigger an abnormal immune response that manifests in MS. The most studied of these are low vitamin D level, cigarette smoking, and an unhealthy diet, Dr. Bergamaschi said. However, “other environmental factors deserve to be studied—pollution included,” he added.

Among the most toxic air pollutants are particulate matter (PM), which is a mixture of fine solid and liquid particles suspended in the earth’s atmosphere. PM may range from 2.5 microns (PM_2.5) to 10 microns (PM₁₀) in diameter.

The main sources of such pollutants are household and commercial heating (53%) and industrial activities (17%), followed by road vehicle and non–road vehicle use, agriculture, and electricity production.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 3.2 million individuals worldwide die prematurely every year because of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other diseases related to air pollutants, said Dr. Bergamaschi.

Epidemiologic research has uncovered a relationship between air pollution and MS. A large American study published in 2008 in Science of the Total Environment showed a significant association between MS prevalence and PM₁₀ levels (P < 0.001). Other studies have shown an increase in the number of clinical relapses of MS that were linked to air pollution.

The current investigators assessed the association between PM_2.5 levels and MS prevalence in the northern province of Pavia, which has a population of 547,251 individuals in 188 municipalities.
 

Peculiar features

Pavia is situated in a flat territory that encompasses the highly industrialized regions of Piedmont, Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna, and Veneto. It has a high level of anthropogenic emissions, or environmental pollutants, originating from human activity, Dr. Bergamaschi reported. The region also has “peculiar” geographical features that “favor the accumulation of pollutants,” such as the natural barrier of the Alps in the north and low wind speed, he said.

The researchers identified 927 individuals with MS (315 male and 612 female) in the province. The overall MS prevalence rate was 169.4 per 100,000 population (95% confidence interval [CI], 158.8 – 180.6), which is 10-fold higher than 50 years ago, Dr. Bergamaschi said. In addition, this MS prevalence is higher than that in the United States, which is about 150 per 100,000 population.

Using sophisticated Bayesian disease mapping, the investigators looked for clusters of MS. They also gathered emission data for PM_2.5 from 2010 to 2017 from the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme database. They then divided the region on the basis of average winter concentrations of PM_2.5.

Three distinct lateral areas of air pollution were identified. The more northern region, which includes the large urban center of Milan, had the highest level of air pollution. Concentrations decreased the further south the investigators looked.

After adjusting for age, urbanization (population density), and deprivation index, results showed that living in areas with high levels of pollutants was associated with increased MS risk. When controlling for PM_2.5 pollution, participants in urban areas had an increased risk for MS compared with rural dwellers (relative risk [RR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 – 1.30; P = 0.003)

Dr. Bergamaschi said it is unclear whether this risk is higher for certain types of MS. “To my knowledge, no study has analyzed possible relationships between MS phenotypes and air pollution,” he noted.
 

Vitamin D’s role?

Several mechanisms might help explain the relationship between air pollution and MS risk, he added. These include oxidative stress, which results in cell damage, inflammation, and proinflammatory cytokine release. Vitamin D also likely plays some role, Dr. Bergamaschi said. Upon penetrating the lower strata of the earth’s atmosphere, ultraviolet B radiation is absorbed and scattered by suspended pollutants.

Several studies have highlighted the correlation between living in a polluted area and vitamin D hypovitaminosis; “so air pollution can contribute to increasing the risk of MS by reducing vitamin D synthesis,” he said.

Recent research has also shown that air pollution is associated with a higher risk for other autoimmune disorders, including systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and type 1 diabetes mellitus.

However, pollution alone is only part of the picture. MS prevalence in highly populated and polluted countries such as China and India is low, with no more than 30 to 40 cases per 100,000 population, Dr. Bergamaschi noted. “This discrepancy is explained by different genetic backgrounds. While Caucasians are particularly susceptible to MS, Asians are not,” he said.

Study limitations cited included a possible bias because the analysis did not include other possible contributing risk factors, particularly other pollutants, Dr. Bergamaschi said.

Commenting on the research, Lily Jung Henson, MD, chief of neurology at Piedmont Healthcare in Stockbridge, Georgia, said the findings provide “a fascinating glimpse” into possible causative factors for MS and warrant further investigation.

“This research also suggests other opportunities to look at, such as progression of the degree of air pollution and the incidence of MS over time,” said Dr. Henson, who was not involved with the study.

Drs. Bergamaschi and Dr. Henson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During the deadliest wildfire in California’s history in 2018, dermatology clinics 175 miles away at the University of California, San Francisco, experienced an increase in the number of pediatric and adult visits for pruritus and atopic dermatitis associated with air pollution created from the wildfire, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

In patients with and without atopic dermatitis (AD), “acute exposure to poor air quality associated with a wildfire event can increase the number of visits for itch,” Raj Fadadu, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, said in his presentation.

Not many studies have examined this potential association, but includes those that have found significant positive associations between exposure to air pollution and pruritus, the development of AD, and exacerbation of AD (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014 Nov;134[5]:993-9). Another study found outpatient visits for patients with eczema and dermatitis in Beijing increased as the level of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide concentrations increased (Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2019 Jan 23;21[1]:163-73).

Mr. Faduda and colleagues set out to determine whether the number of appointments for and severity of skin disease increased as a result of the 2018 Camp Fire, which started in Paradise, Calif., using measures of air pollution and clinic visits in years where California did not experience a wildfire event as controls. Using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Hazard Mapping System for fire and smoke, the researchers graphed smoke plume density scores and particulate matter (PM_2.5) concentrations in the area. They then calculated the number of UCSF dermatology clinic visits for AD/eczema, and measured severity of skin disease with appointments for itch symptoms, and the number of prescribed medications during that time using ICD-10 codes.

The Camp Fire rapidly spread over a period of 17 days, between Nov. 8 and 25, 2018, during which time, PM_2.5 particulate matter concentrations increased 10-fold, while the NOAA smoke plume density score sharply increased. More pediatric and adult patients also seemed to be visiting clinics during this time, compared with several weeks before and several weeks after the fire, prompting a more expanded analysis of this signal, Mr. Fadadu said.

He and his coinvestigators compared data between October 2015 and February 2016 – a period of time where there were no wildfires in California – with data in 2018, when the Camp Fire occurred. They collected data on 3,448 adults and 699 children across 3 years with a total of 5,539 adult appointments for AD, 924 pediatric appointments for AD, 1,319 adult itch appointments, and 294 pediatric itch appointments. Cumulative and exposure lags were used to measure the effect of the wildfire in a Poisson regression analysis.

They found that, during the wildfire, pediatric AD weekly clinic visits were 1.75 times higher (95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.50) and pediatric itch visits were 2.10 times higher (95% CI, 1.44-3.00), compared with weeks where there was no fire. During the wildfire, pediatric AD clinic visits increased by 8% (rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) per 10 mcg/m³ increase in PM_2.5 concentration.

In adults, clinic visits for AD were 1.28 times higher (95% CI, 1.08-1.51) during the wildfire, compared with nonfire weeks. While there was a positive association between pollution exposure and adult AD, “this effect is less than what we observed” for pediatric AD visits, said Mr. Fadadu. Air pollution was positively associated with the development of itch symptoms in adults and more prescriptions for AD medications, but the results were not statistically significant.

“This may be explained by the fact that 80% of pediatric itch patients carried an AD diagnosis, while in contrast, only half of the adult itch patients also have a diagnosis of AD,” he said.

While there are several possible limitations of the research, including assessment of air pollution exposure, Mr. Fadadu said, “these results can inform how dermatologists counsel patients during future episodes of poor air quality, as well as expand comprehension of the broader health effects of climate change that can significantly impact quality of life.”

This study was funded by the UCSF Summer Explore Fellowship, Marguerite Schoeneman Award, and Joint Medical Program Thesis Grant.

During the deadliest wildfire in California’s history in 2018, dermatology clinics 175 miles away at the University of California, San Francisco, experienced an increase in the number of pediatric and adult visits for pruritus and atopic dermatitis associated with air pollution created from the wildfire, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

In patients with and without atopic dermatitis (AD), “acute exposure to poor air quality associated with a wildfire event can increase the number of visits for itch,” Raj Fadadu, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, said in his presentation.

Not many studies have examined this potential association, but includes those that have found significant positive associations between exposure to air pollution and pruritus, the development of AD, and exacerbation of AD (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014 Nov;134[5]:993-9). Another study found outpatient visits for patients with eczema and dermatitis in Beijing increased as the level of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide concentrations increased (Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2019 Jan 23;21[1]:163-73).

Mr. Faduda and colleagues set out to determine whether the number of appointments for and severity of skin disease increased as a result of the 2018 Camp Fire, which started in Paradise, Calif., using measures of air pollution and clinic visits in years where California did not experience a wildfire event as controls. Using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Hazard Mapping System for fire and smoke, the researchers graphed smoke plume density scores and particulate matter (PM_2.5) concentrations in the area. They then calculated the number of UCSF dermatology clinic visits for AD/eczema, and measured severity of skin disease with appointments for itch symptoms, and the number of prescribed medications during that time using ICD-10 codes.

The Camp Fire rapidly spread over a period of 17 days, between Nov. 8 and 25, 2018, during which time, PM_2.5 particulate matter concentrations increased 10-fold, while the NOAA smoke plume density score sharply increased. More pediatric and adult patients also seemed to be visiting clinics during this time, compared with several weeks before and several weeks after the fire, prompting a more expanded analysis of this signal, Mr. Fadadu said.

He and his coinvestigators compared data between October 2015 and February 2016 – a period of time where there were no wildfires in California – with data in 2018, when the Camp Fire occurred. They collected data on 3,448 adults and 699 children across 3 years with a total of 5,539 adult appointments for AD, 924 pediatric appointments for AD, 1,319 adult itch appointments, and 294 pediatric itch appointments. Cumulative and exposure lags were used to measure the effect of the wildfire in a Poisson regression analysis.

They found that, during the wildfire, pediatric AD weekly clinic visits were 1.75 times higher (95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.50) and pediatric itch visits were 2.10 times higher (95% CI, 1.44-3.00), compared with weeks where there was no fire. During the wildfire, pediatric AD clinic visits increased by 8% (rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) per 10 mcg/m³ increase in PM_2.5 concentration.

In adults, clinic visits for AD were 1.28 times higher (95% CI, 1.08-1.51) during the wildfire, compared with nonfire weeks. While there was a positive association between pollution exposure and adult AD, “this effect is less than what we observed” for pediatric AD visits, said Mr. Fadadu. Air pollution was positively associated with the development of itch symptoms in adults and more prescriptions for AD medications, but the results were not statistically significant.

“This may be explained by the fact that 80% of pediatric itch patients carried an AD diagnosis, while in contrast, only half of the adult itch patients also have a diagnosis of AD,” he said.

While there are several possible limitations of the research, including assessment of air pollution exposure, Mr. Fadadu said, “these results can inform how dermatologists counsel patients during future episodes of poor air quality, as well as expand comprehension of the broader health effects of climate change that can significantly impact quality of life.”

This study was funded by the UCSF Summer Explore Fellowship, Marguerite Schoeneman Award, and Joint Medical Program Thesis Grant.

During the deadliest wildfire in California’s history in 2018, dermatology clinics 175 miles away at the University of California, San Francisco, experienced an increase in the number of pediatric and adult visits for pruritus and atopic dermatitis associated with air pollution created from the wildfire, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

In patients with and without atopic dermatitis (AD), “acute exposure to poor air quality associated with a wildfire event can increase the number of visits for itch,” Raj Fadadu, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, said in his presentation.

Not many studies have examined this potential association, but includes those that have found significant positive associations between exposure to air pollution and pruritus, the development of AD, and exacerbation of AD (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014 Nov;134[5]:993-9). Another study found outpatient visits for patients with eczema and dermatitis in Beijing increased as the level of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide concentrations increased (Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2019 Jan 23;21[1]:163-73).

Mr. Faduda and colleagues set out to determine whether the number of appointments for and severity of skin disease increased as a result of the 2018 Camp Fire, which started in Paradise, Calif., using measures of air pollution and clinic visits in years where California did not experience a wildfire event as controls. Using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Hazard Mapping System for fire and smoke, the researchers graphed smoke plume density scores and particulate matter (PM_2.5) concentrations in the area. They then calculated the number of UCSF dermatology clinic visits for AD/eczema, and measured severity of skin disease with appointments for itch symptoms, and the number of prescribed medications during that time using ICD-10 codes.

The Camp Fire rapidly spread over a period of 17 days, between Nov. 8 and 25, 2018, during which time, PM_2.5 particulate matter concentrations increased 10-fold, while the NOAA smoke plume density score sharply increased. More pediatric and adult patients also seemed to be visiting clinics during this time, compared with several weeks before and several weeks after the fire, prompting a more expanded analysis of this signal, Mr. Fadadu said.

He and his coinvestigators compared data between October 2015 and February 2016 – a period of time where there were no wildfires in California – with data in 2018, when the Camp Fire occurred. They collected data on 3,448 adults and 699 children across 3 years with a total of 5,539 adult appointments for AD, 924 pediatric appointments for AD, 1,319 adult itch appointments, and 294 pediatric itch appointments. Cumulative and exposure lags were used to measure the effect of the wildfire in a Poisson regression analysis.

They found that, during the wildfire, pediatric AD weekly clinic visits were 1.75 times higher (95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.50) and pediatric itch visits were 2.10 times higher (95% CI, 1.44-3.00), compared with weeks where there was no fire. During the wildfire, pediatric AD clinic visits increased by 8% (rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) per 10 mcg/m³ increase in PM_2.5 concentration.

In adults, clinic visits for AD were 1.28 times higher (95% CI, 1.08-1.51) during the wildfire, compared with nonfire weeks. While there was a positive association between pollution exposure and adult AD, “this effect is less than what we observed” for pediatric AD visits, said Mr. Fadadu. Air pollution was positively associated with the development of itch symptoms in adults and more prescriptions for AD medications, but the results were not statistically significant.

“This may be explained by the fact that 80% of pediatric itch patients carried an AD diagnosis, while in contrast, only half of the adult itch patients also have a diagnosis of AD,” he said.

While there are several possible limitations of the research, including assessment of air pollution exposure, Mr. Fadadu said, “these results can inform how dermatologists counsel patients during future episodes of poor air quality, as well as expand comprehension of the broader health effects of climate change that can significantly impact quality of life.”

This study was funded by the UCSF Summer Explore Fellowship, Marguerite Schoeneman Award, and Joint Medical Program Thesis Grant.