Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. ¹ He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?

Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.

So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.

There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.

What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.

Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?

Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.

Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?

Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.

If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.

Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.

A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.

Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.

Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?

Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.

It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.

Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?

Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.

So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.

I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.

Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.

Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Disclosures: None reported.

Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. ¹ He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?

Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.

So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.

There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.

What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.

Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?

Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.

Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?

Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.

If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.

Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.

A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.

Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.

Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?

Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.

It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.

Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?

Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.

So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.

I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.

Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.

Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Disclosures: None reported.

Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. ¹ He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?

Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.

So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.

There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.

What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.

Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?

Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.

Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?

Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.

If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.

Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.

A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.

Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.

Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?

Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.

It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.

Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?

Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.

So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.

I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.

Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.

Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Disclosures: None reported.

From the University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL.

Abstract

Background: Epistaxis is a common chief complaint addressed by otolaryngologists. A review of the literature showed that there is a deficit in epistaxis education within the nursing community. Conversations with our nursing colleagues confirmed this unmet demand.

Objective: This quality improvement project aimed to increase general epistaxis knowledge, perceived comfort level managing nosebleeds, and perceived ability to stop nosebleeds among our nursing staff.

Methods: Data were collected through a survey administered before and after our intervention. The survey tested general epistaxis knowledge and assessed comfort and confidence in stopping epistaxis. Our intervention was an educational session covering pertinent epistaxis etiology and management. Quality improvement principles were used to optimize delivery of the intervention.

Results: A total of 51 nurses participated in the project. After participating in the in-service educational session, nurses answered significantly more epistaxis general knowledge questions correctly (mean [SD] difference, 2.07 [1.10] questions; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience or clinical setting (P = .128 and P = 0.446, respectively). Nurses also reported feeling significantly more comfortable and significantly more confident in managing nosebleeds after the in-service (P = .007 and P < 0.001, respectively); 74.46% of nurses had an improvement in comfort level in managing epistaxis and 43.90% of nurses had an improvement in confidence in stopping epistaxis. After we moved the educational session from mid-shift to shift change, the nursing staff reported more satisfaction while maintaining similar improvements in knowledge and confidence.

Conclusion: We were able to significantly increase epistaxis knowledge, improve comfort levels managing epistaxis, and improve confidence in successful epistaxis management. Nurses of varying clinical experience and different clinical settings benefitted equally from our intervention.

Keywords: nosebleed; in-service; quality improvement.

Epistaxis, or nosebleed, is estimated to be the chief complaint in 1 in 200 emergency department visits in the United States.¹ Additionally, it represents up to one-third of otolaryngology-related emergency room admissions.² There is no existing literature, to our best knowledge, specifically investigating the incidence of epistaxis after a patient is admitted. Anecdotally, inpatients who develop epistaxis account for an appreciable number of consults to otolaryngology (ENT). Epistaxis is a cross-disciplinary issue, occurring in a range of clinical settings. For example, patients with epistaxis can present to the emergency department or to an outpatient primary care clinic before being referred to ENT. Additionally, inpatients on many different services can develop spontaneous epistaxis due to a variety of environmental and iatrogenic factors, such as dry air, use of nasal cannula, and initiation of anticoagulation. Based on the experience of our ENT providers and discussions with our nursing colleagues, we concluded that there was an interest in epistaxis management training among our nursing workforce.

The presence of unmet demand for epistaxis education among our nursing colleagues was supported by our literature review. A study performed in England surveyed emergency department nurses on first aid measures for management of epistaxis, including ideal head positioning, location of pressure application, and duration of pressure application.³ Overall, only 12% to 14% of the nursing staff answered all 3 questions correctly.³ Additionally, 73% to 78% of the nursing staff felt that their training in epistaxis management was inadequate, and 88% desired further training in epistaxis management.³ If generalized, this study confirms the demand for further epistaxis education among nurses.

In-services have previously been shown to be effective educational tools within the nursing community. A study in Ethiopia that evaluated pain management knowledge and attitudes before and after an in-service found a significant improvement in mean rank score of nurses’ knowledge and attitudes regarding pain management after they participated in the in-service.⁴ Scores on the knowledge survey improved from 41.4% before the intervention to 63.0% post intervention.⁴ A study in Connecticut evaluated nurses’ confidence in discussing suicidal ideation with patients and knowledge surrounding suicide precautions.⁵ After participating in an in-service, nurses were significantly more confident in discussing suicidal ideation with patients; application of appropriate suicide precautions also increased after the in-service.⁵

Our aim was for nurses to have an improvement in overall epistaxis knowledge, perceived comfort level managing nosebleeds, and perceived ability to stop nosebleeds after attending our in-service. Additionally, an overarching priority was to provide high-quality epistaxis education based on the literature and best practice guidelines.

Methods

Setting

This study was carried out at an 811-bed quaternary care center located in Chicago, Illinois. In fiscal year 2021, there were 91 643 emergency department visits and 33 805 hospital admissions. At our flagship hospital, 2658 patients were diagnosed with epistaxis during fiscal year 2021. The emergency department saw 533 patients with epistaxis, with 342 requiring admission and 191 being discharged. Separately, 566 inpatients received a diagnosis of epistaxis during their admission. The remainder of the patients with epistaxis were seen on an outpatient basis.

Data Collection

Data were collected from nurses on 5 different inpatient units. An email with information about the in-service was sent to the nurse managers of the inpatient units. These 5 units were included because the nurse managers responded to the email and facilitated delivery of the in-service. Data collection took place from August to December 2020.

Intervention

A quality improvement team composed of a resident physician champion, nurse educators, and nurse managers was formed. The physician champion was a senior otolaryngology resident who was responsible for designing and administering the pre-test, in-service, and post test. The nurse educators and nurse managers helped coordinate times for the in-service and promoted the in-service for their staff.

Our intervention was an educational in-service, a technique that is commonly used at our institution for nurse education. In-services typically involve delivering a lecture on a clinically relevant topic to a group of nurses on a unit. In developing the in-service, a top priority was to present high-quality evidence-based material. There is an abundance of information in the literature surrounding epistaxis management. The clinical practice guideline published by the American Academy of Otolaryngology lists nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery as first-line treatments for the management of epistaxis.⁶ Nasal packing and nasal cautery tend to be perceived as interventions that require a certain level of expertise and specialized supplies. As such, these interventions are not often performed by floor nurses. In contrast, nasal compression and application of vasoconstrictors require only a few easily accessible supplies, and the risks are relatively minimal. When performing nasal compression, the clinical practice guidelines recommend firm, sustained compression to the lower third of the nose for 5 minutes or longer.⁶ Topical vasoconstrictors are generally underutilized in epistaxis management. In a study looking at a random sample of all US emergency department visits from 1992 to 2001, only 18% of visits used an epistaxis-related medication.² Oxymetazoline hydrochloride is a topical vasoconstrictor that is commonly used as a nasal decongestant. However, its vasoconstrictor properties also make it a useful tool for controlling epistaxis. In a study looking at emergency department visits at the University of Texas Health Science Center, 65% of patients had resolution of nosebleed with application of oxymetazoline hydrochloride as the only intervention, with another 18% experiencing resolution of nosebleed with a combination of oxymetazoline hydrochloride and silver nitrate cautery.⁷ Based on review of the literature, nasal compression and application of vasoconstrictors seemed to be low-resource interventions with minimal morbidity. Therefore, management centered around nasal compression and use of topical vasoconstrictors seemed appropriate for our nursing staff.

The in-service included information about the etiology and management of epistaxis. Particular emphasis was placed on addressing and debunking common misconceptions about nosebleed management. With regards to management, our presentation focused on the use of topical vasoconstrictors and firm pressure to the lower third of the nose for at least 5 minutes. Nasal packing and nasal cautery were presented as procedures that ENT would perform. After the in-service, questions from the nurses were answered as time permitted.

Testing and Outcomes

A pre-test was administered before each in-service. The pre-test components comprised a knowledge survey and a descriptive survey. The general epistaxis knowledge questions on the pre-test included the location of blood vessels most commonly responsible for nosebleeds, the ideal positioning of a patient during a nosebleed, the appropriate location to hold pressure during a nosebleed, and the appropriate duration to hold pressure during a nosebleed. The descriptive survey portion asked nurses to rate whether they felt “very comfortable,” “comfortable,” “uncomfortable,” or “very uncomfortable” managing nosebleeds. It also asked whether nurses thought they would be able to “always,” “usually,” “rarely,” or “never” stop nosebleeds on the floor. We collected demographic information, including gender identity, years of clinical experience, and primary clinical environment.

The post test asked the same questions as the pre-test and was administered immediately after the in-service in order to assess its impact. We also established an ongoing dialogue with our nursing colleagues to obtain feedback on the sessions.

Primary outcomes of interest were the difference in general epistaxis knowledge questions answered correctly between the pre-test and the post test; the difference in comfort level in managing epistaxis before and after the in-service; and the difference in confidence to stop nosebleeds before and after the in-service. A secondary outcome was determining the audience for the in-service. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether there were different outcomes based on clinical setting or years of clinical experience. If nurses in a certain clinical environment or beyond a certain experience level did not show significant improvement from pre-test to post test, we would not target them for the in-service. Another secondary outcome was determining optimal timing for delivery of the in-service. We wanted to determine if there was a nursing preference for delivering the in-service at mid-shift vs shift change.

Analysis

Statistical calculations were performed using Stata 15 (StataCorp LLC). A P value < .05 was considered to be statistically significant. Where applicable, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. T-test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test epistaxis knowledge question scores. T-test was also used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in test scores between nurses receiving the in-service at mid-shift vs shift change. Pearson chi-squared tests were used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test perceptions of epistaxis management, and to investigate outcomes between different subsets of nurses.

SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines were utilized to provide a framework for this project and to structure the manuscript.⁸ This study met criteria for exemption from institutional review board approval.

Results

Fifty-one nurses took part in this project (Table). The majority of participants identified as female (88.24%), and just over half worked on medical floors (52.94%), with most of the remainder working in intensive care (25.49%) and surgical (15.69%) settings. There was a wide range of clinical experience, with 1.96% reporting 0 to 1 years of experience, 29.41% reporting 2 to 5 years, 23.53% reporting 5 to 10 years, 25.49% reporting 10 to 20 years, and 17.65% reporting more than 20 years.

There were unanswered questions on both the pre-test and post test. There was no consistently unanswered question. Omitted answers on the epistaxis knowledge questions were recorded as an “incorrect” answer. Omitted answers on the perception questions were considered null values and not considered in final analysis.

Primary Measures

General epistaxis knowledge (Figure, part A) improved from the pre-test, where out of 4 questions, the mean (SD) score was 1.74 (1.02) correct questions, to the post-test, where out of 4 questions, the mean score was 3.80 (0.40) correct questions. After participating in the in-service, nurses answered significantly more questions about epistaxis general knowledge correctly (mean difference, 2.07 [1.10]; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001), and 80.43% of them got a perfect score on the epistaxis knowledge questions.

The second primary measure was the difference in comfort level in managing nosebleed. After participating in the in-service, nurses felt significantly more comfortable in managing nosebleeds (Figure, part B; P = .007), with 74.46% of nurses having an improved comfort level managing nosebleeds. Before the in-service, 12.76% of nurses felt “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds vs more than three-quarters (76.59%) after the in-service. Of those who answered that they felt “comfortable” managing nosebleeds on the pre-test, 82.35% improved to feeling “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds. Before the in-service, 14.89% of nurses felt “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” in managing nosebleeds, and this decreased to 0 post intervention. After the in-service, 100.00% of nurses felt “comfortable” or “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds.

After receiving the in-service, nurses felt significantly more confident in stopping nosebleeds (Figure, part C; P < .001), with 43.90% of them having an improvement in confidence in stopping epistaxis. Before the in-service, 7.31% of nurses felt that they would “always” be able to stop a nose-bleed, and this increased to 41.46% after the in-service. Of those who answered that they felt that they would “usually” be able to stop a nosebleed on the pre-test, 36.67% changed their answer to state that they would “always” be able to stop a nosebleed on the post test. Before the in-service, 19.51% of nurses felt that they would “rarely” or “never” be able to stop a nosebleed, and this decreased to 2.44% after the in-service.

Secondary Measures

All of the nurses who participated either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they learned something new from the in-service. However, to determine whether there was a population who would benefit most from the in-service, we stratified the data by years of clinical experience. There was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses with varying clinical experience learned something new (P = .148): 100% of nurses with 0-1 years of experience, 80.00% of nurses with 2-5 years of experience, 100% of nurses with 5-10 years of experience, 69.23% of nurses with 10-20 years of experience, and 100% of nurses with >20 years of experience “strongly agreed” that they learned something new from this in-service. There was no statistically significant difference on the post test compared to the pre-test in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience (P = .128). Second, when we stratified by clinical setting, we did not find a statistically significant difference in whether nurses in different clinical settings learned something new (P = .929): 88.89% of nurses in the medical setting, 87.50% of nurses in the surgical setting, and 84.62% of nurses in the intensive care setting “strongly agreed” that they learned something new from this presentation. On investigating additional questions correct on the post test compared to the pre-test, there was no statistically significant difference in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical setting (P = .446).

Optimal timing of the in-service was another important outcome. Initially, the in-service was administered at mid-shift, with 9 nurses participating at mid-shift, but our nursing colleagues gave unanimous feedback that this was a suboptimal time for delivery of an in-service. We changed the timing of the in-service to shift change; 42 nurses received the in-service at shift-change. There was no statistically significant difference in scores on the epistaxis knowledge questions between these two groups (P = .123). This indicated to us that changing the timing of the delivery resulted in similarly improved outcomes while having the added benefit of being preferred by our nursing colleagues.

Discussion

In undertaking this project, our primary aims were to improve epistaxis knowledge and perceived management in our nursing staff. Among our nursing staff, we were able to significantly increase epistaxis knowledge, improve comfort levels managing epistaxis, and improve confidence in successful epistaxis management. We also found that nurses of varying clinical experience and different clinical settings benefited equally from our intervention. Using quality improvement principles, we optimized our delivery. Our in-service focused on educating nurses to use epistaxis management techniques that were resource-efficient and low risk.

After participating in the in-service, nurses answered significantly more questions about epistaxis general knowledge correctly (Figure, part A; mean difference, 2.07 questions [1.10]; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001), felt significantly more comfortable in managing nosebleeds (Figure, part B; P = .007), and felt significantly more confident in stopping nosebleeds (Figure, part C; P < .001). Based on these results, we successfully achieved our primary aims.

Our secondary aim was to determine the audience that would benefit the most from the in-service. All of the nurses who participated either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they learned something new from the in-service. There was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses of varying clinical experience learned something new (P = .148) or in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience (P =.128). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses in different clinical settings learned something new (P = .929) or in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical setting (P = .446). These results indicated to us that all participants learned something new and that there was no specific target audience, but rather that all participants benefitted from our session.

Our nursing colleagues gave us feedback that the timing of the in-service during mid-shift was not ideal. It was difficult to gather nurses mid-shift due to pressing patient-care duties. Nurses also found it difficult to give their full attention at this time. Nurses, nurse educators, and nurse managers suggested that we conduct the in-service at shift change in order to capture a larger population and take advantage of time relatively free of clinical duties. Giving the in-service at a time with relatively fewer clinical responsibilities allowed for a more robust question-and-answer session. It also allowed our nursing colleagues to pay full attention to the in-service. There was no statistically significant difference in epistaxis general knowledge questions answered correctly; this indicates that the quality of the education session did not vary greatly. However, our nursing colleagues strongly preferred the in-service at shift change. By making this modification to our intervention, we were able to optimize our intervention.

The previously mentioned study in England reported that only 12% to 14% of their nursing staff got a perfect score on epistaxis knowledge questions. Prior to our study, there was no literature investigating the impact of an in-service on epistaxis knowledge. After our intervention, 80.43% of our nurses got a perfect score on the epistaxis knowledge questions. We believe that this is a fair comparison because our post-test questions were identical to the survey questions used in the previously mentioned study in England, with the addition of one question.³ Further, the findings of our study are consistent with other studies regarding the positive effect of in-service education on knowledge and attitudes surrounding clinical topics. Similar to the study in Ethiopia investigating nurses’ knowledge surrounding pain management, our study noted a significant improvement in nurses’ knowledge after participating in the in-service.⁴ Also, when comparing our study to the study performed in Connecticut investigating nurses’ confidence surrounding suicide precautions, we found a similar significant improvement in confidence in management after participating in the in-service.⁵

Given our reliance on a survey as a tool to collect information, our study was subject to nonresponse bias. For each main outcome question, there was a handful of nonresponders. While this likely indicated either overlooking a question or deferring to answer due to clinical inexperience or nonapplicable clinical role, it is possible that this may have represented a respondent who did not benefit from the in-service. Another source of possible bias is sampling bias. Attempts were made to capture a wide range of nurses at the in-service. However, if a nurse was not interested in the topic material, whether due to abundant clinical experience or disinterest, it is possible that they may not have attended. Additionally, the cohort was selected purely based on responses from nursing managers to the initial email. It is possible that nonresponding units may have benefitted differently from this in-service.

There were several limitations within our analysis. We did not collect data assessing the long-term retention of epistaxis knowledge and management techniques. It is possible that epistaxis knowledge, comfort in managing nosebleeds, and perceived confidence in stopping nosebleeds decreased back to baseline several months after the in-service. Ideally, we would have been able to collect this data to assess retention of the in-service information. Unfortunately, a significant number of nurses who initially participated in the project became lost to follow-up, making such data collection impossible. Additionally, there was no assessment of actual ability to stop nosebleeds before vs after this in-service. Perceived management of epistaxis vs actual management of epistaxis are 2 vastly different things. However, this data would have been difficult to collect, and it likely would not have been in the best interest of patients, especially before the in-service was administered. As an improvement to this project, we could have assessed how many nosebleeds nurses had seen and successfully stopped after the in-service. As previously mentioned, this was not possible due to losing a significant number of nurses to follow-up. Finally, we did not collect objective data on preference for administration of in-service at mid-shift vs shift change. We relied on subjective data from conversations with our colleagues. By collecting objective data, we could have supported this change to our intervention with data.

The primary challenge to sustainability for this intervention is nursing turnover. With each wave of departing nurses and new nursing hires, the difficulty of ensuring a consistent knowledge base and management standards within our nursing workforce became clearer. After optimizing our intervention, our solution was to provide a hospital-wide in-service, which was recorded and uploaded to an institution-wide in-service library. In this way, a nurse with the desire to learn about epistaxis management could access the material at any point in time. Another solution would have been to appoint champions for epistaxis management within each major department to deliver the epistaxis in-service to new hires and new rotators within the department. However, given the turnover witnessed in our study cohort, this may not be sustainable long term.

Conclusion

Epistaxis is a chief complaint that can present in many different clinical settings and situations. Therefore, the ability to stop epistaxis in a timely and effective fashion is valuable. Our study demonstrated that in-services can improve epistaxis knowledge and improve perceived epistaxis management. Ideally, this intervention will lead to improved patient care. Given that epistaxis is a ubiquitous issue, this study may benefit other institutions who want to improve care for patients with epistaxis.

Next steps for this intervention include utilizing in-services for epistaxis education at other institutions and collecting long-term data within our own institution. Collecting long-term data would allow us to assess the retention of epistaxis knowledge from our in-service.

Acknowledgments: The author thanks the nurse managers, nurse educators, and staff nurses involved in this project, as well as Dr. Louis Portugal for providing mentorship throughout this process and Dr. Dara Adams for assisting with statistical analysis.

Corresponding author: Avery Nelson, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 1035, Chicago, IL 60637; avery.nelson@uchospitals.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

From the University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL.

Abstract

Background: Epistaxis is a common chief complaint addressed by otolaryngologists. A review of the literature showed that there is a deficit in epistaxis education within the nursing community. Conversations with our nursing colleagues confirmed this unmet demand.

Objective: This quality improvement project aimed to increase general epistaxis knowledge, perceived comfort level managing nosebleeds, and perceived ability to stop nosebleeds among our nursing staff.

Methods: Data were collected through a survey administered before and after our intervention. The survey tested general epistaxis knowledge and assessed comfort and confidence in stopping epistaxis. Our intervention was an educational session covering pertinent epistaxis etiology and management. Quality improvement principles were used to optimize delivery of the intervention.

Results: A total of 51 nurses participated in the project. After participating in the in-service educational session, nurses answered significantly more epistaxis general knowledge questions correctly (mean [SD] difference, 2.07 [1.10] questions; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience or clinical setting (P = .128 and P = 0.446, respectively). Nurses also reported feeling significantly more comfortable and significantly more confident in managing nosebleeds after the in-service (P = .007 and P < 0.001, respectively); 74.46% of nurses had an improvement in comfort level in managing epistaxis and 43.90% of nurses had an improvement in confidence in stopping epistaxis. After we moved the educational session from mid-shift to shift change, the nursing staff reported more satisfaction while maintaining similar improvements in knowledge and confidence.

Conclusion: We were able to significantly increase epistaxis knowledge, improve comfort levels managing epistaxis, and improve confidence in successful epistaxis management. Nurses of varying clinical experience and different clinical settings benefitted equally from our intervention.

Keywords: nosebleed; in-service; quality improvement.

Epistaxis, or nosebleed, is estimated to be the chief complaint in 1 in 200 emergency department visits in the United States.¹ Additionally, it represents up to one-third of otolaryngology-related emergency room admissions.² There is no existing literature, to our best knowledge, specifically investigating the incidence of epistaxis after a patient is admitted. Anecdotally, inpatients who develop epistaxis account for an appreciable number of consults to otolaryngology (ENT). Epistaxis is a cross-disciplinary issue, occurring in a range of clinical settings. For example, patients with epistaxis can present to the emergency department or to an outpatient primary care clinic before being referred to ENT. Additionally, inpatients on many different services can develop spontaneous epistaxis due to a variety of environmental and iatrogenic factors, such as dry air, use of nasal cannula, and initiation of anticoagulation. Based on the experience of our ENT providers and discussions with our nursing colleagues, we concluded that there was an interest in epistaxis management training among our nursing workforce.

The presence of unmet demand for epistaxis education among our nursing colleagues was supported by our literature review. A study performed in England surveyed emergency department nurses on first aid measures for management of epistaxis, including ideal head positioning, location of pressure application, and duration of pressure application.³ Overall, only 12% to 14% of the nursing staff answered all 3 questions correctly.³ Additionally, 73% to 78% of the nursing staff felt that their training in epistaxis management was inadequate, and 88% desired further training in epistaxis management.³ If generalized, this study confirms the demand for further epistaxis education among nurses.

In-services have previously been shown to be effective educational tools within the nursing community. A study in Ethiopia that evaluated pain management knowledge and attitudes before and after an in-service found a significant improvement in mean rank score of nurses’ knowledge and attitudes regarding pain management after they participated in the in-service.⁴ Scores on the knowledge survey improved from 41.4% before the intervention to 63.0% post intervention.⁴ A study in Connecticut evaluated nurses’ confidence in discussing suicidal ideation with patients and knowledge surrounding suicide precautions.⁵ After participating in an in-service, nurses were significantly more confident in discussing suicidal ideation with patients; application of appropriate suicide precautions also increased after the in-service.⁵

Our aim was for nurses to have an improvement in overall epistaxis knowledge, perceived comfort level managing nosebleeds, and perceived ability to stop nosebleeds after attending our in-service. Additionally, an overarching priority was to provide high-quality epistaxis education based on the literature and best practice guidelines.

Methods

Setting

This study was carried out at an 811-bed quaternary care center located in Chicago, Illinois. In fiscal year 2021, there were 91 643 emergency department visits and 33 805 hospital admissions. At our flagship hospital, 2658 patients were diagnosed with epistaxis during fiscal year 2021. The emergency department saw 533 patients with epistaxis, with 342 requiring admission and 191 being discharged. Separately, 566 inpatients received a diagnosis of epistaxis during their admission. The remainder of the patients with epistaxis were seen on an outpatient basis.

Data Collection

Data were collected from nurses on 5 different inpatient units. An email with information about the in-service was sent to the nurse managers of the inpatient units. These 5 units were included because the nurse managers responded to the email and facilitated delivery of the in-service. Data collection took place from August to December 2020.

Intervention

A quality improvement team composed of a resident physician champion, nurse educators, and nurse managers was formed. The physician champion was a senior otolaryngology resident who was responsible for designing and administering the pre-test, in-service, and post test. The nurse educators and nurse managers helped coordinate times for the in-service and promoted the in-service for their staff.

Our intervention was an educational in-service, a technique that is commonly used at our institution for nurse education. In-services typically involve delivering a lecture on a clinically relevant topic to a group of nurses on a unit. In developing the in-service, a top priority was to present high-quality evidence-based material. There is an abundance of information in the literature surrounding epistaxis management. The clinical practice guideline published by the American Academy of Otolaryngology lists nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery as first-line treatments for the management of epistaxis.⁶ Nasal packing and nasal cautery tend to be perceived as interventions that require a certain level of expertise and specialized supplies. As such, these interventions are not often performed by floor nurses. In contrast, nasal compression and application of vasoconstrictors require only a few easily accessible supplies, and the risks are relatively minimal. When performing nasal compression, the clinical practice guidelines recommend firm, sustained compression to the lower third of the nose for 5 minutes or longer.⁶ Topical vasoconstrictors are generally underutilized in epistaxis management. In a study looking at a random sample of all US emergency department visits from 1992 to 2001, only 18% of visits used an epistaxis-related medication.² Oxymetazoline hydrochloride is a topical vasoconstrictor that is commonly used as a nasal decongestant. However, its vasoconstrictor properties also make it a useful tool for controlling epistaxis. In a study looking at emergency department visits at the University of Texas Health Science Center, 65% of patients had resolution of nosebleed with application of oxymetazoline hydrochloride as the only intervention, with another 18% experiencing resolution of nosebleed with a combination of oxymetazoline hydrochloride and silver nitrate cautery.⁷ Based on review of the literature, nasal compression and application of vasoconstrictors seemed to be low-resource interventions with minimal morbidity. Therefore, management centered around nasal compression and use of topical vasoconstrictors seemed appropriate for our nursing staff.

The in-service included information about the etiology and management of epistaxis. Particular emphasis was placed on addressing and debunking common misconceptions about nosebleed management. With regards to management, our presentation focused on the use of topical vasoconstrictors and firm pressure to the lower third of the nose for at least 5 minutes. Nasal packing and nasal cautery were presented as procedures that ENT would perform. After the in-service, questions from the nurses were answered as time permitted.

Testing and Outcomes

A pre-test was administered before each in-service. The pre-test components comprised a knowledge survey and a descriptive survey. The general epistaxis knowledge questions on the pre-test included the location of blood vessels most commonly responsible for nosebleeds, the ideal positioning of a patient during a nosebleed, the appropriate location to hold pressure during a nosebleed, and the appropriate duration to hold pressure during a nosebleed. The descriptive survey portion asked nurses to rate whether they felt “very comfortable,” “comfortable,” “uncomfortable,” or “very uncomfortable” managing nosebleeds. It also asked whether nurses thought they would be able to “always,” “usually,” “rarely,” or “never” stop nosebleeds on the floor. We collected demographic information, including gender identity, years of clinical experience, and primary clinical environment.

The post test asked the same questions as the pre-test and was administered immediately after the in-service in order to assess its impact. We also established an ongoing dialogue with our nursing colleagues to obtain feedback on the sessions.

Primary outcomes of interest were the difference in general epistaxis knowledge questions answered correctly between the pre-test and the post test; the difference in comfort level in managing epistaxis before and after the in-service; and the difference in confidence to stop nosebleeds before and after the in-service. A secondary outcome was determining the audience for the in-service. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether there were different outcomes based on clinical setting or years of clinical experience. If nurses in a certain clinical environment or beyond a certain experience level did not show significant improvement from pre-test to post test, we would not target them for the in-service. Another secondary outcome was determining optimal timing for delivery of the in-service. We wanted to determine if there was a nursing preference for delivering the in-service at mid-shift vs shift change.

Analysis

Statistical calculations were performed using Stata 15 (StataCorp LLC). A P value < .05 was considered to be statistically significant. Where applicable, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. T-test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test epistaxis knowledge question scores. T-test was also used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in test scores between nurses receiving the in-service at mid-shift vs shift change. Pearson chi-squared tests were used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test perceptions of epistaxis management, and to investigate outcomes between different subsets of nurses.

SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines were utilized to provide a framework for this project and to structure the manuscript.⁸ This study met criteria for exemption from institutional review board approval.

Results

Fifty-one nurses took part in this project (Table). The majority of participants identified as female (88.24%), and just over half worked on medical floors (52.94%), with most of the remainder working in intensive care (25.49%) and surgical (15.69%) settings. There was a wide range of clinical experience, with 1.96% reporting 0 to 1 years of experience, 29.41% reporting 2 to 5 years, 23.53% reporting 5 to 10 years, 25.49% reporting 10 to 20 years, and 17.65% reporting more than 20 years.

There were unanswered questions on both the pre-test and post test. There was no consistently unanswered question. Omitted answers on the epistaxis knowledge questions were recorded as an “incorrect” answer. Omitted answers on the perception questions were considered null values and not considered in final analysis.

Primary Measures

General epistaxis knowledge (Figure, part A) improved from the pre-test, where out of 4 questions, the mean (SD) score was 1.74 (1.02) correct questions, to the post-test, where out of 4 questions, the mean score was 3.80 (0.40) correct questions. After participating in the in-service, nurses answered significantly more questions about epistaxis general knowledge correctly (mean difference, 2.07 [1.10]; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001), and 80.43% of them got a perfect score on the epistaxis knowledge questions.

The second primary measure was the difference in comfort level in managing nosebleed. After participating in the in-service, nurses felt significantly more comfortable in managing nosebleeds (Figure, part B; P = .007), with 74.46% of nurses having an improved comfort level managing nosebleeds. Before the in-service, 12.76% of nurses felt “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds vs more than three-quarters (76.59%) after the in-service. Of those who answered that they felt “comfortable” managing nosebleeds on the pre-test, 82.35% improved to feeling “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds. Before the in-service, 14.89% of nurses felt “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” in managing nosebleeds, and this decreased to 0 post intervention. After the in-service, 100.00% of nurses felt “comfortable” or “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds.

After receiving the in-service, nurses felt significantly more confident in stopping nosebleeds (Figure, part C; P < .001), with 43.90% of them having an improvement in confidence in stopping epistaxis. Before the in-service, 7.31% of nurses felt that they would “always” be able to stop a nose-bleed, and this increased to 41.46% after the in-service. Of those who answered that they felt that they would “usually” be able to stop a nosebleed on the pre-test, 36.67% changed their answer to state that they would “always” be able to stop a nosebleed on the post test. Before the in-service, 19.51% of nurses felt that they would “rarely” or “never” be able to stop a nosebleed, and this decreased to 2.44% after the in-service.

Secondary Measures

All of the nurses who participated either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they learned something new from the in-service. However, to determine whether there was a population who would benefit most from the in-service, we stratified the data by years of clinical experience. There was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses with varying clinical experience learned something new (P = .148): 100% of nurses with 0-1 years of experience, 80.00% of nurses with 2-5 years of experience, 100% of nurses with 5-10 years of experience, 69.23% of nurses with 10-20 years of experience, and 100% of nurses with >20 years of experience “strongly agreed” that they learned something new from this in-service. There was no statistically significant difference on the post test compared to the pre-test in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience (P = .128). Second, when we stratified by clinical setting, we did not find a statistically significant difference in whether nurses in different clinical settings learned something new (P = .929): 88.89% of nurses in the medical setting, 87.50% of nurses in the surgical setting, and 84.62% of nurses in the intensive care setting “strongly agreed” that they learned something new from this presentation. On investigating additional questions correct on the post test compared to the pre-test, there was no statistically significant difference in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical setting (P = .446).

Optimal timing of the in-service was another important outcome. Initially, the in-service was administered at mid-shift, with 9 nurses participating at mid-shift, but our nursing colleagues gave unanimous feedback that this was a suboptimal time for delivery of an in-service. We changed the timing of the in-service to shift change; 42 nurses received the in-service at shift-change. There was no statistically significant difference in scores on the epistaxis knowledge questions between these two groups (P = .123). This indicated to us that changing the timing of the delivery resulted in similarly improved outcomes while having the added benefit of being preferred by our nursing colleagues.

Discussion

In undertaking this project, our primary aims were to improve epistaxis knowledge and perceived management in our nursing staff. Among our nursing staff, we were able to significantly increase epistaxis knowledge, improve comfort levels managing epistaxis, and improve confidence in successful epistaxis management. We also found that nurses of varying clinical experience and different clinical settings benefited equally from our intervention. Using quality improvement principles, we optimized our delivery. Our in-service focused on educating nurses to use epistaxis management techniques that were resource-efficient and low risk.

After participating in the in-service, nurses answered significantly more questions about epistaxis general knowledge correctly (Figure, part A; mean difference, 2.07 questions [1.10]; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001), felt significantly more comfortable in managing nosebleeds (Figure, part B; P = .007), and felt significantly more confident in stopping nosebleeds (Figure, part C; P < .001). Based on these results, we successfully achieved our primary aims.

Our secondary aim was to determine the audience that would benefit the most from the in-service. All of the nurses who participated either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they learned something new from the in-service. There was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses of varying clinical experience learned something new (P = .148) or in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience (P =.128). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses in different clinical settings learned something new (P = .929) or in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical setting (P = .446). These results indicated to us that all participants learned something new and that there was no specific target audience, but rather that all participants benefitted from our session.

Our nursing colleagues gave us feedback that the timing of the in-service during mid-shift was not ideal. It was difficult to gather nurses mid-shift due to pressing patient-care duties. Nurses also found it difficult to give their full attention at this time. Nurses, nurse educators, and nurse managers suggested that we conduct the in-service at shift change in order to capture a larger population and take advantage of time relatively free of clinical duties. Giving the in-service at a time with relatively fewer clinical responsibilities allowed for a more robust question-and-answer session. It also allowed our nursing colleagues to pay full attention to the in-service. There was no statistically significant difference in epistaxis general knowledge questions answered correctly; this indicates that the quality of the education session did not vary greatly. However, our nursing colleagues strongly preferred the in-service at shift change. By making this modification to our intervention, we were able to optimize our intervention.

The previously mentioned study in England reported that only 12% to 14% of their nursing staff got a perfect score on epistaxis knowledge questions. Prior to our study, there was no literature investigating the impact of an in-service on epistaxis knowledge. After our intervention, 80.43% of our nurses got a perfect score on the epistaxis knowledge questions. We believe that this is a fair comparison because our post-test questions were identical to the survey questions used in the previously mentioned study in England, with the addition of one question.³ Further, the findings of our study are consistent with other studies regarding the positive effect of in-service education on knowledge and attitudes surrounding clinical topics. Similar to the study in Ethiopia investigating nurses’ knowledge surrounding pain management, our study noted a significant improvement in nurses’ knowledge after participating in the in-service.⁴ Also, when comparing our study to the study performed in Connecticut investigating nurses’ confidence surrounding suicide precautions, we found a similar significant improvement in confidence in management after participating in the in-service.⁵

Given our reliance on a survey as a tool to collect information, our study was subject to nonresponse bias. For each main outcome question, there was a handful of nonresponders. While this likely indicated either overlooking a question or deferring to answer due to clinical inexperience or nonapplicable clinical role, it is possible that this may have represented a respondent who did not benefit from the in-service. Another source of possible bias is sampling bias. Attempts were made to capture a wide range of nurses at the in-service. However, if a nurse was not interested in the topic material, whether due to abundant clinical experience or disinterest, it is possible that they may not have attended. Additionally, the cohort was selected purely based on responses from nursing managers to the initial email. It is possible that nonresponding units may have benefitted differently from this in-service.

There were several limitations within our analysis. We did not collect data assessing the long-term retention of epistaxis knowledge and management techniques. It is possible that epistaxis knowledge, comfort in managing nosebleeds, and perceived confidence in stopping nosebleeds decreased back to baseline several months after the in-service. Ideally, we would have been able to collect this data to assess retention of the in-service information. Unfortunately, a significant number of nurses who initially participated in the project became lost to follow-up, making such data collection impossible. Additionally, there was no assessment of actual ability to stop nosebleeds before vs after this in-service. Perceived management of epistaxis vs actual management of epistaxis are 2 vastly different things. However, this data would have been difficult to collect, and it likely would not have been in the best interest of patients, especially before the in-service was administered. As an improvement to this project, we could have assessed how many nosebleeds nurses had seen and successfully stopped after the in-service. As previously mentioned, this was not possible due to losing a significant number of nurses to follow-up. Finally, we did not collect objective data on preference for administration of in-service at mid-shift vs shift change. We relied on subjective data from conversations with our colleagues. By collecting objective data, we could have supported this change to our intervention with data.

The primary challenge to sustainability for this intervention is nursing turnover. With each wave of departing nurses and new nursing hires, the difficulty of ensuring a consistent knowledge base and management standards within our nursing workforce became clearer. After optimizing our intervention, our solution was to provide a hospital-wide in-service, which was recorded and uploaded to an institution-wide in-service library. In this way, a nurse with the desire to learn about epistaxis management could access the material at any point in time. Another solution would have been to appoint champions for epistaxis management within each major department to deliver the epistaxis in-service to new hires and new rotators within the department. However, given the turnover witnessed in our study cohort, this may not be sustainable long term.

Conclusion

Epistaxis is a chief complaint that can present in many different clinical settings and situations. Therefore, the ability to stop epistaxis in a timely and effective fashion is valuable. Our study demonstrated that in-services can improve epistaxis knowledge and improve perceived epistaxis management. Ideally, this intervention will lead to improved patient care. Given that epistaxis is a ubiquitous issue, this study may benefit other institutions who want to improve care for patients with epistaxis.

Next steps for this intervention include utilizing in-services for epistaxis education at other institutions and collecting long-term data within our own institution. Collecting long-term data would allow us to assess the retention of epistaxis knowledge from our in-service.

Acknowledgments: The author thanks the nurse managers, nurse educators, and staff nurses involved in this project, as well as Dr. Louis Portugal for providing mentorship throughout this process and Dr. Dara Adams for assisting with statistical analysis.

Corresponding author: Avery Nelson, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 1035, Chicago, IL 60637; avery.nelson@uchospitals.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

From the University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL.

Abstract

Background: Epistaxis is a common chief complaint addressed by otolaryngologists. A review of the literature showed that there is a deficit in epistaxis education within the nursing community. Conversations with our nursing colleagues confirmed this unmet demand.

Objective: This quality improvement project aimed to increase general epistaxis knowledge, perceived comfort level managing nosebleeds, and perceived ability to stop nosebleeds among our nursing staff.

Methods: Data were collected through a survey administered before and after our intervention. The survey tested general epistaxis knowledge and assessed comfort and confidence in stopping epistaxis. Our intervention was an educational session covering pertinent epistaxis etiology and management. Quality improvement principles were used to optimize delivery of the intervention.

Results: A total of 51 nurses participated in the project. After participating in the in-service educational session, nurses answered significantly more epistaxis general knowledge questions correctly (mean [SD] difference, 2.07 [1.10] questions; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience or clinical setting (P = .128 and P = 0.446, respectively). Nurses also reported feeling significantly more comfortable and significantly more confident in managing nosebleeds after the in-service (P = .007 and P < 0.001, respectively); 74.46% of nurses had an improvement in comfort level in managing epistaxis and 43.90% of nurses had an improvement in confidence in stopping epistaxis. After we moved the educational session from mid-shift to shift change, the nursing staff reported more satisfaction while maintaining similar improvements in knowledge and confidence.

Conclusion: We were able to significantly increase epistaxis knowledge, improve comfort levels managing epistaxis, and improve confidence in successful epistaxis management. Nurses of varying clinical experience and different clinical settings benefitted equally from our intervention.

Keywords: nosebleed; in-service; quality improvement.

Epistaxis, or nosebleed, is estimated to be the chief complaint in 1 in 200 emergency department visits in the United States.¹ Additionally, it represents up to one-third of otolaryngology-related emergency room admissions.² There is no existing literature, to our best knowledge, specifically investigating the incidence of epistaxis after a patient is admitted. Anecdotally, inpatients who develop epistaxis account for an appreciable number of consults to otolaryngology (ENT). Epistaxis is a cross-disciplinary issue, occurring in a range of clinical settings. For example, patients with epistaxis can present to the emergency department or to an outpatient primary care clinic before being referred to ENT. Additionally, inpatients on many different services can develop spontaneous epistaxis due to a variety of environmental and iatrogenic factors, such as dry air, use of nasal cannula, and initiation of anticoagulation. Based on the experience of our ENT providers and discussions with our nursing colleagues, we concluded that there was an interest in epistaxis management training among our nursing workforce.

The presence of unmet demand for epistaxis education among our nursing colleagues was supported by our literature review. A study performed in England surveyed emergency department nurses on first aid measures for management of epistaxis, including ideal head positioning, location of pressure application, and duration of pressure application.³ Overall, only 12% to 14% of the nursing staff answered all 3 questions correctly.³ Additionally, 73% to 78% of the nursing staff felt that their training in epistaxis management was inadequate, and 88% desired further training in epistaxis management.³ If generalized, this study confirms the demand for further epistaxis education among nurses.

In-services have previously been shown to be effective educational tools within the nursing community. A study in Ethiopia that evaluated pain management knowledge and attitudes before and after an in-service found a significant improvement in mean rank score of nurses’ knowledge and attitudes regarding pain management after they participated in the in-service.⁴ Scores on the knowledge survey improved from 41.4% before the intervention to 63.0% post intervention.⁴ A study in Connecticut evaluated nurses’ confidence in discussing suicidal ideation with patients and knowledge surrounding suicide precautions.⁵ After participating in an in-service, nurses were significantly more confident in discussing suicidal ideation with patients; application of appropriate suicide precautions also increased after the in-service.⁵

Our aim was for nurses to have an improvement in overall epistaxis knowledge, perceived comfort level managing nosebleeds, and perceived ability to stop nosebleeds after attending our in-service. Additionally, an overarching priority was to provide high-quality epistaxis education based on the literature and best practice guidelines.

Methods

Setting

This study was carried out at an 811-bed quaternary care center located in Chicago, Illinois. In fiscal year 2021, there were 91 643 emergency department visits and 33 805 hospital admissions. At our flagship hospital, 2658 patients were diagnosed with epistaxis during fiscal year 2021. The emergency department saw 533 patients with epistaxis, with 342 requiring admission and 191 being discharged. Separately, 566 inpatients received a diagnosis of epistaxis during their admission. The remainder of the patients with epistaxis were seen on an outpatient basis.

Data Collection

Data were collected from nurses on 5 different inpatient units. An email with information about the in-service was sent to the nurse managers of the inpatient units. These 5 units were included because the nurse managers responded to the email and facilitated delivery of the in-service. Data collection took place from August to December 2020.

Intervention

A quality improvement team composed of a resident physician champion, nurse educators, and nurse managers was formed. The physician champion was a senior otolaryngology resident who was responsible for designing and administering the pre-test, in-service, and post test. The nurse educators and nurse managers helped coordinate times for the in-service and promoted the in-service for their staff.

Our intervention was an educational in-service, a technique that is commonly used at our institution for nurse education. In-services typically involve delivering a lecture on a clinically relevant topic to a group of nurses on a unit. In developing the in-service, a top priority was to present high-quality evidence-based material. There is an abundance of information in the literature surrounding epistaxis management. The clinical practice guideline published by the American Academy of Otolaryngology lists nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery as first-line treatments for the management of epistaxis.⁶ Nasal packing and nasal cautery tend to be perceived as interventions that require a certain level of expertise and specialized supplies. As such, these interventions are not often performed by floor nurses. In contrast, nasal compression and application of vasoconstrictors require only a few easily accessible supplies, and the risks are relatively minimal. When performing nasal compression, the clinical practice guidelines recommend firm, sustained compression to the lower third of the nose for 5 minutes or longer.⁶ Topical vasoconstrictors are generally underutilized in epistaxis management. In a study looking at a random sample of all US emergency department visits from 1992 to 2001, only 18% of visits used an epistaxis-related medication.² Oxymetazoline hydrochloride is a topical vasoconstrictor that is commonly used as a nasal decongestant. However, its vasoconstrictor properties also make it a useful tool for controlling epistaxis. In a study looking at emergency department visits at the University of Texas Health Science Center, 65% of patients had resolution of nosebleed with application of oxymetazoline hydrochloride as the only intervention, with another 18% experiencing resolution of nosebleed with a combination of oxymetazoline hydrochloride and silver nitrate cautery.⁷ Based on review of the literature, nasal compression and application of vasoconstrictors seemed to be low-resource interventions with minimal morbidity. Therefore, management centered around nasal compression and use of topical vasoconstrictors seemed appropriate for our nursing staff.

The in-service included information about the etiology and management of epistaxis. Particular emphasis was placed on addressing and debunking common misconceptions about nosebleed management. With regards to management, our presentation focused on the use of topical vasoconstrictors and firm pressure to the lower third of the nose for at least 5 minutes. Nasal packing and nasal cautery were presented as procedures that ENT would perform. After the in-service, questions from the nurses were answered as time permitted.

Testing and Outcomes

A pre-test was administered before each in-service. The pre-test components comprised a knowledge survey and a descriptive survey. The general epistaxis knowledge questions on the pre-test included the location of blood vessels most commonly responsible for nosebleeds, the ideal positioning of a patient during a nosebleed, the appropriate location to hold pressure during a nosebleed, and the appropriate duration to hold pressure during a nosebleed. The descriptive survey portion asked nurses to rate whether they felt “very comfortable,” “comfortable,” “uncomfortable,” or “very uncomfortable” managing nosebleeds. It also asked whether nurses thought they would be able to “always,” “usually,” “rarely,” or “never” stop nosebleeds on the floor. We collected demographic information, including gender identity, years of clinical experience, and primary clinical environment.

The post test asked the same questions as the pre-test and was administered immediately after the in-service in order to assess its impact. We also established an ongoing dialogue with our nursing colleagues to obtain feedback on the sessions.

Primary outcomes of interest were the difference in general epistaxis knowledge questions answered correctly between the pre-test and the post test; the difference in comfort level in managing epistaxis before and after the in-service; and the difference in confidence to stop nosebleeds before and after the in-service. A secondary outcome was determining the audience for the in-service. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether there were different outcomes based on clinical setting or years of clinical experience. If nurses in a certain clinical environment or beyond a certain experience level did not show significant improvement from pre-test to post test, we would not target them for the in-service. Another secondary outcome was determining optimal timing for delivery of the in-service. We wanted to determine if there was a nursing preference for delivering the in-service at mid-shift vs shift change.

Analysis

Statistical calculations were performed using Stata 15 (StataCorp LLC). A P value < .05 was considered to be statistically significant. Where applicable, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. T-test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test epistaxis knowledge question scores. T-test was also used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in test scores between nurses receiving the in-service at mid-shift vs shift change. Pearson chi-squared tests were used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test perceptions of epistaxis management, and to investigate outcomes between different subsets of nurses.

SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines were utilized to provide a framework for this project and to structure the manuscript.⁸ This study met criteria for exemption from institutional review board approval.

Results

Fifty-one nurses took part in this project (Table). The majority of participants identified as female (88.24%), and just over half worked on medical floors (52.94%), with most of the remainder working in intensive care (25.49%) and surgical (15.69%) settings. There was a wide range of clinical experience, with 1.96% reporting 0 to 1 years of experience, 29.41% reporting 2 to 5 years, 23.53% reporting 5 to 10 years, 25.49% reporting 10 to 20 years, and 17.65% reporting more than 20 years.

There were unanswered questions on both the pre-test and post test. There was no consistently unanswered question. Omitted answers on the epistaxis knowledge questions were recorded as an “incorrect” answer. Omitted answers on the perception questions were considered null values and not considered in final analysis.

Primary Measures

General epistaxis knowledge (Figure, part A) improved from the pre-test, where out of 4 questions, the mean (SD) score was 1.74 (1.02) correct questions, to the post-test, where out of 4 questions, the mean score was 3.80 (0.40) correct questions. After participating in the in-service, nurses answered significantly more questions about epistaxis general knowledge correctly (mean difference, 2.07 [1.10]; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001), and 80.43% of them got a perfect score on the epistaxis knowledge questions.

The second primary measure was the difference in comfort level in managing nosebleed. After participating in the in-service, nurses felt significantly more comfortable in managing nosebleeds (Figure, part B; P = .007), with 74.46% of nurses having an improved comfort level managing nosebleeds. Before the in-service, 12.76% of nurses felt “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds vs more than three-quarters (76.59%) after the in-service. Of those who answered that they felt “comfortable” managing nosebleeds on the pre-test, 82.35% improved to feeling “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds. Before the in-service, 14.89% of nurses felt “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” in managing nosebleeds, and this decreased to 0 post intervention. After the in-service, 100.00% of nurses felt “comfortable” or “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds.

After receiving the in-service, nurses felt significantly more confident in stopping nosebleeds (Figure, part C; P < .001), with 43.90% of them having an improvement in confidence in stopping epistaxis. Before the in-service, 7.31% of nurses felt that they would “always” be able to stop a nose-bleed, and this increased to 41.46% after the in-service. Of those who answered that they felt that they would “usually” be able to stop a nosebleed on the pre-test, 36.67% changed their answer to state that they would “always” be able to stop a nosebleed on the post test. Before the in-service, 19.51% of nurses felt that they would “rarely” or “never” be able to stop a nosebleed, and this decreased to 2.44% after the in-service.

Secondary Measures

All of the nurses who participated either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they learned something new from the in-service. However, to determine whether there was a population who would benefit most from the in-service, we stratified the data by years of clinical experience. There was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses with varying clinical experience learned something new (P = .148): 100% of nurses with 0-1 years of experience, 80.00% of nurses with 2-5 years of experience, 100% of nurses with 5-10 years of experience, 69.23% of nurses with 10-20 years of experience, and 100% of nurses with >20 years of experience “strongly agreed” that they learned something new from this in-service. There was no statistically significant difference on the post test compared to the pre-test in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience (P = .128). Second, when we stratified by clinical setting, we did not find a statistically significant difference in whether nurses in different clinical settings learned something new (P = .929): 88.89% of nurses in the medical setting, 87.50% of nurses in the surgical setting, and 84.62% of nurses in the intensive care setting “strongly agreed” that they learned something new from this presentation. On investigating additional questions correct on the post test compared to the pre-test, there was no statistically significant difference in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical setting (P = .446).

Optimal timing of the in-service was another important outcome. Initially, the in-service was administered at mid-shift, with 9 nurses participating at mid-shift, but our nursing colleagues gave unanimous feedback that this was a suboptimal time for delivery of an in-service. We changed the timing of the in-service to shift change; 42 nurses received the in-service at shift-change. There was no statistically significant difference in scores on the epistaxis knowledge questions between these two groups (P = .123). This indicated to us that changing the timing of the delivery resulted in similarly improved outcomes while having the added benefit of being preferred by our nursing colleagues.

Discussion

In undertaking this project, our primary aims were to improve epistaxis knowledge and perceived management in our nursing staff. Among our nursing staff, we were able to significantly increase epistaxis knowledge, improve comfort levels managing epistaxis, and improve confidence in successful epistaxis management. We also found that nurses of varying clinical experience and different clinical settings benefited equally from our intervention. Using quality improvement principles, we optimized our delivery. Our in-service focused on educating nurses to use epistaxis management techniques that were resource-efficient and low risk.

After participating in the in-service, nurses answered significantly more questions about epistaxis general knowledge correctly (Figure, part A; mean difference, 2.07 questions [1.10]; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001), felt significantly more comfortable in managing nosebleeds (Figure, part B; P = .007), and felt significantly more confident in stopping nosebleeds (Figure, part C; P < .001). Based on these results, we successfully achieved our primary aims.

Our secondary aim was to determine the audience that would benefit the most from the in-service. All of the nurses who participated either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they learned something new from the in-service. There was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses of varying clinical experience learned something new (P = .148) or in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience (P =.128). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses in different clinical settings learned something new (P = .929) or in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical setting (P = .446). These results indicated to us that all participants learned something new and that there was no specific target audience, but rather that all participants benefitted from our session.

Our nursing colleagues gave us feedback that the timing of the in-service during mid-shift was not ideal. It was difficult to gather nurses mid-shift due to pressing patient-care duties. Nurses also found it difficult to give their full attention at this time. Nurses, nurse educators, and nurse managers suggested that we conduct the in-service at shift change in order to capture a larger population and take advantage of time relatively free of clinical duties. Giving the in-service at a time with relatively fewer clinical responsibilities allowed for a more robust question-and-answer session. It also allowed our nursing colleagues to pay full attention to the in-service. There was no statistically significant difference in epistaxis general knowledge questions answered correctly; this indicates that the quality of the education session did not vary greatly. However, our nursing colleagues strongly preferred the in-service at shift change. By making this modification to our intervention, we were able to optimize our intervention.

The previously mentioned study in England reported that only 12% to 14% of their nursing staff got a perfect score on epistaxis knowledge questions. Prior to our study, there was no literature investigating the impact of an in-service on epistaxis knowledge. After our intervention, 80.43% of our nurses got a perfect score on the epistaxis knowledge questions. We believe that this is a fair comparison because our post-test questions were identical to the survey questions used in the previously mentioned study in England, with the addition of one question.³ Further, the findings of our study are consistent with other studies regarding the positive effect of in-service education on knowledge and attitudes surrounding clinical topics. Similar to the study in Ethiopia investigating nurses’ knowledge surrounding pain management, our study noted a significant improvement in nurses’ knowledge after participating in the in-service.⁴ Also, when comparing our study to the study performed in Connecticut investigating nurses’ confidence surrounding suicide precautions, we found a similar significant improvement in confidence in management after participating in the in-service.⁵

Given our reliance on a survey as a tool to collect information, our study was subject to nonresponse bias. For each main outcome question, there was a handful of nonresponders. While this likely indicated either overlooking a question or deferring to answer due to clinical inexperience or nonapplicable clinical role, it is possible that this may have represented a respondent who did not benefit from the in-service. Another source of possible bias is sampling bias. Attempts were made to capture a wide range of nurses at the in-service. However, if a nurse was not interested in the topic material, whether due to abundant clinical experience or disinterest, it is possible that they may not have attended. Additionally, the cohort was selected purely based on responses from nursing managers to the initial email. It is possible that nonresponding units may have benefitted differently from this in-service.

There were several limitations within our analysis. We did not collect data assessing the long-term retention of epistaxis knowledge and management techniques. It is possible that epistaxis knowledge, comfort in managing nosebleeds, and perceived confidence in stopping nosebleeds decreased back to baseline several months after the in-service. Ideally, we would have been able to collect this data to assess retention of the in-service information. Unfortunately, a significant number of nurses who initially participated in the project became lost to follow-up, making such data collection impossible. Additionally, there was no assessment of actual ability to stop nosebleeds before vs after this in-service. Perceived management of epistaxis vs actual management of epistaxis are 2 vastly different things. However, this data would have been difficult to collect, and it likely would not have been in the best interest of patients, especially before the in-service was administered. As an improvement to this project, we could have assessed how many nosebleeds nurses had seen and successfully stopped after the in-service. As previously mentioned, this was not possible due to losing a significant number of nurses to follow-up. Finally, we did not collect objective data on preference for administration of in-service at mid-shift vs shift change. We relied on subjective data from conversations with our colleagues. By collecting objective data, we could have supported this change to our intervention with data.

The primary challenge to sustainability for this intervention is nursing turnover. With each wave of departing nurses and new nursing hires, the difficulty of ensuring a consistent knowledge base and management standards within our nursing workforce became clearer. After optimizing our intervention, our solution was to provide a hospital-wide in-service, which was recorded and uploaded to an institution-wide in-service library. In this way, a nurse with the desire to learn about epistaxis management could access the material at any point in time. Another solution would have been to appoint champions for epistaxis management within each major department to deliver the epistaxis in-service to new hires and new rotators within the department. However, given the turnover witnessed in our study cohort, this may not be sustainable long term.

Conclusion

Epistaxis is a chief complaint that can present in many different clinical settings and situations. Therefore, the ability to stop epistaxis in a timely and effective fashion is valuable. Our study demonstrated that in-services can improve epistaxis knowledge and improve perceived epistaxis management. Ideally, this intervention will lead to improved patient care. Given that epistaxis is a ubiquitous issue, this study may benefit other institutions who want to improve care for patients with epistaxis.

Next steps for this intervention include utilizing in-services for epistaxis education at other institutions and collecting long-term data within our own institution. Collecting long-term data would allow us to assess the retention of epistaxis knowledge from our in-service.

Acknowledgments: The author thanks the nurse managers, nurse educators, and staff nurses involved in this project, as well as Dr. Louis Portugal for providing mentorship throughout this process and Dr. Dara Adams for assisting with statistical analysis.

Corresponding author: Avery Nelson, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 1035, Chicago, IL 60637; avery.nelson@uchospitals.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

Authors' Response

We agree with the valid comments made by Dr. Kerguelen and will respond to each set of questions in order.

Regarding the first set of questions on how we knew that our CMI was low and our patient acuity was under- represented, the University of Miami Health System is a designated cancer center with a Prospective Payment System exempt model (PPS exempt), and is one of 11 hospitals in the United States excluded for payment under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System. We know, therefore, that we care for a very complex patient population. Additionally, we benchmark ourselves against other academic medical centers (AMCs) with similarly complex patients and had noted that our patients appeared “less complex.” Specifically, our baseline CMI was 1.77 in early 2018 compared with an overall higher CMI for the AMC cohort; also, the total number of diagnoses we captured was lower than that in other AMCs. These 2 facts together alerted us that we likely had coding and clinical documentation improvement (CDI) opportunities. We recognized that our complexity was not being captured both because the clinical information was not documented in a manner readily translatable to ICD-10 codes and codes were missed when the documentation did exist. To remedy these problems, we implemented multiple immediate “fixes,” which included revamping our CDI efforts, re-education, and enhancements to our electronic health record for providers, CDIs, and coders. Since publication of our article, our CMI has continued to increase month over month, up to 2.57 most recently in May 2022, as we have continued to focus on several additional initiatives to impact both better documentation and coding.

The second set of questions asked whether the perceived low CMI was causing problems with payers and about the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis as well as audit mechanisms to avoid this, and changes in expected mortality and observed mortality. To our knowledge, the lower CMI did not cause any problems with payers, but this is something we are currently tracking. Coding and documentation are constantly audited both internally (by our quality department) and externally (using Inter-Rater Reliability audits and validation), with no noted trend or targeted opportunities. We only include comorbidities that are current, actively monitored/managed, and pertinent to the care of our patients. We have not noted a change in denials, which gives us confidence we are not now overdiagnosing.

Our observed mortality has also increased. We, like all institutions, experienced the confounding factor of the COVID-19 pandemic, which coincided with the higher observed mortality over the course of the past 2 years. While the observed mortality (indicating sicker patients assuming no worsening of care processes) may partly explain our increased coding complexity, our decreasing mortality index (observed:expected mortality) suggests that our efforts to improve documentation and coding likely reflect improved capture of missed complexity (Figure).

We understand the concerns raised by Dr. Kerguelen about potential mis(over)coding. As part of this quality initiative, therefore, we plan long-term evaluations of our processes and metrics to better determine and guide our understanding of the impact of what we have already implemented and future interventions. In fact, we are in the process of analyzing additional interventions and hope to share results from these evaluations soon.

Marie Anne Sosa, MD
Tanira Ferreira, MD
Hayley Gershengorn, MD
Melissa Soto
Estin Kelly
Ameena Shrestha
Julianne Burgos
Sandeep Devabhaktuni
Dipen Parekh, MD
Maritza Suarez, MD
University of Miami Hospital and Clinics, Miami, FL
mxs2157@med.miami.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

Authors' Response

We agree with the valid comments made by Dr. Kerguelen and will respond to each set of questions in order.

Regarding the first set of questions on how we knew that our CMI was low and our patient acuity was under- represented, the University of Miami Health System is a designated cancer center with a Prospective Payment System exempt model (PPS exempt), and is one of 11 hospitals in the United States excluded for payment under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System. We know, therefore, that we care for a very complex patient population. Additionally, we benchmark ourselves against other academic medical centers (AMCs) with similarly complex patients and had noted that our patients appeared “less complex.” Specifically, our baseline CMI was 1.77 in early 2018 compared with an overall higher CMI for the AMC cohort; also, the total number of diagnoses we captured was lower than that in other AMCs. These 2 facts together alerted us that we likely had coding and clinical documentation improvement (CDI) opportunities. We recognized that our complexity was not being captured both because the clinical information was not documented in a manner readily translatable to ICD-10 codes and codes were missed when the documentation did exist. To remedy these problems, we implemented multiple immediate “fixes,” which included revamping our CDI efforts, re-education, and enhancements to our electronic health record for providers, CDIs, and coders. Since publication of our article, our CMI has continued to increase month over month, up to 2.57 most recently in May 2022, as we have continued to focus on several additional initiatives to impact both better documentation and coding.

The second set of questions asked whether the perceived low CMI was causing problems with payers and about the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis as well as audit mechanisms to avoid this, and changes in expected mortality and observed mortality. To our knowledge, the lower CMI did not cause any problems with payers, but this is something we are currently tracking. Coding and documentation are constantly audited both internally (by our quality department) and externally (using Inter-Rater Reliability audits and validation), with no noted trend or targeted opportunities. We only include comorbidities that are current, actively monitored/managed, and pertinent to the care of our patients. We have not noted a change in denials, which gives us confidence we are not now overdiagnosing.

Our observed mortality has also increased. We, like all institutions, experienced the confounding factor of the COVID-19 pandemic, which coincided with the higher observed mortality over the course of the past 2 years. While the observed mortality (indicating sicker patients assuming no worsening of care processes) may partly explain our increased coding complexity, our decreasing mortality index (observed:expected mortality) suggests that our efforts to improve documentation and coding likely reflect improved capture of missed complexity (Figure).

We understand the concerns raised by Dr. Kerguelen about potential mis(over)coding. As part of this quality initiative, therefore, we plan long-term evaluations of our processes and metrics to better determine and guide our understanding of the impact of what we have already implemented and future interventions. In fact, we are in the process of analyzing additional interventions and hope to share results from these evaluations soon.

Marie Anne Sosa, MD
Tanira Ferreira, MD
Hayley Gershengorn, MD
Melissa Soto
Estin Kelly
Ameena Shrestha
Julianne Burgos
Sandeep Devabhaktuni
Dipen Parekh, MD
Maritza Suarez, MD
University of Miami Hospital and Clinics, Miami, FL
mxs2157@med.miami.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

Authors' Response

We agree with the valid comments made by Dr. Kerguelen and will respond to each set of questions in order.

Regarding the first set of questions on how we knew that our CMI was low and our patient acuity was under- represented, the University of Miami Health System is a designated cancer center with a Prospective Payment System exempt model (PPS exempt), and is one of 11 hospitals in the United States excluded for payment under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System. We know, therefore, that we care for a very complex patient population. Additionally, we benchmark ourselves against other academic medical centers (AMCs) with similarly complex patients and had noted that our patients appeared “less complex.” Specifically, our baseline CMI was 1.77 in early 2018 compared with an overall higher CMI for the AMC cohort; also, the total number of diagnoses we captured was lower than that in other AMCs. These 2 facts together alerted us that we likely had coding and clinical documentation improvement (CDI) opportunities. We recognized that our complexity was not being captured both because the clinical information was not documented in a manner readily translatable to ICD-10 codes and codes were missed when the documentation did exist. To remedy these problems, we implemented multiple immediate “fixes,” which included revamping our CDI efforts, re-education, and enhancements to our electronic health record for providers, CDIs, and coders. Since publication of our article, our CMI has continued to increase month over month, up to 2.57 most recently in May 2022, as we have continued to focus on several additional initiatives to impact both better documentation and coding.

The second set of questions asked whether the perceived low CMI was causing problems with payers and about the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis as well as audit mechanisms to avoid this, and changes in expected mortality and observed mortality. To our knowledge, the lower CMI did not cause any problems with payers, but this is something we are currently tracking. Coding and documentation are constantly audited both internally (by our quality department) and externally (using Inter-Rater Reliability audits and validation), with no noted trend or targeted opportunities. We only include comorbidities that are current, actively monitored/managed, and pertinent to the care of our patients. We have not noted a change in denials, which gives us confidence we are not now overdiagnosing.

Our observed mortality has also increased. We, like all institutions, experienced the confounding factor of the COVID-19 pandemic, which coincided with the higher observed mortality over the course of the past 2 years. While the observed mortality (indicating sicker patients assuming no worsening of care processes) may partly explain our increased coding complexity, our decreasing mortality index (observed:expected mortality) suggests that our efforts to improve documentation and coding likely reflect improved capture of missed complexity (Figure).

We understand the concerns raised by Dr. Kerguelen about potential mis(over)coding. As part of this quality initiative, therefore, we plan long-term evaluations of our processes and metrics to better determine and guide our understanding of the impact of what we have already implemented and future interventions. In fact, we are in the process of analyzing additional interventions and hope to share results from these evaluations soon.

Marie Anne Sosa, MD
Tanira Ferreira, MD
Hayley Gershengorn, MD
Melissa Soto
Estin Kelly
Ameena Shrestha
Julianne Burgos
Sandeep Devabhaktuni
Dipen Parekh, MD
Maritza Suarez, MD
University of Miami Hospital and Clinics, Miami, FL
mxs2157@med.miami.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

To the Editor:

I read with interest the article by Sosa and colleagues¹ in which they present some stimulating analyses pertaining to a topic that we have been discussing at my institution for several years. Part of this discussion deals with the complexity of our hospital and how complexity is affected by comorbidity coding.

In 2013, we implemented the International Refined-DRGs (IR-DRGs) system to measure complexity at our hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. Our perception at that time was that the case mix index (CMI) was very low (0.7566), even for a general hospital with a high volume of pathologies with low relative weight (RW). Two medical auditors were assigned to review the medical records in order to improve the quality, quantity, and order of diagnoses. Emphasis was placed on patients with stays longer than 5 days and with only 1 diagnosis coded at admission. Additionally, International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (World Health Organization version) diagnoses from chapters R (Symptoms and Signs Not Elsewhere Classified) and V through Y (External Causes) were blocked in the electronic health record. With these measures, our CMI increased 74%, reaching 1.3151 by the end of 2021, with a maximum peak of 1.6743 in May 2021, which coincided with the third peak of COVID-19 in Colombia.

However, the article by Sosa and colleagues draws my attention to the following: why do the authors state that their CMI is low and the patient acuity was under-represented? Is this due to a comparison with similar hospitals, or to a recommendation from a regulatory agency? We have found our CMI remains low because of a high volume of nonsurgical care (60%), deliveries, and digestive, respiratory, and urinary pathologies of low RW.

Also, was the perceived low CMI causing problems with payers? And further, how did the authors avoid the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis of patients, and were there audit mechanisms to avoid this? While there was a clear change in expected mortality, did the observed mortality also change with the strategies implemented? This last question is relevant because, if the observed mortality were maintained, this would provide evidence that a coding problem was the cause of their hospital’s low CMI.

I reiterate my congratulations to the authors for presenting analyses that are very useful to other providers and researchers worldwide interested in addressing management issues related to the correct identification and classification of patients.

Carlos Kerguelen, MD, MA
Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia
carlos.kerguelen@fsfb.org.co

Disclosures: None reported.

To the Editor:

I read with interest the article by Sosa and colleagues¹ in which they present some stimulating analyses pertaining to a topic that we have been discussing at my institution for several years. Part of this discussion deals with the complexity of our hospital and how complexity is affected by comorbidity coding.

In 2013, we implemented the International Refined-DRGs (IR-DRGs) system to measure complexity at our hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. Our perception at that time was that the case mix index (CMI) was very low (0.7566), even for a general hospital with a high volume of pathologies with low relative weight (RW). Two medical auditors were assigned to review the medical records in order to improve the quality, quantity, and order of diagnoses. Emphasis was placed on patients with stays longer than 5 days and with only 1 diagnosis coded at admission. Additionally, International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (World Health Organization version) diagnoses from chapters R (Symptoms and Signs Not Elsewhere Classified) and V through Y (External Causes) were blocked in the electronic health record. With these measures, our CMI increased 74%, reaching 1.3151 by the end of 2021, with a maximum peak of 1.6743 in May 2021, which coincided with the third peak of COVID-19 in Colombia.

However, the article by Sosa and colleagues draws my attention to the following: why do the authors state that their CMI is low and the patient acuity was under-represented? Is this due to a comparison with similar hospitals, or to a recommendation from a regulatory agency? We have found our CMI remains low because of a high volume of nonsurgical care (60%), deliveries, and digestive, respiratory, and urinary pathologies of low RW.

Also, was the perceived low CMI causing problems with payers? And further, how did the authors avoid the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis of patients, and were there audit mechanisms to avoid this? While there was a clear change in expected mortality, did the observed mortality also change with the strategies implemented? This last question is relevant because, if the observed mortality were maintained, this would provide evidence that a coding problem was the cause of their hospital’s low CMI.

I reiterate my congratulations to the authors for presenting analyses that are very useful to other providers and researchers worldwide interested in addressing management issues related to the correct identification and classification of patients.

Carlos Kerguelen, MD, MA
Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia
carlos.kerguelen@fsfb.org.co

Disclosures: None reported.

To the Editor:

I read with interest the article by Sosa and colleagues¹ in which they present some stimulating analyses pertaining to a topic that we have been discussing at my institution for several years. Part of this discussion deals with the complexity of our hospital and how complexity is affected by comorbidity coding.

In 2013, we implemented the International Refined-DRGs (IR-DRGs) system to measure complexity at our hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. Our perception at that time was that the case mix index (CMI) was very low (0.7566), even for a general hospital with a high volume of pathologies with low relative weight (RW). Two medical auditors were assigned to review the medical records in order to improve the quality, quantity, and order of diagnoses. Emphasis was placed on patients with stays longer than 5 days and with only 1 diagnosis coded at admission. Additionally, International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (World Health Organization version) diagnoses from chapters R (Symptoms and Signs Not Elsewhere Classified) and V through Y (External Causes) were blocked in the electronic health record. With these measures, our CMI increased 74%, reaching 1.3151 by the end of 2021, with a maximum peak of 1.6743 in May 2021, which coincided with the third peak of COVID-19 in Colombia.

However, the article by Sosa and colleagues draws my attention to the following: why do the authors state that their CMI is low and the patient acuity was under-represented? Is this due to a comparison with similar hospitals, or to a recommendation from a regulatory agency? We have found our CMI remains low because of a high volume of nonsurgical care (60%), deliveries, and digestive, respiratory, and urinary pathologies of low RW.

Also, was the perceived low CMI causing problems with payers? And further, how did the authors avoid the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis of patients, and were there audit mechanisms to avoid this? While there was a clear change in expected mortality, did the observed mortality also change with the strategies implemented? This last question is relevant because, if the observed mortality were maintained, this would provide evidence that a coding problem was the cause of their hospital’s low CMI.

I reiterate my congratulations to the authors for presenting analyses that are very useful to other providers and researchers worldwide interested in addressing management issues related to the correct identification and classification of patients.

Carlos Kerguelen, MD, MA
Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia
carlos.kerguelen@fsfb.org.co

Disclosures: None reported.

From Memora Health (Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert), San Francisco, CA; and Harvard Medical School (Dr. Colbert), Boston, MA.

A close relative was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. He was cared for at a high-ranked cancer center by physicians with demonstrated expertise, and even had the support of a care navigator. Still, he was often left feeling overwhelmed and confused, holding an inch-thick stack of papers, instructions, and pamphlets. As he left his treatment planning visit, reeling from the emotional burden of his diagnosis and all the unfamiliar terminology, he didn’t know what to do or what to expect. Later, when he experienced early signs of tumor lysis syndrome, he struggled to reach his care team for triage and guidance. When he went to the emergency room, his oncologist was never informed.

This scenario is unfortunately common, and versions of this scenario play out thousands of times each day across the US health system. Within the clinic and hospital setting, patients receive excellent care from their providers, but a disconnect emerges once the patient leaves these medical settings: patients at home struggle to find guidance and support, while care teams lack the tools to engage patients between visits or monitor their health across care settings, providers, or episodes of care.

Leveraging Technology to Move From Episodes of Care to Complex Care Journeys

The use of automated messaging, artificial intelligence and natural language processing–driven chat experiences, and text-based support is becoming more common. However, health care lags behind other industries in the adoption of these technologies.^1,2 The slow pace can be warranted, given that health care is more complicated and higher risk than inquiring about a lost package, ordering groceries, or applying for a mortgage. At the same time, many of the consumer engagement tools used to guide an applicant through the multiple steps and complexities of their home loan process or to prompt viewers to select new shows to binge have applications in health care.

Over the past few years, technologies have emerged that guide patients through complex care journeys and allow care teams to monitor and engage patients between visits. These solutions come in different formats, but generally patients can receive messages on their phones that contain disease-specific educational content, prompts to fill prescriptions and take medications, and reminders and guidance on how to prepare for appointments and procedures. These programs also collect relevant data from patients through survey and electronic patient-reported outcomes instruments, as well as connected patient monitoring devices, that help track patient progress and identify issues as they arise. Many programs also incorporate symptom triage pathways and use natural language processing to respond automatically to patient questions and concerns.^3,4

These technology solutions can automate many tasks that in the past required a care team member to spend hours on the phone. Newly freed from such repetitive tasks, care teams can now focus on more in-depth interactions with those patients who are most in need—the types of interactions that are more satisfying and rewarding. Such assistance is particularly needed today with the staffing shortages faced by most health systems.⁵

In addition, technology allows teams to see the panel of patients they are caring for and to quickly identify and take action on any specific needs or issues. Care teams can focus on any patient and see where they are in their journey. When appropriate, some solutions also allow care teams to engage directly with patients through text-messaging, creating a seamless experience and unified communication channel. Ideally, these solutions should be linked or embedded within the electronic health record or other primary system of record, so that teams can easily access these tools through their existing workflows and avoid creating yet another interface to navigate.

The Impact of Low-Tech Solutions to Deliver High-Touch Support

There is evidence showing that digital patient navigation tools impact patient care. In the oncology setting, patients with a digital navigator have achieved over 95% adherence rates with complex oral chemotherapy regimens (Memora Health Unpublished Data. 2022.). In the postpartum setting, a text message–based program improved screening rates for postpartum depression and did so with very high patient satisfaction ratings.⁶ Particularly notable is the fact that this depression screening program achieved these results in a population that was predominantly low income, with more than half belonging to underrepresented minority populations.⁶

We believe these digital patient navigation technologies, specifically low-tech solutions that don’t require app downloads, portal log-ins, or high-speed internet, will transform care delivery over the next 5 to 10 years. Successful management of complex conditions like diabetes or cancer requires more than 3 hours of care each day,⁷ yet most patients spend only 1 or 2 hours per month directly interacting with their health care providers. However, most patients carry their phones with them at all times, and artificial intelligence–enabled text support is “always on” to provide support, monitoring, and guidance, wherever a patient happens to be when assistance is needed.

Shifting the Model to Support a Lifetime of Care

While still in the early stages of development, these tools have the potential to radically alter the practice of medicine, shifting the focus from episodic interactions to continuous journey-based care delivery. Outside of an acute event bringing a patient into the clinic or emergency room, many patients go a year or more without seeing their primary care providers.⁸ During that time, an immense amount of information is underreported or completely lost. Capturing this information in real-time and more holistically over a person’s lifetime of care could provide physicians better insight to both better manage and more fully evaluate the success of treatment plans by tracking patient symptoms, pain, and functional status over time. With this more longitudinal view of the patient, we see a pathway towards achieving the Quadruple Aim: patients who are more supported will achieve better outcomes at lower cost, they will have a better experience, and care teams will be empowered to focus their time on more satisfying activities rather than repetitive administrative tasks.

Corresponding author: James A. Colbert, MD, MBA; jamie@memorahealth.com

Disclosures: Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert are employed by Memora Health, an organization that helps health care systems digitize and automate care journeys.

From Memora Health (Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert), San Francisco, CA; and Harvard Medical School (Dr. Colbert), Boston, MA.

A close relative was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. He was cared for at a high-ranked cancer center by physicians with demonstrated expertise, and even had the support of a care navigator. Still, he was often left feeling overwhelmed and confused, holding an inch-thick stack of papers, instructions, and pamphlets. As he left his treatment planning visit, reeling from the emotional burden of his diagnosis and all the unfamiliar terminology, he didn’t know what to do or what to expect. Later, when he experienced early signs of tumor lysis syndrome, he struggled to reach his care team for triage and guidance. When he went to the emergency room, his oncologist was never informed.

This scenario is unfortunately common, and versions of this scenario play out thousands of times each day across the US health system. Within the clinic and hospital setting, patients receive excellent care from their providers, but a disconnect emerges once the patient leaves these medical settings: patients at home struggle to find guidance and support, while care teams lack the tools to engage patients between visits or monitor their health across care settings, providers, or episodes of care.

Leveraging Technology to Move From Episodes of Care to Complex Care Journeys

The use of automated messaging, artificial intelligence and natural language processing–driven chat experiences, and text-based support is becoming more common. However, health care lags behind other industries in the adoption of these technologies.^1,2 The slow pace can be warranted, given that health care is more complicated and higher risk than inquiring about a lost package, ordering groceries, or applying for a mortgage. At the same time, many of the consumer engagement tools used to guide an applicant through the multiple steps and complexities of their home loan process or to prompt viewers to select new shows to binge have applications in health care.

Over the past few years, technologies have emerged that guide patients through complex care journeys and allow care teams to monitor and engage patients between visits. These solutions come in different formats, but generally patients can receive messages on their phones that contain disease-specific educational content, prompts to fill prescriptions and take medications, and reminders and guidance on how to prepare for appointments and procedures. These programs also collect relevant data from patients through survey and electronic patient-reported outcomes instruments, as well as connected patient monitoring devices, that help track patient progress and identify issues as they arise. Many programs also incorporate symptom triage pathways and use natural language processing to respond automatically to patient questions and concerns.^3,4

These technology solutions can automate many tasks that in the past required a care team member to spend hours on the phone. Newly freed from such repetitive tasks, care teams can now focus on more in-depth interactions with those patients who are most in need—the types of interactions that are more satisfying and rewarding. Such assistance is particularly needed today with the staffing shortages faced by most health systems.⁵

In addition, technology allows teams to see the panel of patients they are caring for and to quickly identify and take action on any specific needs or issues. Care teams can focus on any patient and see where they are in their journey. When appropriate, some solutions also allow care teams to engage directly with patients through text-messaging, creating a seamless experience and unified communication channel. Ideally, these solutions should be linked or embedded within the electronic health record or other primary system of record, so that teams can easily access these tools through their existing workflows and avoid creating yet another interface to navigate.

The Impact of Low-Tech Solutions to Deliver High-Touch Support

There is evidence showing that digital patient navigation tools impact patient care. In the oncology setting, patients with a digital navigator have achieved over 95% adherence rates with complex oral chemotherapy regimens (Memora Health Unpublished Data. 2022.). In the postpartum setting, a text message–based program improved screening rates for postpartum depression and did so with very high patient satisfaction ratings.⁶ Particularly notable is the fact that this depression screening program achieved these results in a population that was predominantly low income, with more than half belonging to underrepresented minority populations.⁶

We believe these digital patient navigation technologies, specifically low-tech solutions that don’t require app downloads, portal log-ins, or high-speed internet, will transform care delivery over the next 5 to 10 years. Successful management of complex conditions like diabetes or cancer requires more than 3 hours of care each day,⁷ yet most patients spend only 1 or 2 hours per month directly interacting with their health care providers. However, most patients carry their phones with them at all times, and artificial intelligence–enabled text support is “always on” to provide support, monitoring, and guidance, wherever a patient happens to be when assistance is needed.

Shifting the Model to Support a Lifetime of Care

While still in the early stages of development, these tools have the potential to radically alter the practice of medicine, shifting the focus from episodic interactions to continuous journey-based care delivery. Outside of an acute event bringing a patient into the clinic or emergency room, many patients go a year or more without seeing their primary care providers.⁸ During that time, an immense amount of information is underreported or completely lost. Capturing this information in real-time and more holistically over a person’s lifetime of care could provide physicians better insight to both better manage and more fully evaluate the success of treatment plans by tracking patient symptoms, pain, and functional status over time. With this more longitudinal view of the patient, we see a pathway towards achieving the Quadruple Aim: patients who are more supported will achieve better outcomes at lower cost, they will have a better experience, and care teams will be empowered to focus their time on more satisfying activities rather than repetitive administrative tasks.

Corresponding author: James A. Colbert, MD, MBA; jamie@memorahealth.com

Disclosures: Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert are employed by Memora Health, an organization that helps health care systems digitize and automate care journeys.

From Memora Health (Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert), San Francisco, CA; and Harvard Medical School (Dr. Colbert), Boston, MA.

A close relative was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. He was cared for at a high-ranked cancer center by physicians with demonstrated expertise, and even had the support of a care navigator. Still, he was often left feeling overwhelmed and confused, holding an inch-thick stack of papers, instructions, and pamphlets. As he left his treatment planning visit, reeling from the emotional burden of his diagnosis and all the unfamiliar terminology, he didn’t know what to do or what to expect. Later, when he experienced early signs of tumor lysis syndrome, he struggled to reach his care team for triage and guidance. When he went to the emergency room, his oncologist was never informed.

This scenario is unfortunately common, and versions of this scenario play out thousands of times each day across the US health system. Within the clinic and hospital setting, patients receive excellent care from their providers, but a disconnect emerges once the patient leaves these medical settings: patients at home struggle to find guidance and support, while care teams lack the tools to engage patients between visits or monitor their health across care settings, providers, or episodes of care.

Leveraging Technology to Move From Episodes of Care to Complex Care Journeys

The use of automated messaging, artificial intelligence and natural language processing–driven chat experiences, and text-based support is becoming more common. However, health care lags behind other industries in the adoption of these technologies.^1,2 The slow pace can be warranted, given that health care is more complicated and higher risk than inquiring about a lost package, ordering groceries, or applying for a mortgage. At the same time, many of the consumer engagement tools used to guide an applicant through the multiple steps and complexities of their home loan process or to prompt viewers to select new shows to binge have applications in health care.

Over the past few years, technologies have emerged that guide patients through complex care journeys and allow care teams to monitor and engage patients between visits. These solutions come in different formats, but generally patients can receive messages on their phones that contain disease-specific educational content, prompts to fill prescriptions and take medications, and reminders and guidance on how to prepare for appointments and procedures. These programs also collect relevant data from patients through survey and electronic patient-reported outcomes instruments, as well as connected patient monitoring devices, that help track patient progress and identify issues as they arise. Many programs also incorporate symptom triage pathways and use natural language processing to respond automatically to patient questions and concerns.^3,4

These technology solutions can automate many tasks that in the past required a care team member to spend hours on the phone. Newly freed from such repetitive tasks, care teams can now focus on more in-depth interactions with those patients who are most in need—the types of interactions that are more satisfying and rewarding. Such assistance is particularly needed today with the staffing shortages faced by most health systems.⁵

In addition, technology allows teams to see the panel of patients they are caring for and to quickly identify and take action on any specific needs or issues. Care teams can focus on any patient and see where they are in their journey. When appropriate, some solutions also allow care teams to engage directly with patients through text-messaging, creating a seamless experience and unified communication channel. Ideally, these solutions should be linked or embedded within the electronic health record or other primary system of record, so that teams can easily access these tools through their existing workflows and avoid creating yet another interface to navigate.

The Impact of Low-Tech Solutions to Deliver High-Touch Support

There is evidence showing that digital patient navigation tools impact patient care. In the oncology setting, patients with a digital navigator have achieved over 95% adherence rates with complex oral chemotherapy regimens (Memora Health Unpublished Data. 2022.). In the postpartum setting, a text message–based program improved screening rates for postpartum depression and did so with very high patient satisfaction ratings.⁶ Particularly notable is the fact that this depression screening program achieved these results in a population that was predominantly low income, with more than half belonging to underrepresented minority populations.⁶

We believe these digital patient navigation technologies, specifically low-tech solutions that don’t require app downloads, portal log-ins, or high-speed internet, will transform care delivery over the next 5 to 10 years. Successful management of complex conditions like diabetes or cancer requires more than 3 hours of care each day,⁷ yet most patients spend only 1 or 2 hours per month directly interacting with their health care providers. However, most patients carry their phones with them at all times, and artificial intelligence–enabled text support is “always on” to provide support, monitoring, and guidance, wherever a patient happens to be when assistance is needed.

Shifting the Model to Support a Lifetime of Care

While still in the early stages of development, these tools have the potential to radically alter the practice of medicine, shifting the focus from episodic interactions to continuous journey-based care delivery. Outside of an acute event bringing a patient into the clinic or emergency room, many patients go a year or more without seeing their primary care providers.⁸ During that time, an immense amount of information is underreported or completely lost. Capturing this information in real-time and more holistically over a person’s lifetime of care could provide physicians better insight to both better manage and more fully evaluate the success of treatment plans by tracking patient symptoms, pain, and functional status over time. With this more longitudinal view of the patient, we see a pathway towards achieving the Quadruple Aim: patients who are more supported will achieve better outcomes at lower cost, they will have a better experience, and care teams will be empowered to focus their time on more satisfying activities rather than repetitive administrative tasks.

Corresponding author: James A. Colbert, MD, MBA; jamie@memorahealth.com

Disclosures: Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert are employed by Memora Health, an organization that helps health care systems digitize and automate care journeys.

This issue of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes (JCOM) debuts a new cover design that brings forward the articles and features in each issue. Although the Journal’s cover has a new look, JCOM’s goals remain the same—improving care by disseminating evidence of quality improvement in health care and sharing access to the medical literature with our readers. We continue our mission to promote the best medical practice by providing clinicians with updates and communicating advances that lead to measurable improvement in health care delivery, quality, and outcomes.

As we continue the work of improving health care quality, knowledge gaps and unmet needs in the literature remain. These unmet needs are evident throughout all phases of health care delivery. Moreover, the Institutes of Medicine report that centered on efforts to build a safer health care environment by redesigning health care processes remains salient.¹ The journey to continuous improvement in health care, where we achieve threshold change in the quality of each process and across the entire health care system, requires collective effort. Such efforts include establishing clear metrics and measurements for improvement goals throughout the patient’s journey through diagnosis, treatment, transitions of care, and disease management.^2,3 To address evidence and knowledge gaps in the literature, JCOM publishes reports of original studies and quality improvement projects as well as reviews, providing its 30,000 readers with new evidence to implement in daily practice. We welcome submissions of original research reports, reports of quality improvement projects that follow the SQUIRE 2.0 standards,⁴ and perspectives on developments and innovations in health care delivery.

The next chapter in health care delivery improvement will encompass value-based care.⁵ This new era of clinical outcomes management will dictate the metrics and outcomes reporting⁶ and how to plan future investments. The value-based phase will increase innovation and shape policies that advance population health, transforming every step in the care delivery journey.⁷ The next phase in health care delivery will also create a viable financial structure while implementing effective performance measures for optimal outcomes through patient-centered care and optimization of cost and care strategies. In light of health care’s evolution toward a value-based model, JCOM welcomes submissions of manuscripts that explore themes central to this model, including patient-centered care, implementation of best practices, system design, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the balance between cost optimization and quality. For JCOM’s authors and readers, our editorial team remains commited to the highest standards in timely publishing to support our community through our collective expertise and dedication to quality improvement.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; ebarkoudah@bwh.harvard.edu

This issue of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes (JCOM) debuts a new cover design that brings forward the articles and features in each issue. Although the Journal’s cover has a new look, JCOM’s goals remain the same—improving care by disseminating evidence of quality improvement in health care and sharing access to the medical literature with our readers. We continue our mission to promote the best medical practice by providing clinicians with updates and communicating advances that lead to measurable improvement in health care delivery, quality, and outcomes.

As we continue the work of improving health care quality, knowledge gaps and unmet needs in the literature remain. These unmet needs are evident throughout all phases of health care delivery. Moreover, the Institutes of Medicine report that centered on efforts to build a safer health care environment by redesigning health care processes remains salient.¹ The journey to continuous improvement in health care, where we achieve threshold change in the quality of each process and across the entire health care system, requires collective effort. Such efforts include establishing clear metrics and measurements for improvement goals throughout the patient’s journey through diagnosis, treatment, transitions of care, and disease management.^2,3 To address evidence and knowledge gaps in the literature, JCOM publishes reports of original studies and quality improvement projects as well as reviews, providing its 30,000 readers with new evidence to implement in daily practice. We welcome submissions of original research reports, reports of quality improvement projects that follow the SQUIRE 2.0 standards,⁴ and perspectives on developments and innovations in health care delivery.

The next chapter in health care delivery improvement will encompass value-based care.⁵ This new era of clinical outcomes management will dictate the metrics and outcomes reporting⁶ and how to plan future investments. The value-based phase will increase innovation and shape policies that advance population health, transforming every step in the care delivery journey.⁷ The next phase in health care delivery will also create a viable financial structure while implementing effective performance measures for optimal outcomes through patient-centered care and optimization of cost and care strategies. In light of health care’s evolution toward a value-based model, JCOM welcomes submissions of manuscripts that explore themes central to this model, including patient-centered care, implementation of best practices, system design, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the balance between cost optimization and quality. For JCOM’s authors and readers, our editorial team remains commited to the highest standards in timely publishing to support our community through our collective expertise and dedication to quality improvement.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; ebarkoudah@bwh.harvard.edu

This issue of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes (JCOM) debuts a new cover design that brings forward the articles and features in each issue. Although the Journal’s cover has a new look, JCOM’s goals remain the same—improving care by disseminating evidence of quality improvement in health care and sharing access to the medical literature with our readers. We continue our mission to promote the best medical practice by providing clinicians with updates and communicating advances that lead to measurable improvement in health care delivery, quality, and outcomes.

As we continue the work of improving health care quality, knowledge gaps and unmet needs in the literature remain. These unmet needs are evident throughout all phases of health care delivery. Moreover, the Institutes of Medicine report that centered on efforts to build a safer health care environment by redesigning health care processes remains salient.¹ The journey to continuous improvement in health care, where we achieve threshold change in the quality of each process and across the entire health care system, requires collective effort. Such efforts include establishing clear metrics and measurements for improvement goals throughout the patient’s journey through diagnosis, treatment, transitions of care, and disease management.^2,3 To address evidence and knowledge gaps in the literature, JCOM publishes reports of original studies and quality improvement projects as well as reviews, providing its 30,000 readers with new evidence to implement in daily practice. We welcome submissions of original research reports, reports of quality improvement projects that follow the SQUIRE 2.0 standards,⁴ and perspectives on developments and innovations in health care delivery.

The next chapter in health care delivery improvement will encompass value-based care.⁵ This new era of clinical outcomes management will dictate the metrics and outcomes reporting⁶ and how to plan future investments. The value-based phase will increase innovation and shape policies that advance population health, transforming every step in the care delivery journey.⁷ The next phase in health care delivery will also create a viable financial structure while implementing effective performance measures for optimal outcomes through patient-centered care and optimization of cost and care strategies. In light of health care’s evolution toward a value-based model, JCOM welcomes submissions of manuscripts that explore themes central to this model, including patient-centered care, implementation of best practices, system design, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the balance between cost optimization and quality. For JCOM’s authors and readers, our editorial team remains commited to the highest standards in timely publishing to support our community through our collective expertise and dedication to quality improvement.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; ebarkoudah@bwh.harvard.edu

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To examine whether implementation of a geriatric trauma clinical pathway is associated with reduced rates of delirium in older adults with traumatic injury.

Design: Retrospective case-control study of electronic health records.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and did not undergo an operation. A Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary Stanford Quality Pathways team and formally launched on November 1, 2018. The clinical pathway was designed to incorporate geriatric best practices, which included order sets (eg, age-appropriate nonpharmacological interventions and pharmacological dosages), guidelines (eg, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health systems 4M framework), automated consultations (comprehensive geriatric assessment), and escalation pathways executed by a multidisciplinary team (eg, pain, bowel, and sleep regulation). The clinical pathway began with admission to the emergency department (ED) (ie, automatic trigger of geriatric trauma care admission order set), daily multidisciplinary team meetings during acute hospitalization, and a transitional care team consultation for postdischarge follow-up or home visit.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was delirium as determined by a positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score or a diagnosis of delirium by the clinical team. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Process measures for pathway compliance (eg, achieving adequate pain control, early mobilization, advance care planning) were assessed. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent the Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway intervention (postimplementation group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (baseline pre-implementation group).

Main results: Of the 859 eligible patients, 712 were included in the analysis (442 [62.1%] in the baseline pre-implementation group and 270 [37.9%] in the postimplementation group); mean (SD) age was 81.4 (9.1) years, and 394 (55.3%) were women. The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls being the most common cause of injury (247 [55.9%] in the baseline group vs 162 [60.0%] in the postimplementation group; P = .43). Injuries as measured by Injury Severity Score (ISS) were minor or moderate in both groups (261 [59.0%] in baseline group vs 168 [62.2%] in postimplementation group; P = .87). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for delirium in the postimplementation group was lower compared to the baseline pre-implementation group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80; P < .001). Measures of advance care planning in the postimplementation group improved, including more frequent goals-of-care documentation (53.7% in postimplementation group vs 16.7% in baseline group; P < .001) and a shortened time to first goals-of-care discussion upon presenting to the ED (36 hours in postimplementation group vs 50 hours in baseline group; P = .03).

Conclusion: Implementation of a multidisciplinary geriatric trauma clinical pathway for older adults with traumatic injury at a single level I trauma center was associated with reduced rates of delirium.

Study 2 Overview (Bryant et al)

Objective: To determine whether an interdisciplinary care pathway for frail trauma patients can improve in-hospital mortality, complications, and 30-day readmissions.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of frail patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and survived more than 24 hours; admitted to and discharged from the trauma unit; and determined to be pre-frail or frail by a geriatrician’s assessment. A Frailty Identification and Care Pathway designed to reduce delirium and complications in frail older trauma patients was developed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented in 2016. The standardized evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway included utilization of order sets and interventions for delirium prevention, early ambulation, bowel and pain regimens, nutrition and physical therapy consults, medication management, care-goal setting, and geriatric assessments.

Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were delirium as determined by a positive CAM score, major complications as defined by the Trauma Quality Improvement Project, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day hospital readmission. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention (postintervention group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (pre-intervention group).

Main results: A total of 269 frail patients were included in the analysis (125 in pre-intervention group vs 144 in postintervention group). Patient demographic and admission characteristics were similar between the 2 groups: mean age was 83.5 (7.1) years, 60.6% were women, and median ISS was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-14). The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls accounting for 92.8% and 86.1% of injuries in the pre-intervention and postintervention groups, respectively (P = .07). In univariate analysis, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention was associated with a significant reduction in delirium (12.5% vs 21.6%, P = .04) and 30-day hospital readmission (2.7% vs 9.6%, P = .01) compared to patients in the pre-intervention group. However, rates of major complications (28.5% vs 28.0%, P = 0.93) and in-hospital mortality (4.2% vs 7.2%, P = .28) were similar between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ISS), patients in the postintervention group had lower delirium (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88; P = .02) and 30-day hospital readmission (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .02) rates compared to those in the pre-intervention group.

Conclusion: Implementation of an interdisciplinary care protocol for frail geriatric trauma patients significantly decreased their risks for in-hospital delirium and 30-day hospital readmission.

Commentary

Traumatic injuries in older adults are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, with falls and motor vehicle accidents accounting for a majority of these injuries. Astoundingly, up to one-third of this vulnerable population presenting to hospitals with an ISS greater than 15 may die during hospitalization.¹ As a result, a large number of studies and clinical trials have focused on interventions that are designed to reduce fall risks, and hence reduce adverse consequences of traumatic injuries that may arise after falls.² However, this emphasis on falls prevention has overshadowed a need to develop effective geriatric-centered clinical interventions that aim to improve outcomes in older adults who present to hospitals with traumatic injuries. Furthermore, frailty—a geriatric syndrome indicative of an increased state of vulnerability and predictive of adverse outcomes such as delirium—is highly prevalent in older patients with traumatic injury.³ Thus, there is an urgent need to develop novel, hospital-based, traumatic injury–targeting strategies that incorporate a thoughtful redesign of the care framework that includes evidence-based interventions for geriatric syndromes such as delirium and frailty.

The study reported by Park et al (Study 1) represents the latest effort to evaluate inpatient management strategies designed to improve outcomes in hospitalized older adults who have sustained traumatic injury. Through the implementation of a novel multidisciplinary Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway that incorporates geriatric best practices, this intervention was found to be associated with a 46% lower risk of in-hospital delirium. Because of the inclusion of all age-eligible patients across all strata of traumatic injuries, rather than preselecting for those at the highest risk for poor clinical outcomes, the benefits of this intervention extend to those with minor or moderate injury severity. Furthermore, the improvement in delirium (ie, the primary outcome) is particularly meaningful given that delirium is one of the most common hospital-associated complications that increase hospital LOS, discharge to an institution, and mortality in older adults. Finally, the study’s observed reduced time to a first goals-of-care discussion and increased frequency of goals-of-care documentation after intervention should not be overlooked. The improvements in these 2 process measures are highly significant given that advanced care planning, an intervention that helps to align patients’ values, goals, and treatments, is completed at substantially lower rates in older adults in the acute hospital setting.⁴

Similarly, in an earlier published study, Bryant and colleagues (Study 2) also show that a geriatric-focused interdisciplinary trauma care pathway is associated with delirium risk reduction in hospitalized older trauma patients. Much like Study 1, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway utilized in Study 2 is an evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway that includes the use of geriatric assessments, order sets, and geriatric best practices. Moreover, its exclusive inclusion of pre-frail and frail older patients (ie, those at higher risk for poor outcomes) with moderate injury severity (median ISS of 10 [IQR, 9-14]) suggests that this type of care pathway benefits hospitalized older trauma patients, who are particularly vulnerable to adverse complications such as delirium. Moreover, the successful utilization of the FRAIL questionnaire, a validated frailty screening tool, by surgical residents in the ED to initiate this care pathway demonstrates the feasibility of its use in expediting frailty screening in older patients in trauma care.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Findings from the 2 studies discussed in this review indicate that implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways predicated on evidence-based geriatric principles and best practices is a promising approach to reduce delirium in hospitalized older trauma patients. These studies have helped to lay the groundwork in outlining the roadmaps (eg, processes and infrastructures) needed to create such clinical pathways. These key elements include: (1) integration of a multidisciplinary committee (eg, representation from trauma, emergency, and geriatric medicine, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, pharmacy, social work) in pathway design and implementation; (2) adaption of evidence-based geriatric best practices (eg, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health System 4M framework [medication, mentation, mobility, what matters]) to prioritize interventions and to design a pathway that incorporates these features; (3) incorporation of comprehensive geriatric assessment by interdisciplinary providers; (4) utilization of validated clinical instruments to assess physical and cognitive functions, frailty, delirium, and social determinants of health; (5) modification of electronic health record systems to encompass order sets that incorporate evidence-based, nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage symptoms (eg, delirium, pain, bowel movement, sleep, immobility, polypharmacy) essential to quality geriatric care; and (6) integration of patient and caregiver preferences via goals-of-care discussions and corresponding documentation and communication of these goals.

Additionally, these 2 studies imparted some strategies that may facilitate the implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways in trauma care. Examples of such facilitators include: (1) collaboration with champions within each specialty to reinforce education and buy-in; (2) creation of automatically triggered order sets upon patient presentation to the ED that unites distinct features of clinical pathways; (3) adaption and reorganization of existing hospital infrastructures and resources to meet the needs of clinical pathways implementation (eg, utilizing information technology resources to develop electronic health record order sets; using quality department to develop clinical pathway guidelines and electronic outcome dashboards); and (4) development of individualized patient and caregiver education materials based on care needs (eg, principles of delirium prevention and preservation of mobility during hospitalization) to prepare and engage these stakeholders in patient care and recovery.

Practice Points

• A geriatric interdisciplinary care model can be effectively applied to the management of acute trauma in older patients.
• Interdisciplinary clinical pathways should incorporate geriatric best practices and guidelines and age-appropriate order sets to prioritize and integrate care.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To examine whether implementation of a geriatric trauma clinical pathway is associated with reduced rates of delirium in older adults with traumatic injury.

Design: Retrospective case-control study of electronic health records.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and did not undergo an operation. A Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary Stanford Quality Pathways team and formally launched on November 1, 2018. The clinical pathway was designed to incorporate geriatric best practices, which included order sets (eg, age-appropriate nonpharmacological interventions and pharmacological dosages), guidelines (eg, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health systems 4M framework), automated consultations (comprehensive geriatric assessment), and escalation pathways executed by a multidisciplinary team (eg, pain, bowel, and sleep regulation). The clinical pathway began with admission to the emergency department (ED) (ie, automatic trigger of geriatric trauma care admission order set), daily multidisciplinary team meetings during acute hospitalization, and a transitional care team consultation for postdischarge follow-up or home visit.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was delirium as determined by a positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score or a diagnosis of delirium by the clinical team. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Process measures for pathway compliance (eg, achieving adequate pain control, early mobilization, advance care planning) were assessed. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent the Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway intervention (postimplementation group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (baseline pre-implementation group).

Main results: Of the 859 eligible patients, 712 were included in the analysis (442 [62.1%] in the baseline pre-implementation group and 270 [37.9%] in the postimplementation group); mean (SD) age was 81.4 (9.1) years, and 394 (55.3%) were women. The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls being the most common cause of injury (247 [55.9%] in the baseline group vs 162 [60.0%] in the postimplementation group; P = .43). Injuries as measured by Injury Severity Score (ISS) were minor or moderate in both groups (261 [59.0%] in baseline group vs 168 [62.2%] in postimplementation group; P = .87). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for delirium in the postimplementation group was lower compared to the baseline pre-implementation group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80; P < .001). Measures of advance care planning in the postimplementation group improved, including more frequent goals-of-care documentation (53.7% in postimplementation group vs 16.7% in baseline group; P < .001) and a shortened time to first goals-of-care discussion upon presenting to the ED (36 hours in postimplementation group vs 50 hours in baseline group; P = .03).

Conclusion: Implementation of a multidisciplinary geriatric trauma clinical pathway for older adults with traumatic injury at a single level I trauma center was associated with reduced rates of delirium.

Study 2 Overview (Bryant et al)

Objective: To determine whether an interdisciplinary care pathway for frail trauma patients can improve in-hospital mortality, complications, and 30-day readmissions.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of frail patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and survived more than 24 hours; admitted to and discharged from the trauma unit; and determined to be pre-frail or frail by a geriatrician’s assessment. A Frailty Identification and Care Pathway designed to reduce delirium and complications in frail older trauma patients was developed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented in 2016. The standardized evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway included utilization of order sets and interventions for delirium prevention, early ambulation, bowel and pain regimens, nutrition and physical therapy consults, medication management, care-goal setting, and geriatric assessments.

Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were delirium as determined by a positive CAM score, major complications as defined by the Trauma Quality Improvement Project, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day hospital readmission. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention (postintervention group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (pre-intervention group).

Main results: A total of 269 frail patients were included in the analysis (125 in pre-intervention group vs 144 in postintervention group). Patient demographic and admission characteristics were similar between the 2 groups: mean age was 83.5 (7.1) years, 60.6% were women, and median ISS was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-14). The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls accounting for 92.8% and 86.1% of injuries in the pre-intervention and postintervention groups, respectively (P = .07). In univariate analysis, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention was associated with a significant reduction in delirium (12.5% vs 21.6%, P = .04) and 30-day hospital readmission (2.7% vs 9.6%, P = .01) compared to patients in the pre-intervention group. However, rates of major complications (28.5% vs 28.0%, P = 0.93) and in-hospital mortality (4.2% vs 7.2%, P = .28) were similar between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ISS), patients in the postintervention group had lower delirium (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88; P = .02) and 30-day hospital readmission (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .02) rates compared to those in the pre-intervention group.

Conclusion: Implementation of an interdisciplinary care protocol for frail geriatric trauma patients significantly decreased their risks for in-hospital delirium and 30-day hospital readmission.

Commentary

Traumatic injuries in older adults are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, with falls and motor vehicle accidents accounting for a majority of these injuries. Astoundingly, up to one-third of this vulnerable population presenting to hospitals with an ISS greater than 15 may die during hospitalization.¹ As a result, a large number of studies and clinical trials have focused on interventions that are designed to reduce fall risks, and hence reduce adverse consequences of traumatic injuries that may arise after falls.² However, this emphasis on falls prevention has overshadowed a need to develop effective geriatric-centered clinical interventions that aim to improve outcomes in older adults who present to hospitals with traumatic injuries. Furthermore, frailty—a geriatric syndrome indicative of an increased state of vulnerability and predictive of adverse outcomes such as delirium—is highly prevalent in older patients with traumatic injury.³ Thus, there is an urgent need to develop novel, hospital-based, traumatic injury–targeting strategies that incorporate a thoughtful redesign of the care framework that includes evidence-based interventions for geriatric syndromes such as delirium and frailty.

The study reported by Park et al (Study 1) represents the latest effort to evaluate inpatient management strategies designed to improve outcomes in hospitalized older adults who have sustained traumatic injury. Through the implementation of a novel multidisciplinary Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway that incorporates geriatric best practices, this intervention was found to be associated with a 46% lower risk of in-hospital delirium. Because of the inclusion of all age-eligible patients across all strata of traumatic injuries, rather than preselecting for those at the highest risk for poor clinical outcomes, the benefits of this intervention extend to those with minor or moderate injury severity. Furthermore, the improvement in delirium (ie, the primary outcome) is particularly meaningful given that delirium is one of the most common hospital-associated complications that increase hospital LOS, discharge to an institution, and mortality in older adults. Finally, the study’s observed reduced time to a first goals-of-care discussion and increased frequency of goals-of-care documentation after intervention should not be overlooked. The improvements in these 2 process measures are highly significant given that advanced care planning, an intervention that helps to align patients’ values, goals, and treatments, is completed at substantially lower rates in older adults in the acute hospital setting.⁴

Similarly, in an earlier published study, Bryant and colleagues (Study 2) also show that a geriatric-focused interdisciplinary trauma care pathway is associated with delirium risk reduction in hospitalized older trauma patients. Much like Study 1, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway utilized in Study 2 is an evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway that includes the use of geriatric assessments, order sets, and geriatric best practices. Moreover, its exclusive inclusion of pre-frail and frail older patients (ie, those at higher risk for poor outcomes) with moderate injury severity (median ISS of 10 [IQR, 9-14]) suggests that this type of care pathway benefits hospitalized older trauma patients, who are particularly vulnerable to adverse complications such as delirium. Moreover, the successful utilization of the FRAIL questionnaire, a validated frailty screening tool, by surgical residents in the ED to initiate this care pathway demonstrates the feasibility of its use in expediting frailty screening in older patients in trauma care.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Findings from the 2 studies discussed in this review indicate that implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways predicated on evidence-based geriatric principles and best practices is a promising approach to reduce delirium in hospitalized older trauma patients. These studies have helped to lay the groundwork in outlining the roadmaps (eg, processes and infrastructures) needed to create such clinical pathways. These key elements include: (1) integration of a multidisciplinary committee (eg, representation from trauma, emergency, and geriatric medicine, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, pharmacy, social work) in pathway design and implementation; (2) adaption of evidence-based geriatric best practices (eg, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health System 4M framework [medication, mentation, mobility, what matters]) to prioritize interventions and to design a pathway that incorporates these features; (3) incorporation of comprehensive geriatric assessment by interdisciplinary providers; (4) utilization of validated clinical instruments to assess physical and cognitive functions, frailty, delirium, and social determinants of health; (5) modification of electronic health record systems to encompass order sets that incorporate evidence-based, nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage symptoms (eg, delirium, pain, bowel movement, sleep, immobility, polypharmacy) essential to quality geriatric care; and (6) integration of patient and caregiver preferences via goals-of-care discussions and corresponding documentation and communication of these goals.

Additionally, these 2 studies imparted some strategies that may facilitate the implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways in trauma care. Examples of such facilitators include: (1) collaboration with champions within each specialty to reinforce education and buy-in; (2) creation of automatically triggered order sets upon patient presentation to the ED that unites distinct features of clinical pathways; (3) adaption and reorganization of existing hospital infrastructures and resources to meet the needs of clinical pathways implementation (eg, utilizing information technology resources to develop electronic health record order sets; using quality department to develop clinical pathway guidelines and electronic outcome dashboards); and (4) development of individualized patient and caregiver education materials based on care needs (eg, principles of delirium prevention and preservation of mobility during hospitalization) to prepare and engage these stakeholders in patient care and recovery.

Practice Points

• A geriatric interdisciplinary care model can be effectively applied to the management of acute trauma in older patients.
• Interdisciplinary clinical pathways should incorporate geriatric best practices and guidelines and age-appropriate order sets to prioritize and integrate care.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To examine whether implementation of a geriatric trauma clinical pathway is associated with reduced rates of delirium in older adults with traumatic injury.

Design: Retrospective case-control study of electronic health records.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and did not undergo an operation. A Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary Stanford Quality Pathways team and formally launched on November 1, 2018. The clinical pathway was designed to incorporate geriatric best practices, which included order sets (eg, age-appropriate nonpharmacological interventions and pharmacological dosages), guidelines (eg, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health systems 4M framework), automated consultations (comprehensive geriatric assessment), and escalation pathways executed by a multidisciplinary team (eg, pain, bowel, and sleep regulation). The clinical pathway began with admission to the emergency department (ED) (ie, automatic trigger of geriatric trauma care admission order set), daily multidisciplinary team meetings during acute hospitalization, and a transitional care team consultation for postdischarge follow-up or home visit.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was delirium as determined by a positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score or a diagnosis of delirium by the clinical team. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Process measures for pathway compliance (eg, achieving adequate pain control, early mobilization, advance care planning) were assessed. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent the Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway intervention (postimplementation group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (baseline pre-implementation group).

Main results: Of the 859 eligible patients, 712 were included in the analysis (442 [62.1%] in the baseline pre-implementation group and 270 [37.9%] in the postimplementation group); mean (SD) age was 81.4 (9.1) years, and 394 (55.3%) were women. The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls being the most common cause of injury (247 [55.9%] in the baseline group vs 162 [60.0%] in the postimplementation group; P = .43). Injuries as measured by Injury Severity Score (ISS) were minor or moderate in both groups (261 [59.0%] in baseline group vs 168 [62.2%] in postimplementation group; P = .87). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for delirium in the postimplementation group was lower compared to the baseline pre-implementation group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80; P < .001). Measures of advance care planning in the postimplementation group improved, including more frequent goals-of-care documentation (53.7% in postimplementation group vs 16.7% in baseline group; P < .001) and a shortened time to first goals-of-care discussion upon presenting to the ED (36 hours in postimplementation group vs 50 hours in baseline group; P = .03).

Conclusion: Implementation of a multidisciplinary geriatric trauma clinical pathway for older adults with traumatic injury at a single level I trauma center was associated with reduced rates of delirium.

Study 2 Overview (Bryant et al)

Objective: To determine whether an interdisciplinary care pathway for frail trauma patients can improve in-hospital mortality, complications, and 30-day readmissions.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of frail patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and survived more than 24 hours; admitted to and discharged from the trauma unit; and determined to be pre-frail or frail by a geriatrician’s assessment. A Frailty Identification and Care Pathway designed to reduce delirium and complications in frail older trauma patients was developed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented in 2016. The standardized evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway included utilization of order sets and interventions for delirium prevention, early ambulation, bowel and pain regimens, nutrition and physical therapy consults, medication management, care-goal setting, and geriatric assessments.

Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were delirium as determined by a positive CAM score, major complications as defined by the Trauma Quality Improvement Project, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day hospital readmission. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention (postintervention group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (pre-intervention group).

Main results: A total of 269 frail patients were included in the analysis (125 in pre-intervention group vs 144 in postintervention group). Patient demographic and admission characteristics were similar between the 2 groups: mean age was 83.5 (7.1) years, 60.6% were women, and median ISS was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-14). The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls accounting for 92.8% and 86.1% of injuries in the pre-intervention and postintervention groups, respectively (P = .07). In univariate analysis, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention was associated with a significant reduction in delirium (12.5% vs 21.6%, P = .04) and 30-day hospital readmission (2.7% vs 9.6%, P = .01) compared to patients in the pre-intervention group. However, rates of major complications (28.5% vs 28.0%, P = 0.93) and in-hospital mortality (4.2% vs 7.2%, P = .28) were similar between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ISS), patients in the postintervention group had lower delirium (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88; P = .02) and 30-day hospital readmission (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .02) rates compared to those in the pre-intervention group.

Conclusion: Implementation of an interdisciplinary care protocol for frail geriatric trauma patients significantly decreased their risks for in-hospital delirium and 30-day hospital readmission.

Commentary

Traumatic injuries in older adults are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, with falls and motor vehicle accidents accounting for a majority of these injuries. Astoundingly, up to one-third of this vulnerable population presenting to hospitals with an ISS greater than 15 may die during hospitalization.¹ As a result, a large number of studies and clinical trials have focused on interventions that are designed to reduce fall risks, and hence reduce adverse consequences of traumatic injuries that may arise after falls.² However, this emphasis on falls prevention has overshadowed a need to develop effective geriatric-centered clinical interventions that aim to improve outcomes in older adults who present to hospitals with traumatic injuries. Furthermore, frailty—a geriatric syndrome indicative of an increased state of vulnerability and predictive of adverse outcomes such as delirium—is highly prevalent in older patients with traumatic injury.³ Thus, there is an urgent need to develop novel, hospital-based, traumatic injury–targeting strategies that incorporate a thoughtful redesign of the care framework that includes evidence-based interventions for geriatric syndromes such as delirium and frailty.

The study reported by Park et al (Study 1) represents the latest effort to evaluate inpatient management strategies designed to improve outcomes in hospitalized older adults who have sustained traumatic injury. Through the implementation of a novel multidisciplinary Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway that incorporates geriatric best practices, this intervention was found to be associated with a 46% lower risk of in-hospital delirium. Because of the inclusion of all age-eligible patients across all strata of traumatic injuries, rather than preselecting for those at the highest risk for poor clinical outcomes, the benefits of this intervention extend to those with minor or moderate injury severity. Furthermore, the improvement in delirium (ie, the primary outcome) is particularly meaningful given that delirium is one of the most common hospital-associated complications that increase hospital LOS, discharge to an institution, and mortality in older adults. Finally, the study’s observed reduced time to a first goals-of-care discussion and increased frequency of goals-of-care documentation after intervention should not be overlooked. The improvements in these 2 process measures are highly significant given that advanced care planning, an intervention that helps to align patients’ values, goals, and treatments, is completed at substantially lower rates in older adults in the acute hospital setting.⁴

Similarly, in an earlier published study, Bryant and colleagues (Study 2) also show that a geriatric-focused interdisciplinary trauma care pathway is associated with delirium risk reduction in hospitalized older trauma patients. Much like Study 1, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway utilized in Study 2 is an evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway that includes the use of geriatric assessments, order sets, and geriatric best practices. Moreover, its exclusive inclusion of pre-frail and frail older patients (ie, those at higher risk for poor outcomes) with moderate injury severity (median ISS of 10 [IQR, 9-14]) suggests that this type of care pathway benefits hospitalized older trauma patients, who are particularly vulnerable to adverse complications such as delirium. Moreover, the successful utilization of the FRAIL questionnaire, a validated frailty screening tool, by surgical residents in the ED to initiate this care pathway demonstrates the feasibility of its use in expediting frailty screening in older patients in trauma care.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Findings from the 2 studies discussed in this review indicate that implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways predicated on evidence-based geriatric principles and best practices is a promising approach to reduce delirium in hospitalized older trauma patients. These studies have helped to lay the groundwork in outlining the roadmaps (eg, processes and infrastructures) needed to create such clinical pathways. These key elements include: (1) integration of a multidisciplinary committee (eg, representation from trauma, emergency, and geriatric medicine, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, pharmacy, social work) in pathway design and implementation; (2) adaption of evidence-based geriatric best practices (eg, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health System 4M framework [medication, mentation, mobility, what matters]) to prioritize interventions and to design a pathway that incorporates these features; (3) incorporation of comprehensive geriatric assessment by interdisciplinary providers; (4) utilization of validated clinical instruments to assess physical and cognitive functions, frailty, delirium, and social determinants of health; (5) modification of electronic health record systems to encompass order sets that incorporate evidence-based, nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage symptoms (eg, delirium, pain, bowel movement, sleep, immobility, polypharmacy) essential to quality geriatric care; and (6) integration of patient and caregiver preferences via goals-of-care discussions and corresponding documentation and communication of these goals.

Additionally, these 2 studies imparted some strategies that may facilitate the implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways in trauma care. Examples of such facilitators include: (1) collaboration with champions within each specialty to reinforce education and buy-in; (2) creation of automatically triggered order sets upon patient presentation to the ED that unites distinct features of clinical pathways; (3) adaption and reorganization of existing hospital infrastructures and resources to meet the needs of clinical pathways implementation (eg, utilizing information technology resources to develop electronic health record order sets; using quality department to develop clinical pathway guidelines and electronic outcome dashboards); and (4) development of individualized patient and caregiver education materials based on care needs (eg, principles of delirium prevention and preservation of mobility during hospitalization) to prepare and engage these stakeholders in patient care and recovery.

Practice Points

• A geriatric interdisciplinary care model can be effectively applied to the management of acute trauma in older patients.
• Interdisciplinary clinical pathways should incorporate geriatric best practices and guidelines and age-appropriate order sets to prioritize and integrate care.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study 1 Overview (Cortés et al)

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan with those of trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and taxane.

Design: Phase 3, multicenter, open-label randomized trial conducted at 169 centers and 15 countries.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients had to have unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer that had progressed during or after treatment with trastuzumab and a taxane or had disease that progressed within 6 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment involving trastuzumab or taxane. Patients with stable or previously treated brain metastases were eligible. Patients were not eligible for the study if they had symptomatic brain metastases, prior exposure to trastuzumab emtansine, or a history of interstitial lung disease.

Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1-to-1 fashion to receive either trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab emtansine 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified according to hormone-receptor status, prior treatment with epratuzumab, and the presence or absence of visceral disease.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival as determined by an independent central review. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, overall response, and safety.

Main results: A total of 524 patients were enrolled in the study, with 261 patients randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan and 263 patients randomized to trastuzumab emtansine. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, and 60% of patients in both groups received prior epratuzumab therapy. Stable brain metastases were present in around 20% of patients in each group, and 70% of patients in each group had visceral disease. The median duration of follow-up was 16.2 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 15.3 months with trastuzumab emtansine.

The median progression-free survival was not reached in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and was 6.8 months in the trastuzumab emtansine group (95% CI, 5.6-8.2). At 12 months the percentage of patients alive without disease progression was significantly larger in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death from any cause was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.22-0.37; P < .001). Subgroup analyses showed a benefit in progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan across all subgroups.

At the time of this analysis, the percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 94% with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 85.9% with trastuzumab emtansine. The response rates were significantly higher with trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine (79.7% vs 34.2%). A complete response was seen in 16% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm, compared with 8.7% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. The disease control rate (complete response, partial response, or stable disease) was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group (96.6% vs 76.8%).

Serious adverse events were reported in 19% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. Discontinuation due to adverse events was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, with 13.6% of patients discontinuing trastuzumab deruxtecan. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were seen in 52% of patients treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 48% of patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine. The most commonly reported adverse event with trastuzumab deruxtecan was nausea/vomiting and fatigue. These adverse events were seen more in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. No drug-related grade 5 adverse events were reported.

In the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, 10.5% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan developed interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis. Seven patients had grade 1 events, 18 patients had grade 2 events, and 2 patients had grade 3 events. No grade 4 or 5 events were noted in either treatment group. The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis in those receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan was 168 days (range, 33-507). Discontinuation of therapy due to interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 8% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan and 1% of patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine.

Conclusion: Trastuzumab deruxtecan significantly decreases the risk of disease progression or death compared to trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on prior trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy.

Study 2 Overview (Modi et al)

Objective: To assess the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with unresectable or metastatic breast cancer with low levels of HER2 expression.

Design: This was a randomized, 2-group, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Setting and participants: The trial was designed with a planned enrollment of 480 patients with hormone receptor–positive disease and 60 patients with hormone receptor–negative disease. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified according to HER2 status (immunohistochemical [IHC] 1+ vs IHC 2+/in situ hybridization [ISH] negative), number of prior lines of therapy, and hormone-receptor status. IHC scores for HER2 expression were determined through central testing. Specimens that had HER2 IHC scores of 2+ were reflexed to ISH. Specimens were considered HER2-low-expressing if they had an IHC score of 1+ or if they had an IHC score of 2+ and were ISH negative.

Eligible patients had to have received chemotherapy for metastatic disease or had disease recurrence during or within 6 months after completing adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with hormone receptor–positive disease must have had at least 1 line of endocrine therapy. Patients were eligible if they had stable brain metastases. Patients with interstitial lung disease were excluded.

Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nab-paclitaxel).

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival among all patients, overall survival in hormone receptor–positive patients, and overall survival in all patients. Additional secondary endpoints included objective response rates, duration of response, and efficacy in hormone receptor–negative patients.

Main results: A total of 373 patients were assigned to the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 184 patients were assigned to the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 88% of patients in each cohort were hormone receptor–positive. In the physician’s choice chemotherapy group, 51% received eribulin, 20% received capecitabine, 10% received nab-paclitaxel, 10% received gemcitabine, and 8% received paclitaxel. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between both cohorts. The median duration of follow-up was 18.4 months.

The median progression-free survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 10.1 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.4 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.4-0.64). Subgroup analyses revealed a benefit across all subgroups. The median progression-free survival among patients with a HER2 IHC score of 1+ and those with a HER2 IHC score of 2+/negative ISH were identical. In patients who received a prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor, the median progression-free survival was also 10 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group. In those who were CDK 4/6- naïve, the progression-free survival was 11.7 months. The progression-free survival in all patients was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.89).

The median overall survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 23.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with 17.5 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.86; P = .003). The median overall survival in the entire population was 23.4 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group vs 16.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. In the hormone receptor–negative cohort, the median overall survival was 18.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 8.3 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Complete responses were seen in 3.6% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 0.6% and the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. The median duration of response was 10.7 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 6.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group.

Incidence of serious adverse events was 27% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 25% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Grade 3 or higher events occurred in 52% of the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 67% of the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 16% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 14 patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5 patients in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group had an adverse event that was associated with death. Death due to pneumonitis in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group occurred in 2 patients. Drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 45 patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan. The majority of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. However, 3 patients had grade 5 interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis.

Conclusion: Treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to physician’s choice chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

Commentary

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is an antibody drug conjugate that consists of a humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor. This antibody drug conjugate is unique compared with prior antibody drug conjugates such as trastuzumab emtansine in that it has a high drug-to-antibody ratio (~8). Furthermore, there appears to be a unique bystander effect resulting in off-target cytotoxicity to neighboring tumor cells, enhancing the efficacy of this novel therapy. Prior studies of trastuzumab deruxtecan have shown durable activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.¹

HER2-positive breast cancer represents approximately 20% of breast cancer cases in women.² Historically, HER2 positivity has been defined by strong HER2 expression with IHC staining (ie, score 3+) or HER2 amplification through ISH. Conversely, HER2-negative disease has historically been defined as those with IHC scores of 0 or 1+. This group represents approximately 60% of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients.³ These patients have limited targeted treatment options after progressing on primary therapy. Prior data has shown that patients with low HER2 expression represent a heterogeneous population and thus, the historic categorization of HER2 status as positive or negative may in fact not adequately characterize the proportion of patients who may derive clinical benefit from HER2-directed therapies. Nevertheless, there have been no data to date that have shown improved outcomes in low HER2 expressers with anti-HER2 therapies.

The current studies add to the rapidly growing body of literature outlining the efficacy of the novel antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The implications of the data presented in these 2 studies are immediately practice changing.

In the DESTINY-Breast03 trial, Cortéz and colleagues show that trastuzumab deruxtecan therapy significantly prolongs progression-free survival compared with trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on first-line trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy. With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in this trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. The overall survival in this trial was immature at the time of this analysis, and thus continued follow-up to validate the results noted here are warranted.

The DESTINY-Breast04 trial by Modi et al expands the cohort of patients who benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan profoundly. This study defines a population of patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who will now be eligible for HER2-directed therapies. These data show that therapy with trastuzumab deruxtecan leads to a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2. This benefit was seen in both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including pre-treated triple-negative disease. Furthermore, this study does not define a threshold of HER2 expression by IHC that predicts benefit with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Patients with an IHC score of 1+ as well as those with a score of 2+/ISH negative both benefit to a similar extent from trastuzumab deruxtecan. Interestingly, in the DAISY trial, antitumor activity was noted with trastuzumab deruxtecan even in those without any detectable HER2 expression on IHC.⁴ Given the inconsistency and potential false negatives of IHC along with heterogeneous HER2 expression, further work is needed to better identify patients with low levels of HER2 expression who may benefit from this novel antibody drug conjugate. Thus, a reliable test to quantitatively assess the level of HER2 expression is needed in order to determine more accurately which patients will benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan.

Last, trastuzumab deruxtecan has been associated with interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis. Interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis occurred in approximately 10% of patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial and about 12% of patients in the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. Most of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. Nevertheless, clinicians must be aware of this risk and monitor patients frequently for the development of pneumonitis or interstitial lung disease.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The results of the current studies show a longer progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan in both HER2-low expressing metastatic breast cancer and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer following taxane and trastuzumab-based therapy. These results are clearly practice changing and represent a new standard of care in these patient populations. It is incumbent upon treating oncologists to work with our pathology colleagues to assess HER2 IHC thoroughly in order to identify all potential patients who may benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan in the metastatic setting. The continued advancement of anti-HER2 therapy will undoubtedly have a significant impact on patient outcomes going forward.

Practice Points

• With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.
• In the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy was seen in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2, including both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including those with pre-treated triple-negative disease.

­—Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study 1 Overview (Cortés et al)

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan with those of trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and taxane.

Design: Phase 3, multicenter, open-label randomized trial conducted at 169 centers and 15 countries.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients had to have unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer that had progressed during or after treatment with trastuzumab and a taxane or had disease that progressed within 6 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment involving trastuzumab or taxane. Patients with stable or previously treated brain metastases were eligible. Patients were not eligible for the study if they had symptomatic brain metastases, prior exposure to trastuzumab emtansine, or a history of interstitial lung disease.

Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1-to-1 fashion to receive either trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab emtansine 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified according to hormone-receptor status, prior treatment with epratuzumab, and the presence or absence of visceral disease.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival as determined by an independent central review. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, overall response, and safety.

Main results: A total of 524 patients were enrolled in the study, with 261 patients randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan and 263 patients randomized to trastuzumab emtansine. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, and 60% of patients in both groups received prior epratuzumab therapy. Stable brain metastases were present in around 20% of patients in each group, and 70% of patients in each group had visceral disease. The median duration of follow-up was 16.2 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 15.3 months with trastuzumab emtansine.

The median progression-free survival was not reached in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and was 6.8 months in the trastuzumab emtansine group (95% CI, 5.6-8.2). At 12 months the percentage of patients alive without disease progression was significantly larger in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death from any cause was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.22-0.37; P < .001). Subgroup analyses showed a benefit in progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan across all subgroups.

At the time of this analysis, the percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 94% with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 85.9% with trastuzumab emtansine. The response rates were significantly higher with trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine (79.7% vs 34.2%). A complete response was seen in 16% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm, compared with 8.7% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. The disease control rate (complete response, partial response, or stable disease) was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group (96.6% vs 76.8%).

Serious adverse events were reported in 19% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. Discontinuation due to adverse events was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, with 13.6% of patients discontinuing trastuzumab deruxtecan. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were seen in 52% of patients treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 48% of patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine. The most commonly reported adverse event with trastuzumab deruxtecan was nausea/vomiting and fatigue. These adverse events were seen more in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. No drug-related grade 5 adverse events were reported.

In the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, 10.5% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan developed interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis. Seven patients had grade 1 events, 18 patients had grade 2 events, and 2 patients had grade 3 events. No grade 4 or 5 events were noted in either treatment group. The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis in those receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan was 168 days (range, 33-507). Discontinuation of therapy due to interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 8% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan and 1% of patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine.

Conclusion: Trastuzumab deruxtecan significantly decreases the risk of disease progression or death compared to trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on prior trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy.

Study 2 Overview (Modi et al)

Objective: To assess the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with unresectable or metastatic breast cancer with low levels of HER2 expression.

Design: This was a randomized, 2-group, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Setting and participants: The trial was designed with a planned enrollment of 480 patients with hormone receptor–positive disease and 60 patients with hormone receptor–negative disease. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified according to HER2 status (immunohistochemical [IHC] 1+ vs IHC 2+/in situ hybridization [ISH] negative), number of prior lines of therapy, and hormone-receptor status. IHC scores for HER2 expression were determined through central testing. Specimens that had HER2 IHC scores of 2+ were reflexed to ISH. Specimens were considered HER2-low-expressing if they had an IHC score of 1+ or if they had an IHC score of 2+ and were ISH negative.

Eligible patients had to have received chemotherapy for metastatic disease or had disease recurrence during or within 6 months after completing adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with hormone receptor–positive disease must have had at least 1 line of endocrine therapy. Patients were eligible if they had stable brain metastases. Patients with interstitial lung disease were excluded.

Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nab-paclitaxel).

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival among all patients, overall survival in hormone receptor–positive patients, and overall survival in all patients. Additional secondary endpoints included objective response rates, duration of response, and efficacy in hormone receptor–negative patients.

Main results: A total of 373 patients were assigned to the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 184 patients were assigned to the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 88% of patients in each cohort were hormone receptor–positive. In the physician’s choice chemotherapy group, 51% received eribulin, 20% received capecitabine, 10% received nab-paclitaxel, 10% received gemcitabine, and 8% received paclitaxel. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between both cohorts. The median duration of follow-up was 18.4 months.

The median progression-free survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 10.1 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.4 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.4-0.64). Subgroup analyses revealed a benefit across all subgroups. The median progression-free survival among patients with a HER2 IHC score of 1+ and those with a HER2 IHC score of 2+/negative ISH were identical. In patients who received a prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor, the median progression-free survival was also 10 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group. In those who were CDK 4/6- naïve, the progression-free survival was 11.7 months. The progression-free survival in all patients was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.89).

The median overall survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 23.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with 17.5 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.86; P = .003). The median overall survival in the entire population was 23.4 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group vs 16.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. In the hormone receptor–negative cohort, the median overall survival was 18.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 8.3 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Complete responses were seen in 3.6% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 0.6% and the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. The median duration of response was 10.7 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 6.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group.

Incidence of serious adverse events was 27% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 25% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Grade 3 or higher events occurred in 52% of the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 67% of the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 16% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 14 patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5 patients in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group had an adverse event that was associated with death. Death due to pneumonitis in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group occurred in 2 patients. Drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 45 patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan. The majority of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. However, 3 patients had grade 5 interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis.

Conclusion: Treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to physician’s choice chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

Commentary

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is an antibody drug conjugate that consists of a humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor. This antibody drug conjugate is unique compared with prior antibody drug conjugates such as trastuzumab emtansine in that it has a high drug-to-antibody ratio (~8). Furthermore, there appears to be a unique bystander effect resulting in off-target cytotoxicity to neighboring tumor cells, enhancing the efficacy of this novel therapy. Prior studies of trastuzumab deruxtecan have shown durable activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.¹

HER2-positive breast cancer represents approximately 20% of breast cancer cases in women.² Historically, HER2 positivity has been defined by strong HER2 expression with IHC staining (ie, score 3+) or HER2 amplification through ISH. Conversely, HER2-negative disease has historically been defined as those with IHC scores of 0 or 1+. This group represents approximately 60% of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients.³ These patients have limited targeted treatment options after progressing on primary therapy. Prior data has shown that patients with low HER2 expression represent a heterogeneous population and thus, the historic categorization of HER2 status as positive or negative may in fact not adequately characterize the proportion of patients who may derive clinical benefit from HER2-directed therapies. Nevertheless, there have been no data to date that have shown improved outcomes in low HER2 expressers with anti-HER2 therapies.

The current studies add to the rapidly growing body of literature outlining the efficacy of the novel antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The implications of the data presented in these 2 studies are immediately practice changing.

In the DESTINY-Breast03 trial, Cortéz and colleagues show that trastuzumab deruxtecan therapy significantly prolongs progression-free survival compared with trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on first-line trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy. With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in this trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. The overall survival in this trial was immature at the time of this analysis, and thus continued follow-up to validate the results noted here are warranted.

The DESTINY-Breast04 trial by Modi et al expands the cohort of patients who benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan profoundly. This study defines a population of patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who will now be eligible for HER2-directed therapies. These data show that therapy with trastuzumab deruxtecan leads to a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2. This benefit was seen in both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including pre-treated triple-negative disease. Furthermore, this study does not define a threshold of HER2 expression by IHC that predicts benefit with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Patients with an IHC score of 1+ as well as those with a score of 2+/ISH negative both benefit to a similar extent from trastuzumab deruxtecan. Interestingly, in the DAISY trial, antitumor activity was noted with trastuzumab deruxtecan even in those without any detectable HER2 expression on IHC.⁴ Given the inconsistency and potential false negatives of IHC along with heterogeneous HER2 expression, further work is needed to better identify patients with low levels of HER2 expression who may benefit from this novel antibody drug conjugate. Thus, a reliable test to quantitatively assess the level of HER2 expression is needed in order to determine more accurately which patients will benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan.

Last, trastuzumab deruxtecan has been associated with interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis. Interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis occurred in approximately 10% of patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial and about 12% of patients in the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. Most of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. Nevertheless, clinicians must be aware of this risk and monitor patients frequently for the development of pneumonitis or interstitial lung disease.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The results of the current studies show a longer progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan in both HER2-low expressing metastatic breast cancer and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer following taxane and trastuzumab-based therapy. These results are clearly practice changing and represent a new standard of care in these patient populations. It is incumbent upon treating oncologists to work with our pathology colleagues to assess HER2 IHC thoroughly in order to identify all potential patients who may benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan in the metastatic setting. The continued advancement of anti-HER2 therapy will undoubtedly have a significant impact on patient outcomes going forward.

Practice Points

• With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.
• In the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy was seen in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2, including both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including those with pre-treated triple-negative disease.

­—Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study 1 Overview (Cortés et al)

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan with those of trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and taxane.

Design: Phase 3, multicenter, open-label randomized trial conducted at 169 centers and 15 countries.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients had to have unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer that had progressed during or after treatment with trastuzumab and a taxane or had disease that progressed within 6 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment involving trastuzumab or taxane. Patients with stable or previously treated brain metastases were eligible. Patients were not eligible for the study if they had symptomatic brain metastases, prior exposure to trastuzumab emtansine, or a history of interstitial lung disease.

Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1-to-1 fashion to receive either trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab emtansine 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified according to hormone-receptor status, prior treatment with epratuzumab, and the presence or absence of visceral disease.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival as determined by an independent central review. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, overall response, and safety.

Main results: A total of 524 patients were enrolled in the study, with 261 patients randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan and 263 patients randomized to trastuzumab emtansine. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, and 60% of patients in both groups received prior epratuzumab therapy. Stable brain metastases were present in around 20% of patients in each group, and 70% of patients in each group had visceral disease. The median duration of follow-up was 16.2 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 15.3 months with trastuzumab emtansine.

The median progression-free survival was not reached in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and was 6.8 months in the trastuzumab emtansine group (95% CI, 5.6-8.2). At 12 months the percentage of patients alive without disease progression was significantly larger in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death from any cause was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.22-0.37; P < .001). Subgroup analyses showed a benefit in progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan across all subgroups.

At the time of this analysis, the percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 94% with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 85.9% with trastuzumab emtansine. The response rates were significantly higher with trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine (79.7% vs 34.2%). A complete response was seen in 16% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm, compared with 8.7% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. The disease control rate (complete response, partial response, or stable disease) was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group (96.6% vs 76.8%).

Serious adverse events were reported in 19% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. Discontinuation due to adverse events was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, with 13.6% of patients discontinuing trastuzumab deruxtecan. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were seen in 52% of patients treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 48% of patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine. The most commonly reported adverse event with trastuzumab deruxtecan was nausea/vomiting and fatigue. These adverse events were seen more in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. No drug-related grade 5 adverse events were reported.

In the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, 10.5% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan developed interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis. Seven patients had grade 1 events, 18 patients had grade 2 events, and 2 patients had grade 3 events. No grade 4 or 5 events were noted in either treatment group. The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis in those receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan was 168 days (range, 33-507). Discontinuation of therapy due to interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 8% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan and 1% of patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine.

Conclusion: Trastuzumab deruxtecan significantly decreases the risk of disease progression or death compared to trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on prior trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy.

Study 2 Overview (Modi et al)

Objective: To assess the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with unresectable or metastatic breast cancer with low levels of HER2 expression.

Design: This was a randomized, 2-group, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Setting and participants: The trial was designed with a planned enrollment of 480 patients with hormone receptor–positive disease and 60 patients with hormone receptor–negative disease. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified according to HER2 status (immunohistochemical [IHC] 1+ vs IHC 2+/in situ hybridization [ISH] negative), number of prior lines of therapy, and hormone-receptor status. IHC scores for HER2 expression were determined through central testing. Specimens that had HER2 IHC scores of 2+ were reflexed to ISH. Specimens were considered HER2-low-expressing if they had an IHC score of 1+ or if they had an IHC score of 2+ and were ISH negative.

Eligible patients had to have received chemotherapy for metastatic disease or had disease recurrence during or within 6 months after completing adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with hormone receptor–positive disease must have had at least 1 line of endocrine therapy. Patients were eligible if they had stable brain metastases. Patients with interstitial lung disease were excluded.

Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nab-paclitaxel).

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival among all patients, overall survival in hormone receptor–positive patients, and overall survival in all patients. Additional secondary endpoints included objective response rates, duration of response, and efficacy in hormone receptor–negative patients.

Main results: A total of 373 patients were assigned to the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 184 patients were assigned to the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 88% of patients in each cohort were hormone receptor–positive. In the physician’s choice chemotherapy group, 51% received eribulin, 20% received capecitabine, 10% received nab-paclitaxel, 10% received gemcitabine, and 8% received paclitaxel. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between both cohorts. The median duration of follow-up was 18.4 months.

The median progression-free survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 10.1 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.4 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.4-0.64). Subgroup analyses revealed a benefit across all subgroups. The median progression-free survival among patients with a HER2 IHC score of 1+ and those with a HER2 IHC score of 2+/negative ISH were identical. In patients who received a prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor, the median progression-free survival was also 10 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group. In those who were CDK 4/6- naïve, the progression-free survival was 11.7 months. The progression-free survival in all patients was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.89).

The median overall survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 23.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with 17.5 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.86; P = .003). The median overall survival in the entire population was 23.4 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group vs 16.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. In the hormone receptor–negative cohort, the median overall survival was 18.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 8.3 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Complete responses were seen in 3.6% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 0.6% and the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. The median duration of response was 10.7 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 6.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group.

Incidence of serious adverse events was 27% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 25% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Grade 3 or higher events occurred in 52% of the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 67% of the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 16% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 14 patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5 patients in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group had an adverse event that was associated with death. Death due to pneumonitis in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group occurred in 2 patients. Drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 45 patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan. The majority of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. However, 3 patients had grade 5 interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis.

Conclusion: Treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to physician’s choice chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

Commentary

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is an antibody drug conjugate that consists of a humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor. This antibody drug conjugate is unique compared with prior antibody drug conjugates such as trastuzumab emtansine in that it has a high drug-to-antibody ratio (~8). Furthermore, there appears to be a unique bystander effect resulting in off-target cytotoxicity to neighboring tumor cells, enhancing the efficacy of this novel therapy. Prior studies of trastuzumab deruxtecan have shown durable activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.¹

HER2-positive breast cancer represents approximately 20% of breast cancer cases in women.² Historically, HER2 positivity has been defined by strong HER2 expression with IHC staining (ie, score 3+) or HER2 amplification through ISH. Conversely, HER2-negative disease has historically been defined as those with IHC scores of 0 or 1+. This group represents approximately 60% of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients.³ These patients have limited targeted treatment options after progressing on primary therapy. Prior data has shown that patients with low HER2 expression represent a heterogeneous population and thus, the historic categorization of HER2 status as positive or negative may in fact not adequately characterize the proportion of patients who may derive clinical benefit from HER2-directed therapies. Nevertheless, there have been no data to date that have shown improved outcomes in low HER2 expressers with anti-HER2 therapies.

The current studies add to the rapidly growing body of literature outlining the efficacy of the novel antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The implications of the data presented in these 2 studies are immediately practice changing.

In the DESTINY-Breast03 trial, Cortéz and colleagues show that trastuzumab deruxtecan therapy significantly prolongs progression-free survival compared with trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on first-line trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy. With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in this trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. The overall survival in this trial was immature at the time of this analysis, and thus continued follow-up to validate the results noted here are warranted.

The DESTINY-Breast04 trial by Modi et al expands the cohort of patients who benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan profoundly. This study defines a population of patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who will now be eligible for HER2-directed therapies. These data show that therapy with trastuzumab deruxtecan leads to a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2. This benefit was seen in both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including pre-treated triple-negative disease. Furthermore, this study does not define a threshold of HER2 expression by IHC that predicts benefit with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Patients with an IHC score of 1+ as well as those with a score of 2+/ISH negative both benefit to a similar extent from trastuzumab deruxtecan. Interestingly, in the DAISY trial, antitumor activity was noted with trastuzumab deruxtecan even in those without any detectable HER2 expression on IHC.⁴ Given the inconsistency and potential false negatives of IHC along with heterogeneous HER2 expression, further work is needed to better identify patients with low levels of HER2 expression who may benefit from this novel antibody drug conjugate. Thus, a reliable test to quantitatively assess the level of HER2 expression is needed in order to determine more accurately which patients will benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan.

Last, trastuzumab deruxtecan has been associated with interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis. Interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis occurred in approximately 10% of patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial and about 12% of patients in the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. Most of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. Nevertheless, clinicians must be aware of this risk and monitor patients frequently for the development of pneumonitis or interstitial lung disease.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The results of the current studies show a longer progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan in both HER2-low expressing metastatic breast cancer and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer following taxane and trastuzumab-based therapy. These results are clearly practice changing and represent a new standard of care in these patient populations. It is incumbent upon treating oncologists to work with our pathology colleagues to assess HER2 IHC thoroughly in order to identify all potential patients who may benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan in the metastatic setting. The continued advancement of anti-HER2 therapy will undoubtedly have a significant impact on patient outcomes going forward.

Practice Points

• With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.
• In the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy was seen in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2, including both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including those with pre-treated triple-negative disease.

­—Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Midlife women who are of normal weight or are overweight should routinely receive counseling aimed at limiting weight gain and preventing obesity and its associated health risks, a new clinical guideline states.

The recommendation, issued by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), supports regular lifestyle counseling for women aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index of 18.5-29.9 kg/m². Counseling could include individualized discussion of healthy eating and physical activity initiated by health professionals involved in preventive care.

Published online in Annals of Internal Medicine, the guideline addresses the prevalence and health burdens of obesity in U.S. women of middle age and seeks to reduce the known harms of obesity with an intervention of minimal anticipated harms. High BMI increases the risk for many chronic conditions including hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

The best way to counsel, however, remains unclear. “Although the optimal approach could not be discerned from existing trials, a range of interventions of varying duration, frequency, and intensity showed benefit with potential clinical significance,” wrote the WPSI guideline panel, led by David P. Chelmow, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

The guideline rests on a systematic literature review led by family doctor Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, suggesting moderate reductions in weight could be achieved by offering advice to this age group.

The federally supported WPSI was launched by ACOG in 2016. The guideline fills a gap in current recommendations in that it targets a specific risk group and specifies individual counseling based on its effectiveness and applicability in primary care settings.

In another benefit of routine counseling, the panel stated, “Normalizing counseling about healthy diet and physical activity by providing it to all midlife women may also mitigate concerns about weight stigma resulting from only counseling women with obesity.”

The panelists noted that during 2017-2018, the prevalence of obesity (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m²) was 43.3% among U.S. women aged 40-59 years, while the prevalence of severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m²) was highest in this age group at 11.5%. “Midlife women gain weight at an average of approximately 1.5 pounds per year, which increases their risk for transitioning from normal or overweight to obese BMI,” the panelists wrote.

The review

Dr. Cantor’s group analyzed seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to October 2021 from 12 publications involving 51,638 participants. Although the trials were largely small and heterogeneous, they suggested that counseling may result in modest differences in weight change without causing important harms.

Four RCTs showed significant favorable weight changes for counseling over no-counseling control groups, with a mean difference of 0.87 to 2.5 kg, whereas one trial of counseling and two trials of exercise showed no differences. One of two RCTs reported improved quality-of-life measures.

As for harms, while interventions did not increase measures of depression or stress in one trial, self-reported falls (37% vs. 29%, P < .001) and injuries (19% vs. 14%, P = .03) were more frequent with exercise counseling in one trial.

“More research is needed to determine optimal content, frequency, length, and number of sessions required and should include additional patient populations,” Dr. Cantor and associates wrote.

In terms of limitations, the authors acknowledged that trials of behavioral interventions in maintaining or reducing weight in midlife women demonstrate small magnitudes of effect.

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the WPSI guideline for this news organization, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, MACP, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said its message is of prime importance for women of middle age and it goes beyond concern about pounds lost or gained.

“Midlife and the transition to menopause are high-risk periods for women in terms of typical changes in body composition that increase the risk of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes,” said Dr. Manson, professor of women’s health at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Counseling women should be a priority for physicians in clinical practice. And it’s not just whether weight gain is reflected on the scales or not but whether there’s an increase in central abdominal fat, a decrease in lean muscle mass, and an increase in adverse glucose tolerance.”

It is essential for women to be vigilant at this time, she added, and their exercise regimens should include strength and resistance training to preserve lean muscle mass and boost metabolic rate. Dr. Manson’s group has issued several statements stressing how important it is for clinicians to take decisive action on the counseling front and how they can do this in very little time during routine practice.

Also in full support of the guideline is Mary L. Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health in obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “Midlife is a wonderful opportunity to encourage patients to assess their overall health status and make changes to impact their future health. Women in middle age tend to experience weight gain due to a variety of factors including aging and lifestyle,” said Dr. Rosser, who was not involved in the writing of the review or guideline.

While aging and genetics cannot be altered, behaviors can, and in her view, favorable behaviors would also include stress reduction and adequate sleep.

“The importance of reducing obesity with early intervention and prevention must focus on all women,” Dr. Rosser said. “We must narrow the inequities gap in care especially for high-risk minority groups and underserved populations. This will reduce disease and death and provide women the gift of active living and feeling better.”

The WPSI authors have made available a summary of the review and guideline for patients.

The systematic review and clinical guideline were funded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration through ACOG. The authors of the guideline and the review authors disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Manson and Dr. Rosser disclosed no relevant competing interests with regard to their comments.

Midlife women who are of normal weight or are overweight should routinely receive counseling aimed at limiting weight gain and preventing obesity and its associated health risks, a new clinical guideline states.

The recommendation, issued by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), supports regular lifestyle counseling for women aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index of 18.5-29.9 kg/m². Counseling could include individualized discussion of healthy eating and physical activity initiated by health professionals involved in preventive care.

Published online in Annals of Internal Medicine, the guideline addresses the prevalence and health burdens of obesity in U.S. women of middle age and seeks to reduce the known harms of obesity with an intervention of minimal anticipated harms. High BMI increases the risk for many chronic conditions including hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

The best way to counsel, however, remains unclear. “Although the optimal approach could not be discerned from existing trials, a range of interventions of varying duration, frequency, and intensity showed benefit with potential clinical significance,” wrote the WPSI guideline panel, led by David P. Chelmow, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

The guideline rests on a systematic literature review led by family doctor Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, suggesting moderate reductions in weight could be achieved by offering advice to this age group.

The federally supported WPSI was launched by ACOG in 2016. The guideline fills a gap in current recommendations in that it targets a specific risk group and specifies individual counseling based on its effectiveness and applicability in primary care settings.

In another benefit of routine counseling, the panel stated, “Normalizing counseling about healthy diet and physical activity by providing it to all midlife women may also mitigate concerns about weight stigma resulting from only counseling women with obesity.”

The panelists noted that during 2017-2018, the prevalence of obesity (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m²) was 43.3% among U.S. women aged 40-59 years, while the prevalence of severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m²) was highest in this age group at 11.5%. “Midlife women gain weight at an average of approximately 1.5 pounds per year, which increases their risk for transitioning from normal or overweight to obese BMI,” the panelists wrote.

The review

Dr. Cantor’s group analyzed seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to October 2021 from 12 publications involving 51,638 participants. Although the trials were largely small and heterogeneous, they suggested that counseling may result in modest differences in weight change without causing important harms.

Four RCTs showed significant favorable weight changes for counseling over no-counseling control groups, with a mean difference of 0.87 to 2.5 kg, whereas one trial of counseling and two trials of exercise showed no differences. One of two RCTs reported improved quality-of-life measures.

As for harms, while interventions did not increase measures of depression or stress in one trial, self-reported falls (37% vs. 29%, P < .001) and injuries (19% vs. 14%, P = .03) were more frequent with exercise counseling in one trial.

“More research is needed to determine optimal content, frequency, length, and number of sessions required and should include additional patient populations,” Dr. Cantor and associates wrote.

In terms of limitations, the authors acknowledged that trials of behavioral interventions in maintaining or reducing weight in midlife women demonstrate small magnitudes of effect.

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the WPSI guideline for this news organization, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, MACP, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said its message is of prime importance for women of middle age and it goes beyond concern about pounds lost or gained.

“Midlife and the transition to menopause are high-risk periods for women in terms of typical changes in body composition that increase the risk of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes,” said Dr. Manson, professor of women’s health at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Counseling women should be a priority for physicians in clinical practice. And it’s not just whether weight gain is reflected on the scales or not but whether there’s an increase in central abdominal fat, a decrease in lean muscle mass, and an increase in adverse glucose tolerance.”

It is essential for women to be vigilant at this time, she added, and their exercise regimens should include strength and resistance training to preserve lean muscle mass and boost metabolic rate. Dr. Manson’s group has issued several statements stressing how important it is for clinicians to take decisive action on the counseling front and how they can do this in very little time during routine practice.

Also in full support of the guideline is Mary L. Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health in obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “Midlife is a wonderful opportunity to encourage patients to assess their overall health status and make changes to impact their future health. Women in middle age tend to experience weight gain due to a variety of factors including aging and lifestyle,” said Dr. Rosser, who was not involved in the writing of the review or guideline.

While aging and genetics cannot be altered, behaviors can, and in her view, favorable behaviors would also include stress reduction and adequate sleep.

“The importance of reducing obesity with early intervention and prevention must focus on all women,” Dr. Rosser said. “We must narrow the inequities gap in care especially for high-risk minority groups and underserved populations. This will reduce disease and death and provide women the gift of active living and feeling better.”

The WPSI authors have made available a summary of the review and guideline for patients.

The systematic review and clinical guideline were funded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration through ACOG. The authors of the guideline and the review authors disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Manson and Dr. Rosser disclosed no relevant competing interests with regard to their comments.

Midlife women who are of normal weight or are overweight should routinely receive counseling aimed at limiting weight gain and preventing obesity and its associated health risks, a new clinical guideline states.

The recommendation, issued by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), supports regular lifestyle counseling for women aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index of 18.5-29.9 kg/m². Counseling could include individualized discussion of healthy eating and physical activity initiated by health professionals involved in preventive care.

Published online in Annals of Internal Medicine, the guideline addresses the prevalence and health burdens of obesity in U.S. women of middle age and seeks to reduce the known harms of obesity with an intervention of minimal anticipated harms. High BMI increases the risk for many chronic conditions including hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

The best way to counsel, however, remains unclear. “Although the optimal approach could not be discerned from existing trials, a range of interventions of varying duration, frequency, and intensity showed benefit with potential clinical significance,” wrote the WPSI guideline panel, led by David P. Chelmow, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

The guideline rests on a systematic literature review led by family doctor Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, suggesting moderate reductions in weight could be achieved by offering advice to this age group.

The federally supported WPSI was launched by ACOG in 2016. The guideline fills a gap in current recommendations in that it targets a specific risk group and specifies individual counseling based on its effectiveness and applicability in primary care settings.

In another benefit of routine counseling, the panel stated, “Normalizing counseling about healthy diet and physical activity by providing it to all midlife women may also mitigate concerns about weight stigma resulting from only counseling women with obesity.”

The panelists noted that during 2017-2018, the prevalence of obesity (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m²) was 43.3% among U.S. women aged 40-59 years, while the prevalence of severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m²) was highest in this age group at 11.5%. “Midlife women gain weight at an average of approximately 1.5 pounds per year, which increases their risk for transitioning from normal or overweight to obese BMI,” the panelists wrote.

The review

Dr. Cantor’s group analyzed seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to October 2021 from 12 publications involving 51,638 participants. Although the trials were largely small and heterogeneous, they suggested that counseling may result in modest differences in weight change without causing important harms.

Four RCTs showed significant favorable weight changes for counseling over no-counseling control groups, with a mean difference of 0.87 to 2.5 kg, whereas one trial of counseling and two trials of exercise showed no differences. One of two RCTs reported improved quality-of-life measures.

As for harms, while interventions did not increase measures of depression or stress in one trial, self-reported falls (37% vs. 29%, P < .001) and injuries (19% vs. 14%, P = .03) were more frequent with exercise counseling in one trial.

“More research is needed to determine optimal content, frequency, length, and number of sessions required and should include additional patient populations,” Dr. Cantor and associates wrote.

In terms of limitations, the authors acknowledged that trials of behavioral interventions in maintaining or reducing weight in midlife women demonstrate small magnitudes of effect.

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the WPSI guideline for this news organization, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, MACP, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said its message is of prime importance for women of middle age and it goes beyond concern about pounds lost or gained.

“Midlife and the transition to menopause are high-risk periods for women in terms of typical changes in body composition that increase the risk of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes,” said Dr. Manson, professor of women’s health at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Counseling women should be a priority for physicians in clinical practice. And it’s not just whether weight gain is reflected on the scales or not but whether there’s an increase in central abdominal fat, a decrease in lean muscle mass, and an increase in adverse glucose tolerance.”

It is essential for women to be vigilant at this time, she added, and their exercise regimens should include strength and resistance training to preserve lean muscle mass and boost metabolic rate. Dr. Manson’s group has issued several statements stressing how important it is for clinicians to take decisive action on the counseling front and how they can do this in very little time during routine practice.

Also in full support of the guideline is Mary L. Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health in obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “Midlife is a wonderful opportunity to encourage patients to assess their overall health status and make changes to impact their future health. Women in middle age tend to experience weight gain due to a variety of factors including aging and lifestyle,” said Dr. Rosser, who was not involved in the writing of the review or guideline.

While aging and genetics cannot be altered, behaviors can, and in her view, favorable behaviors would also include stress reduction and adequate sleep.

“The importance of reducing obesity with early intervention and prevention must focus on all women,” Dr. Rosser said. “We must narrow the inequities gap in care especially for high-risk minority groups and underserved populations. This will reduce disease and death and provide women the gift of active living and feeling better.”

The WPSI authors have made available a summary of the review and guideline for patients.

The systematic review and clinical guideline were funded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration through ACOG. The authors of the guideline and the review authors disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Manson and Dr. Rosser disclosed no relevant competing interests with regard to their comments.

New results with quadruple drug therapy in the frontline treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) are prompting experts to speculate that stem cell transplantation may soon be able to take a back seat in the treatment of newly diagnosed disease.

“It is not a big leap of faith to imagine that, in the near future, with the availability of quadruplets and T-cell therapies, the role of high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant will be diminished,” said Dickran Kazandjian, MD, and Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the myeloma division, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami.

They commented in a editorial in JAMA Oncology, prompted by a paper describing new results with a novel quadruple combination of therapies. These treatments included the monoclonal antibody elotuzumab (Empliciti) added onto the established backbone of carfilzomib (Kyprolis), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (known as KRd).

“Regardless of what the future holds for elotuzumab-based combinations, it is clear that the new treatment paradigm of newly diagnosed MM will incorporate antibody-based quadruplet regimens,” the editorialists commented.

“Novel immunotherapies are here to stay,” they added, “as they are already transforming the lives of patients with multiple MM and bringing a bright horizon to the treatment landscape.”
 

Study details

The trial of the novel quadruplet regimen was a multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 study that involved 46 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, explain first author Benjamin A. Derman, MD, of the University of Chicago Medical Center, and colleagues.

These patients had a median age of 62; more than two-thirds were male (72%) and White (70%). About half (48%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities.

All patients were treated with 12 cycles of the quadruple therapy Elo-KRd regimen. They underwent bone marrow assessment of measurable residual disease (MRD; with 10-5 sensitivity) after cycle 8 and cycle 12.

“An MRD-adapted treatment approach is rational because it may identify which patients can be administered shorter courses of intensive therapy without compromising efficacy,” the authors explained.

Patients who had MRD negativity at both time points did not receive further Elo-KRd, while patients who converted from MRD positivity to negativity in between cycles 8 and 12 received 6 additional cycles of Elo-KRd. Those who remained MRD positive or converted to positivity after 12 cycles received an additional 12 cycles of Elo-KRd.

Following Elo-KRd treatment, all patients transitioned to triple therapy with Elo-Rd (with no carfilzomib), for indefinite maintenance therapy or until disease progression.

For the primary endpoint, the rate of stringent complete response and/or MRD-negativity after cycle 8 was 58% (26 of 45), meeting the predefined definition of efficacy. 

Importantly, 26% of patients converted from MRD positivity after cycle 8 to negativity at a later time point, while 50% of patients reached 1-year sustained MRD negativity.

Overall, the estimated 3-year, progression-free survival was 72%, and the rate was 92% for patients with MRD-negativity at cycle 8. The overall survival rate was 78%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lung and nonpulmonary infections (13% and 11%, respectively), and one patient had a grade 5 MI. Three patients discontinued the treatment because of intolerance.

“An MRD-adapted design using elotuzumab and weekly KRd without autologous stem cell transplantation showed a high rate of stringent complete response (sCR) and/or MRD-negativity and durable responses,” the authors wrote.

“This approach provides support for further evaluation of MRD-guided de-escalation of therapy to decrease treatment exposure while sustaining deep responses.”

To better assess the difference of the therapy versus treatment including stem cell transplantation, a phase 3, randomized trial is currently underway to compare the Elo-KRd regimen against KRd with autologous stem cell transplant in newly diagnosed MM.

“If Elo-KRd proves superior, a randomized comparison of Elo versus anti-CD38 mAb-based quadruplets would help determine the optimal combination of therapies in the frontline setting,” the authors noted.
 

Randomized trial anticipated to clarify benefit

In their editorial, Dr. Kazandjian and Dr. Landgren agreed with the authors that the role of elotuzumab needs to be better clarified in a randomized trial setting.

Elotuzumab received FDA approval in 2015 based on results from the ELOQUENT-2 study, which showed improved progression-free survival and overall survival with the addition of elotuzumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma who have previously received one to three other therapies.

However, the editorialists pointed out that recently published results from the randomized ELOQUENT-1 trial of lenalidomide and dexamethasone with and without elotuzumab showed the addition of elotuzumab was not associated with a statistically significant difference in progression-free survival.

The editorialists also pointed out that, in the setting of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, another recent, similarly designed study found that the backbone regimen of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone – on its own – was also associated with a favorable MRD-negative rate of 62%.

In addition, several studies involving novel quadruple treatments with the monoclonal antibody daratumumab (Darzalex) instead of elotuzumab, have also shown benefit in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, resulting in high rates of MRD negativity.

Collectively, the findings bode well for the quadruple regimens in the treatment of MM, the editorialists emphasized.

“Importantly, with the rate of deep remissions observed with antibody-based quadruplet therapies, one may question the role of using early high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant in every patient, especially in those who have achieved MRD negativity with the quadruplet alone,” they added.

The study was sponsored in part by Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and the Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium. Dr. Derman reported advisory board fees from Sanofi, Janssen, and COTA Healthcare; honoraria from PleXus Communications and MJH Life Sciences. Dr. Kazandjian declares receiving advisory board or consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Arcellx outside the submitted work. Dr. Landgren has received grant support from numerous organizations and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Landgren has also received honoraria for scientific talks/participated in advisory boards for Adaptive Biotech, Amgen, Binding Site, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cellectis, Glenmark, Janssen, Juno, and Pfizer, and served on independent data monitoring committees for international randomized trials by Takeda, Merck, Janssen, and Theradex.

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

New results with quadruple drug therapy in the frontline treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) are prompting experts to speculate that stem cell transplantation may soon be able to take a back seat in the treatment of newly diagnosed disease.

“It is not a big leap of faith to imagine that, in the near future, with the availability of quadruplets and T-cell therapies, the role of high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant will be diminished,” said Dickran Kazandjian, MD, and Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the myeloma division, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami.

They commented in a editorial in JAMA Oncology, prompted by a paper describing new results with a novel quadruple combination of therapies. These treatments included the monoclonal antibody elotuzumab (Empliciti) added onto the established backbone of carfilzomib (Kyprolis), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (known as KRd).

“Regardless of what the future holds for elotuzumab-based combinations, it is clear that the new treatment paradigm of newly diagnosed MM will incorporate antibody-based quadruplet regimens,” the editorialists commented.

“Novel immunotherapies are here to stay,” they added, “as they are already transforming the lives of patients with multiple MM and bringing a bright horizon to the treatment landscape.”
 

Study details

The trial of the novel quadruplet regimen was a multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 study that involved 46 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, explain first author Benjamin A. Derman, MD, of the University of Chicago Medical Center, and colleagues.

These patients had a median age of 62; more than two-thirds were male (72%) and White (70%). About half (48%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities.

All patients were treated with 12 cycles of the quadruple therapy Elo-KRd regimen. They underwent bone marrow assessment of measurable residual disease (MRD; with 10-5 sensitivity) after cycle 8 and cycle 12.

“An MRD-adapted treatment approach is rational because it may identify which patients can be administered shorter courses of intensive therapy without compromising efficacy,” the authors explained.

Patients who had MRD negativity at both time points did not receive further Elo-KRd, while patients who converted from MRD positivity to negativity in between cycles 8 and 12 received 6 additional cycles of Elo-KRd. Those who remained MRD positive or converted to positivity after 12 cycles received an additional 12 cycles of Elo-KRd.

Following Elo-KRd treatment, all patients transitioned to triple therapy with Elo-Rd (with no carfilzomib), for indefinite maintenance therapy or until disease progression.

For the primary endpoint, the rate of stringent complete response and/or MRD-negativity after cycle 8 was 58% (26 of 45), meeting the predefined definition of efficacy. 

Importantly, 26% of patients converted from MRD positivity after cycle 8 to negativity at a later time point, while 50% of patients reached 1-year sustained MRD negativity.

Overall, the estimated 3-year, progression-free survival was 72%, and the rate was 92% for patients with MRD-negativity at cycle 8. The overall survival rate was 78%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lung and nonpulmonary infections (13% and 11%, respectively), and one patient had a grade 5 MI. Three patients discontinued the treatment because of intolerance.

“An MRD-adapted design using elotuzumab and weekly KRd without autologous stem cell transplantation showed a high rate of stringent complete response (sCR) and/or MRD-negativity and durable responses,” the authors wrote.

“This approach provides support for further evaluation of MRD-guided de-escalation of therapy to decrease treatment exposure while sustaining deep responses.”

To better assess the difference of the therapy versus treatment including stem cell transplantation, a phase 3, randomized trial is currently underway to compare the Elo-KRd regimen against KRd with autologous stem cell transplant in newly diagnosed MM.

“If Elo-KRd proves superior, a randomized comparison of Elo versus anti-CD38 mAb-based quadruplets would help determine the optimal combination of therapies in the frontline setting,” the authors noted.
 

Randomized trial anticipated to clarify benefit

In their editorial, Dr. Kazandjian and Dr. Landgren agreed with the authors that the role of elotuzumab needs to be better clarified in a randomized trial setting.

Elotuzumab received FDA approval in 2015 based on results from the ELOQUENT-2 study, which showed improved progression-free survival and overall survival with the addition of elotuzumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma who have previously received one to three other therapies.

However, the editorialists pointed out that recently published results from the randomized ELOQUENT-1 trial of lenalidomide and dexamethasone with and without elotuzumab showed the addition of elotuzumab was not associated with a statistically significant difference in progression-free survival.

The editorialists also pointed out that, in the setting of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, another recent, similarly designed study found that the backbone regimen of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone – on its own – was also associated with a favorable MRD-negative rate of 62%.

In addition, several studies involving novel quadruple treatments with the monoclonal antibody daratumumab (Darzalex) instead of elotuzumab, have also shown benefit in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, resulting in high rates of MRD negativity.

Collectively, the findings bode well for the quadruple regimens in the treatment of MM, the editorialists emphasized.

“Importantly, with the rate of deep remissions observed with antibody-based quadruplet therapies, one may question the role of using early high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant in every patient, especially in those who have achieved MRD negativity with the quadruplet alone,” they added.

The study was sponsored in part by Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and the Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium. Dr. Derman reported advisory board fees from Sanofi, Janssen, and COTA Healthcare; honoraria from PleXus Communications and MJH Life Sciences. Dr. Kazandjian declares receiving advisory board or consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Arcellx outside the submitted work. Dr. Landgren has received grant support from numerous organizations and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Landgren has also received honoraria for scientific talks/participated in advisory boards for Adaptive Biotech, Amgen, Binding Site, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cellectis, Glenmark, Janssen, Juno, and Pfizer, and served on independent data monitoring committees for international randomized trials by Takeda, Merck, Janssen, and Theradex.

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

New results with quadruple drug therapy in the frontline treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) are prompting experts to speculate that stem cell transplantation may soon be able to take a back seat in the treatment of newly diagnosed disease.

“It is not a big leap of faith to imagine that, in the near future, with the availability of quadruplets and T-cell therapies, the role of high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant will be diminished,” said Dickran Kazandjian, MD, and Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the myeloma division, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami.

They commented in a editorial in JAMA Oncology, prompted by a paper describing new results with a novel quadruple combination of therapies. These treatments included the monoclonal antibody elotuzumab (Empliciti) added onto the established backbone of carfilzomib (Kyprolis), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (known as KRd).

“Regardless of what the future holds for elotuzumab-based combinations, it is clear that the new treatment paradigm of newly diagnosed MM will incorporate antibody-based quadruplet regimens,” the editorialists commented.

“Novel immunotherapies are here to stay,” they added, “as they are already transforming the lives of patients with multiple MM and bringing a bright horizon to the treatment landscape.”
 

Study details

The trial of the novel quadruplet regimen was a multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 study that involved 46 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, explain first author Benjamin A. Derman, MD, of the University of Chicago Medical Center, and colleagues.

These patients had a median age of 62; more than two-thirds were male (72%) and White (70%). About half (48%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities.

All patients were treated with 12 cycles of the quadruple therapy Elo-KRd regimen. They underwent bone marrow assessment of measurable residual disease (MRD; with 10-5 sensitivity) after cycle 8 and cycle 12.

“An MRD-adapted treatment approach is rational because it may identify which patients can be administered shorter courses of intensive therapy without compromising efficacy,” the authors explained.

Patients who had MRD negativity at both time points did not receive further Elo-KRd, while patients who converted from MRD positivity to negativity in between cycles 8 and 12 received 6 additional cycles of Elo-KRd. Those who remained MRD positive or converted to positivity after 12 cycles received an additional 12 cycles of Elo-KRd.

Following Elo-KRd treatment, all patients transitioned to triple therapy with Elo-Rd (with no carfilzomib), for indefinite maintenance therapy or until disease progression.

For the primary endpoint, the rate of stringent complete response and/or MRD-negativity after cycle 8 was 58% (26 of 45), meeting the predefined definition of efficacy. 

Importantly, 26% of patients converted from MRD positivity after cycle 8 to negativity at a later time point, while 50% of patients reached 1-year sustained MRD negativity.

Overall, the estimated 3-year, progression-free survival was 72%, and the rate was 92% for patients with MRD-negativity at cycle 8. The overall survival rate was 78%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lung and nonpulmonary infections (13% and 11%, respectively), and one patient had a grade 5 MI. Three patients discontinued the treatment because of intolerance.

“An MRD-adapted design using elotuzumab and weekly KRd without autologous stem cell transplantation showed a high rate of stringent complete response (sCR) and/or MRD-negativity and durable responses,” the authors wrote.

“This approach provides support for further evaluation of MRD-guided de-escalation of therapy to decrease treatment exposure while sustaining deep responses.”

To better assess the difference of the therapy versus treatment including stem cell transplantation, a phase 3, randomized trial is currently underway to compare the Elo-KRd regimen against KRd with autologous stem cell transplant in newly diagnosed MM.

“If Elo-KRd proves superior, a randomized comparison of Elo versus anti-CD38 mAb-based quadruplets would help determine the optimal combination of therapies in the frontline setting,” the authors noted.
 

Randomized trial anticipated to clarify benefit

In their editorial, Dr. Kazandjian and Dr. Landgren agreed with the authors that the role of elotuzumab needs to be better clarified in a randomized trial setting.

Elotuzumab received FDA approval in 2015 based on results from the ELOQUENT-2 study, which showed improved progression-free survival and overall survival with the addition of elotuzumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma who have previously received one to three other therapies.

However, the editorialists pointed out that recently published results from the randomized ELOQUENT-1 trial of lenalidomide and dexamethasone with and without elotuzumab showed the addition of elotuzumab was not associated with a statistically significant difference in progression-free survival.

The editorialists also pointed out that, in the setting of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, another recent, similarly designed study found that the backbone regimen of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone – on its own – was also associated with a favorable MRD-negative rate of 62%.

In addition, several studies involving novel quadruple treatments with the monoclonal antibody daratumumab (Darzalex) instead of elotuzumab, have also shown benefit in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, resulting in high rates of MRD negativity.

Collectively, the findings bode well for the quadruple regimens in the treatment of MM, the editorialists emphasized.

“Importantly, with the rate of deep remissions observed with antibody-based quadruplet therapies, one may question the role of using early high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant in every patient, especially in those who have achieved MRD negativity with the quadruplet alone,” they added.

The study was sponsored in part by Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and the Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium. Dr. Derman reported advisory board fees from Sanofi, Janssen, and COTA Healthcare; honoraria from PleXus Communications and MJH Life Sciences. Dr. Kazandjian declares receiving advisory board or consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Arcellx outside the submitted work. Dr. Landgren has received grant support from numerous organizations and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Landgren has also received honoraria for scientific talks/participated in advisory boards for Adaptive Biotech, Amgen, Binding Site, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cellectis, Glenmark, Janssen, Juno, and Pfizer, and served on independent data monitoring committees for international randomized trials by Takeda, Merck, Janssen, and Theradex.

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