Results from a large study make a strong case for offering long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) to patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Investigators found that among patients who switched to LAIs, mortality was lower and there were fewer suicide attempts in comparison with patients who continued taking the corresponding oral antipsychotic (OAP).

In addition, switching to an LAI antipsychotic within the first 2 years of OAP cut the risk for suicide death by 47%.

“With newly diagnosed schizophrenia, more active consideration of LAIs in this stage for better long-term outcomes (i.e., mortality and suicide risk) should be encouraged, particularly for those who have already exhibited poor adherence attitudes,” Cheng-yi Huang, MD, Bali Psychiatric Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, New Taipei City, Taiwan, said in an interview.

The study was published online May 11 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Powerful incentive to switch

Using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, the investigators identified patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia who received OAPs from 2002 to 2017.

Within this cohort, they defined the LAI group as patients who switched to LAIs and were prescribed LAIs at least four times within 1 year. The LAI group was propensity matched to patients who continued receiving OAPs of the same compounds. There were 2,614 patients in each group (median age, 30 years).

During the 16-year follow-up period, compared with patients who continued taking the OAP, those who switched to the LAI had a 34% lower risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.81), a 37% lower risk for natural-cause mortality (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76), and a 28% lower risk for suicide attempts (incidence rate ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93).

The risk for suicide mortality was 47% lower for patients who switched to LAIs within the first 2 years of having begun taking the OAP (aHR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.92).

A recent study from Canada found that the suicide rate among patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders was more than 20 times higher than that of the general population.

“Clinically, most psychiatrists use LAIs with a conservative attitude, and the reasons for this attitude are generally not well supported by current scientific evidence,” Dr. Huang and colleagues note in their article.

Dr. Huang said the study provides a powerful incentive to begin treatment with LAIs for patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia.

“Because this study compared depot versus the same oral compound, as soon as patients show response and tolerability to the OAP, they will benefit much more when switching to LAI of the same compound,” Dr. Huang told this news organization.
 

‘Remarkably underutilized’

Commenting on the study for an interview, William Carpenter Jr., MD, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said this report is “very important and in a high-quality journal.”

“LAIs have been remarkably underutilized in the U.S. and not considered as main line and initial treatment. All of this is unfortunate attitude, not science,” Dr. Carpenter said.

There is now evidence that the field is shifting toward LAIs as frontline treatment, “at least conceptually and by research leaders,” he noted.

“In this report, the health and suicide information is new, extremely important, and robust. This report should alert clinicians to possible advantage of LAI in suicide prevention,” Dr. Carpenter added.

Also commenting for this news organization, Timothy Sullivan, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Staten Island University Hospital, New York, said the findings provide “another very robust argument for LAIs.”

“The decrease in all-cause mortality is really interesting,” said Dr. Sullivan, “and it would be interesting to find out whether some of this reflects improved metabolic states” with LAIs versus OAPs.

The finding that people who switched to LAIs within 2 years were at much lower risk for suicide and other mortality represents a “powerful argument for switching within 2 years,” Dr. Sullivan said.

However, in current clinical practice, clinicians often don’t suggest LAIs until patients have suffered repeated acute episodes of illness after not taking their oral antipsychotics. Such episodes have an impact on the individual and on their nervous system, Dr. Sullivan explained.

“That’s really undesirable. We know from other data that the more episodes someone has, the harder it is to get the illness symptoms under control,” he noted.

“We really ought to be thinking preventively about approaches that will decrease the risk of recurrence, and the evidence in this study is pretty compelling that the LAI was a significant intervention that decreased the risks. Thinking about LAIs as a preventive measure is a message that hasn’t gotten out to the practice community yet,” Dr. Sullivan added.

The study was supported by the Bali Psychiatric Center, Taiwan, through a grant from the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Dr. Huang, Dr. Carpenter, and Dr. Sullivan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a large study make a strong case for offering long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) to patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Investigators found that among patients who switched to LAIs, mortality was lower and there were fewer suicide attempts in comparison with patients who continued taking the corresponding oral antipsychotic (OAP).

In addition, switching to an LAI antipsychotic within the first 2 years of OAP cut the risk for suicide death by 47%.

“With newly diagnosed schizophrenia, more active consideration of LAIs in this stage for better long-term outcomes (i.e., mortality and suicide risk) should be encouraged, particularly for those who have already exhibited poor adherence attitudes,” Cheng-yi Huang, MD, Bali Psychiatric Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, New Taipei City, Taiwan, said in an interview.

The study was published online May 11 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Powerful incentive to switch

Using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, the investigators identified patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia who received OAPs from 2002 to 2017.

Within this cohort, they defined the LAI group as patients who switched to LAIs and were prescribed LAIs at least four times within 1 year. The LAI group was propensity matched to patients who continued receiving OAPs of the same compounds. There were 2,614 patients in each group (median age, 30 years).

During the 16-year follow-up period, compared with patients who continued taking the OAP, those who switched to the LAI had a 34% lower risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.81), a 37% lower risk for natural-cause mortality (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76), and a 28% lower risk for suicide attempts (incidence rate ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93).

The risk for suicide mortality was 47% lower for patients who switched to LAIs within the first 2 years of having begun taking the OAP (aHR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.92).

A recent study from Canada found that the suicide rate among patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders was more than 20 times higher than that of the general population.

“Clinically, most psychiatrists use LAIs with a conservative attitude, and the reasons for this attitude are generally not well supported by current scientific evidence,” Dr. Huang and colleagues note in their article.

Dr. Huang said the study provides a powerful incentive to begin treatment with LAIs for patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia.

“Because this study compared depot versus the same oral compound, as soon as patients show response and tolerability to the OAP, they will benefit much more when switching to LAI of the same compound,” Dr. Huang told this news organization.
 

‘Remarkably underutilized’

Commenting on the study for an interview, William Carpenter Jr., MD, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said this report is “very important and in a high-quality journal.”

“LAIs have been remarkably underutilized in the U.S. and not considered as main line and initial treatment. All of this is unfortunate attitude, not science,” Dr. Carpenter said.

There is now evidence that the field is shifting toward LAIs as frontline treatment, “at least conceptually and by research leaders,” he noted.

“In this report, the health and suicide information is new, extremely important, and robust. This report should alert clinicians to possible advantage of LAI in suicide prevention,” Dr. Carpenter added.

Also commenting for this news organization, Timothy Sullivan, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Staten Island University Hospital, New York, said the findings provide “another very robust argument for LAIs.”

“The decrease in all-cause mortality is really interesting,” said Dr. Sullivan, “and it would be interesting to find out whether some of this reflects improved metabolic states” with LAIs versus OAPs.

The finding that people who switched to LAIs within 2 years were at much lower risk for suicide and other mortality represents a “powerful argument for switching within 2 years,” Dr. Sullivan said.

However, in current clinical practice, clinicians often don’t suggest LAIs until patients have suffered repeated acute episodes of illness after not taking their oral antipsychotics. Such episodes have an impact on the individual and on their nervous system, Dr. Sullivan explained.

“That’s really undesirable. We know from other data that the more episodes someone has, the harder it is to get the illness symptoms under control,” he noted.

“We really ought to be thinking preventively about approaches that will decrease the risk of recurrence, and the evidence in this study is pretty compelling that the LAI was a significant intervention that decreased the risks. Thinking about LAIs as a preventive measure is a message that hasn’t gotten out to the practice community yet,” Dr. Sullivan added.

The study was supported by the Bali Psychiatric Center, Taiwan, through a grant from the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Dr. Huang, Dr. Carpenter, and Dr. Sullivan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a large study make a strong case for offering long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) to patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Investigators found that among patients who switched to LAIs, mortality was lower and there were fewer suicide attempts in comparison with patients who continued taking the corresponding oral antipsychotic (OAP).

In addition, switching to an LAI antipsychotic within the first 2 years of OAP cut the risk for suicide death by 47%.

“With newly diagnosed schizophrenia, more active consideration of LAIs in this stage for better long-term outcomes (i.e., mortality and suicide risk) should be encouraged, particularly for those who have already exhibited poor adherence attitudes,” Cheng-yi Huang, MD, Bali Psychiatric Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, New Taipei City, Taiwan, said in an interview.

The study was published online May 11 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Powerful incentive to switch

Using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, the investigators identified patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia who received OAPs from 2002 to 2017.

Within this cohort, they defined the LAI group as patients who switched to LAIs and were prescribed LAIs at least four times within 1 year. The LAI group was propensity matched to patients who continued receiving OAPs of the same compounds. There were 2,614 patients in each group (median age, 30 years).

During the 16-year follow-up period, compared with patients who continued taking the OAP, those who switched to the LAI had a 34% lower risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.81), a 37% lower risk for natural-cause mortality (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76), and a 28% lower risk for suicide attempts (incidence rate ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93).

The risk for suicide mortality was 47% lower for patients who switched to LAIs within the first 2 years of having begun taking the OAP (aHR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.92).

A recent study from Canada found that the suicide rate among patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders was more than 20 times higher than that of the general population.

“Clinically, most psychiatrists use LAIs with a conservative attitude, and the reasons for this attitude are generally not well supported by current scientific evidence,” Dr. Huang and colleagues note in their article.

Dr. Huang said the study provides a powerful incentive to begin treatment with LAIs for patients newly diagnosed with schizophrenia.

“Because this study compared depot versus the same oral compound, as soon as patients show response and tolerability to the OAP, they will benefit much more when switching to LAI of the same compound,” Dr. Huang told this news organization.
 

‘Remarkably underutilized’

Commenting on the study for an interview, William Carpenter Jr., MD, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said this report is “very important and in a high-quality journal.”

“LAIs have been remarkably underutilized in the U.S. and not considered as main line and initial treatment. All of this is unfortunate attitude, not science,” Dr. Carpenter said.

There is now evidence that the field is shifting toward LAIs as frontline treatment, “at least conceptually and by research leaders,” he noted.

“In this report, the health and suicide information is new, extremely important, and robust. This report should alert clinicians to possible advantage of LAI in suicide prevention,” Dr. Carpenter added.

Also commenting for this news organization, Timothy Sullivan, MD, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Staten Island University Hospital, New York, said the findings provide “another very robust argument for LAIs.”

“The decrease in all-cause mortality is really interesting,” said Dr. Sullivan, “and it would be interesting to find out whether some of this reflects improved metabolic states” with LAIs versus OAPs.

The finding that people who switched to LAIs within 2 years were at much lower risk for suicide and other mortality represents a “powerful argument for switching within 2 years,” Dr. Sullivan said.

However, in current clinical practice, clinicians often don’t suggest LAIs until patients have suffered repeated acute episodes of illness after not taking their oral antipsychotics. Such episodes have an impact on the individual and on their nervous system, Dr. Sullivan explained.

“That’s really undesirable. We know from other data that the more episodes someone has, the harder it is to get the illness symptoms under control,” he noted.

“We really ought to be thinking preventively about approaches that will decrease the risk of recurrence, and the evidence in this study is pretty compelling that the LAI was a significant intervention that decreased the risks. Thinking about LAIs as a preventive measure is a message that hasn’t gotten out to the practice community yet,” Dr. Sullivan added.

The study was supported by the Bali Psychiatric Center, Taiwan, through a grant from the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Dr. Huang, Dr. Carpenter, and Dr. Sullivan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A study of COVID-19 outcomes across the United States bolsters reports from China and Europe that indicate that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and SARS-CoV-2 infection have worse outcomes than those of patients with COVID-19 who do not have COPD.

Investigators at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Texas, combed through electronic health records from four geographic regions of the United States and identified a cohort of 6,056 patients with COPD among 150,775 patients whose records indicate either a diagnostic code or a positive laboratory test result for COVID-19.

Their findings indicate that patients with both COPD and COVID-19 “have worse outcomes compared to non-COPD COVID-19 patients, including 14-day hospitalization, length of stay, ICU admission, 30-day mortality, and use of mechanical ventilation,” Daniel Puebla Neira, MD, and colleagues from the University of Texas Medical Branch reported in a thematic poster presented during the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2021 virtual international conference.

A critical care specialist who was not involved in the study said that the results are concerning but not surprising.

“If you already have a lung disease and you develop an additional lung disease on top of that, you don’t have as much reserve and you’re not going to tolerate the acute COVID infection,” said ATS expert Marc Moss, MD, Roger S. Mitchell Professor of Medicine in the division of pulmonary sciences and critical care medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora.

The evidence shows that “patients with COPD should be even more cautious, because if they get sick and develop, they could do worse,” he said in an interview.
 

Retrospective analysis

Dr. Neira and colleagues assessed the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COPD who were treated for COVID-19 in the United States from March through August 2020.

Baseline demographics of the patients with and those without COPD were similar except that the mean age was higher among patients with COPD (68.62 vs. 47.08 years).

In addition, a significantly higher proportion of patients with COPD had comorbidities compared with those without COPD. Comorbidities included diabetes, hypertension, asthma, chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal disease, stroke, heart failure, cancer, coronary artery disease, and liver disease (P < .0001 for all comparisons).

Among patients with COPD, percentages were higher with respect to the following parameters: 14-day hospitalization for any cause (28.7% vs. 10.4%), COVID-19-related 14-day hospitalization (28.1% vs. 9.9%), ICU use (26.3% vs. 17.9%), mechanical ventilation use (26.3% vs. 16.1%), and 30-day mortality (13.6% vs. 7.2%; P < .0001 for all comparisons).
 

‘Mechanisms unclear’

“It is unclear what mechanisms drive the association between COPD and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” the investigators wrote. “Several biological factors have been proposed, including chronic lung inflammation, oxidative stress, protease-antiprotease imbalance, and increased airway mediators.”

They recommend use of multivariable logistic regression to tease out the effects of covariates among patients with COPD and COVID-19 and call for research into long-term outcomes for these patients, “as survivors of critical illness are increasingly recognized to have cognitive, psychological, and physical consequences.”

Dr. Moss said that in general, the management of patients with COPD and COVID-19 is similar to that for patients with COVID-19 who do not have COPD, although there may be “subtle” differences, such as ventilator settings for patients with COPD.

No source of funding for the study has been disclosed. The investigators and Dr. Moss have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A study of COVID-19 outcomes across the United States bolsters reports from China and Europe that indicate that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and SARS-CoV-2 infection have worse outcomes than those of patients with COVID-19 who do not have COPD.

Investigators at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Texas, combed through electronic health records from four geographic regions of the United States and identified a cohort of 6,056 patients with COPD among 150,775 patients whose records indicate either a diagnostic code or a positive laboratory test result for COVID-19.

Their findings indicate that patients with both COPD and COVID-19 “have worse outcomes compared to non-COPD COVID-19 patients, including 14-day hospitalization, length of stay, ICU admission, 30-day mortality, and use of mechanical ventilation,” Daniel Puebla Neira, MD, and colleagues from the University of Texas Medical Branch reported in a thematic poster presented during the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2021 virtual international conference.

A critical care specialist who was not involved in the study said that the results are concerning but not surprising.

“If you already have a lung disease and you develop an additional lung disease on top of that, you don’t have as much reserve and you’re not going to tolerate the acute COVID infection,” said ATS expert Marc Moss, MD, Roger S. Mitchell Professor of Medicine in the division of pulmonary sciences and critical care medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora.

The evidence shows that “patients with COPD should be even more cautious, because if they get sick and develop, they could do worse,” he said in an interview.
 

Retrospective analysis

Dr. Neira and colleagues assessed the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COPD who were treated for COVID-19 in the United States from March through August 2020.

Baseline demographics of the patients with and those without COPD were similar except that the mean age was higher among patients with COPD (68.62 vs. 47.08 years).

In addition, a significantly higher proportion of patients with COPD had comorbidities compared with those without COPD. Comorbidities included diabetes, hypertension, asthma, chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal disease, stroke, heart failure, cancer, coronary artery disease, and liver disease (P < .0001 for all comparisons).

Among patients with COPD, percentages were higher with respect to the following parameters: 14-day hospitalization for any cause (28.7% vs. 10.4%), COVID-19-related 14-day hospitalization (28.1% vs. 9.9%), ICU use (26.3% vs. 17.9%), mechanical ventilation use (26.3% vs. 16.1%), and 30-day mortality (13.6% vs. 7.2%; P < .0001 for all comparisons).
 

‘Mechanisms unclear’

“It is unclear what mechanisms drive the association between COPD and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” the investigators wrote. “Several biological factors have been proposed, including chronic lung inflammation, oxidative stress, protease-antiprotease imbalance, and increased airway mediators.”

They recommend use of multivariable logistic regression to tease out the effects of covariates among patients with COPD and COVID-19 and call for research into long-term outcomes for these patients, “as survivors of critical illness are increasingly recognized to have cognitive, psychological, and physical consequences.”

Dr. Moss said that in general, the management of patients with COPD and COVID-19 is similar to that for patients with COVID-19 who do not have COPD, although there may be “subtle” differences, such as ventilator settings for patients with COPD.

No source of funding for the study has been disclosed. The investigators and Dr. Moss have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A study of COVID-19 outcomes across the United States bolsters reports from China and Europe that indicate that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and SARS-CoV-2 infection have worse outcomes than those of patients with COVID-19 who do not have COPD.

Investigators at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Texas, combed through electronic health records from four geographic regions of the United States and identified a cohort of 6,056 patients with COPD among 150,775 patients whose records indicate either a diagnostic code or a positive laboratory test result for COVID-19.

Their findings indicate that patients with both COPD and COVID-19 “have worse outcomes compared to non-COPD COVID-19 patients, including 14-day hospitalization, length of stay, ICU admission, 30-day mortality, and use of mechanical ventilation,” Daniel Puebla Neira, MD, and colleagues from the University of Texas Medical Branch reported in a thematic poster presented during the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2021 virtual international conference.

A critical care specialist who was not involved in the study said that the results are concerning but not surprising.

“If you already have a lung disease and you develop an additional lung disease on top of that, you don’t have as much reserve and you’re not going to tolerate the acute COVID infection,” said ATS expert Marc Moss, MD, Roger S. Mitchell Professor of Medicine in the division of pulmonary sciences and critical care medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora.

The evidence shows that “patients with COPD should be even more cautious, because if they get sick and develop, they could do worse,” he said in an interview.
 

Retrospective analysis

Dr. Neira and colleagues assessed the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COPD who were treated for COVID-19 in the United States from March through August 2020.

Baseline demographics of the patients with and those without COPD were similar except that the mean age was higher among patients with COPD (68.62 vs. 47.08 years).

In addition, a significantly higher proportion of patients with COPD had comorbidities compared with those without COPD. Comorbidities included diabetes, hypertension, asthma, chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal disease, stroke, heart failure, cancer, coronary artery disease, and liver disease (P < .0001 for all comparisons).

Among patients with COPD, percentages were higher with respect to the following parameters: 14-day hospitalization for any cause (28.7% vs. 10.4%), COVID-19-related 14-day hospitalization (28.1% vs. 9.9%), ICU use (26.3% vs. 17.9%), mechanical ventilation use (26.3% vs. 16.1%), and 30-day mortality (13.6% vs. 7.2%; P < .0001 for all comparisons).
 

‘Mechanisms unclear’

“It is unclear what mechanisms drive the association between COPD and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” the investigators wrote. “Several biological factors have been proposed, including chronic lung inflammation, oxidative stress, protease-antiprotease imbalance, and increased airway mediators.”

They recommend use of multivariable logistic regression to tease out the effects of covariates among patients with COPD and COVID-19 and call for research into long-term outcomes for these patients, “as survivors of critical illness are increasingly recognized to have cognitive, psychological, and physical consequences.”

Dr. Moss said that in general, the management of patients with COPD and COVID-19 is similar to that for patients with COVID-19 who do not have COPD, although there may be “subtle” differences, such as ventilator settings for patients with COPD.

No source of funding for the study has been disclosed. The investigators and Dr. Moss have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s more evidence that Americans drank more alcohol during the COVID-19 lockdown. Rates of liver and gastrointestinal diseases associated with drinking alcohol rose after the COVID-19 pandemic started, compared with the same period in 2019.

Interestingly, while the overall number of people seeking GI or liver specialist care dropped by 27%, the proportion of consults for alcohol-related GI and liver diseases jumped by nearly 60%, researchers reported.

“We do believe that the lockdown of the pandemic has a direct effect on patients’ alcohol consumption,” senior study author Waihong Chung, MD, said during Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2021 preview media briefing on May 13.

“We urge primary care physicians and GI doctors and hepatologists to double down on questioning patients about alcohol use and to identify people who might need help sooner rather than later,” added Dr. Chung, gastroenterologist at Lifespan/Brown University in Providence, R.I.

“You have to ask. If you don’t ask, you don’t know,” Dr. Chung said in an interview when asked how to broach the subject.

Symptoms of alcohol-related GI and liver diseases, especially acute alcoholic hepatitis, can include fatigue, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, and even jaundice in more severe cases. “I want to stress that some of these symptoms appear much later during the course of the disease,” Dr. Chung said. “At the early phase, people might be asymptomatic. By the time people develop symptoms it might be too late. That’s why it’s important to ask.”

“I really believe that physicians of all specialties should make it routine when you have a patient encounter to include assessment for alcohol use,” he added.

Creating a clinical environment where patients feel safe to disclose their alcohol use is likewise essential.

Suggested questions include: Do you drink alcohol? How much did you drink in the past week?

“A few people will be offended by me asking this way, but it helps people who might think they have an alcohol problem open up [about it],” he said.

After Dr. Chung and colleagues noticed an increase in patients with alcohol-related GI and liver diseases, they conducted a hospital system–wide audit. They evaluated 558 inpatient GI consults during a lockdown phase from March 23 to May 10, 2020, and another 713 consults during a reopening phase from June 1 to July 19, 2020. They also compared results with consults from similar periods in 2019.

At the same time, consults for non–alcohol-related liver diseases, such as biliary obstruction/injury, inflammatory bowel disease, and gastrointestinal bleeding, did not change significantly. Also, during reopening the total volume of consults rebounded to 101% of the volume during the same period in 2019.

However, reopening also saw the proportion of these alcohol-related conditions remain elevated by 79%. Patients diagnosed with alcoholic hepatitis increased by 127%, for example. At the same time, patients in this population requiring inpatient endoscopy nearly tripled from 14% to 35%.

Alcohol-related GI and liver diseases included acute alcoholic hepatitis, alcoholic cirrhosis, alcoholic gastritis, alcoholic esophagitis, and pancreatitis. Most patients (70%) were men. Median ages were 56 years during the lockdown phase and 51 years during the reopening phase.

“I think it’s interesting. It fits into what people have anecdotally been suggesting,” said Loren Laine, MD, chief of the section of digestive diseases at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and moderator of the media briefing.

“It is [also] interesting to see how COVID has changed so many different things over the past year,” he added when asked his opinion of the findings.

Dr. Chung added that not all patients with alcohol use disorders are admitted to a hospital, “so we believe that the health problems related to increased alcohol use may be even higher in the community.”

Although the study was conducted in one health system in one state, Dr. Chung said, “we do believe that the result of our study is an accurate reflection of what’s happening in many other urban and suburban cities in the United States.”

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

It’s more evidence that Americans drank more alcohol during the COVID-19 lockdown. Rates of liver and gastrointestinal diseases associated with drinking alcohol rose after the COVID-19 pandemic started, compared with the same period in 2019.

Interestingly, while the overall number of people seeking GI or liver specialist care dropped by 27%, the proportion of consults for alcohol-related GI and liver diseases jumped by nearly 60%, researchers reported.

“We do believe that the lockdown of the pandemic has a direct effect on patients’ alcohol consumption,” senior study author Waihong Chung, MD, said during Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2021 preview media briefing on May 13.

“We urge primary care physicians and GI doctors and hepatologists to double down on questioning patients about alcohol use and to identify people who might need help sooner rather than later,” added Dr. Chung, gastroenterologist at Lifespan/Brown University in Providence, R.I.

“You have to ask. If you don’t ask, you don’t know,” Dr. Chung said in an interview when asked how to broach the subject.

Symptoms of alcohol-related GI and liver diseases, especially acute alcoholic hepatitis, can include fatigue, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, and even jaundice in more severe cases. “I want to stress that some of these symptoms appear much later during the course of the disease,” Dr. Chung said. “At the early phase, people might be asymptomatic. By the time people develop symptoms it might be too late. That’s why it’s important to ask.”

“I really believe that physicians of all specialties should make it routine when you have a patient encounter to include assessment for alcohol use,” he added.

Creating a clinical environment where patients feel safe to disclose their alcohol use is likewise essential.

Suggested questions include: Do you drink alcohol? How much did you drink in the past week?

“A few people will be offended by me asking this way, but it helps people who might think they have an alcohol problem open up [about it],” he said.

After Dr. Chung and colleagues noticed an increase in patients with alcohol-related GI and liver diseases, they conducted a hospital system–wide audit. They evaluated 558 inpatient GI consults during a lockdown phase from March 23 to May 10, 2020, and another 713 consults during a reopening phase from June 1 to July 19, 2020. They also compared results with consults from similar periods in 2019.

At the same time, consults for non–alcohol-related liver diseases, such as biliary obstruction/injury, inflammatory bowel disease, and gastrointestinal bleeding, did not change significantly. Also, during reopening the total volume of consults rebounded to 101% of the volume during the same period in 2019.

However, reopening also saw the proportion of these alcohol-related conditions remain elevated by 79%. Patients diagnosed with alcoholic hepatitis increased by 127%, for example. At the same time, patients in this population requiring inpatient endoscopy nearly tripled from 14% to 35%.

Alcohol-related GI and liver diseases included acute alcoholic hepatitis, alcoholic cirrhosis, alcoholic gastritis, alcoholic esophagitis, and pancreatitis. Most patients (70%) were men. Median ages were 56 years during the lockdown phase and 51 years during the reopening phase.

“I think it’s interesting. It fits into what people have anecdotally been suggesting,” said Loren Laine, MD, chief of the section of digestive diseases at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and moderator of the media briefing.

“It is [also] interesting to see how COVID has changed so many different things over the past year,” he added when asked his opinion of the findings.

Dr. Chung added that not all patients with alcohol use disorders are admitted to a hospital, “so we believe that the health problems related to increased alcohol use may be even higher in the community.”

Although the study was conducted in one health system in one state, Dr. Chung said, “we do believe that the result of our study is an accurate reflection of what’s happening in many other urban and suburban cities in the United States.”

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

It’s more evidence that Americans drank more alcohol during the COVID-19 lockdown. Rates of liver and gastrointestinal diseases associated with drinking alcohol rose after the COVID-19 pandemic started, compared with the same period in 2019.

Interestingly, while the overall number of people seeking GI or liver specialist care dropped by 27%, the proportion of consults for alcohol-related GI and liver diseases jumped by nearly 60%, researchers reported.

“We do believe that the lockdown of the pandemic has a direct effect on patients’ alcohol consumption,” senior study author Waihong Chung, MD, said during Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2021 preview media briefing on May 13.

“We urge primary care physicians and GI doctors and hepatologists to double down on questioning patients about alcohol use and to identify people who might need help sooner rather than later,” added Dr. Chung, gastroenterologist at Lifespan/Brown University in Providence, R.I.

“You have to ask. If you don’t ask, you don’t know,” Dr. Chung said in an interview when asked how to broach the subject.

Symptoms of alcohol-related GI and liver diseases, especially acute alcoholic hepatitis, can include fatigue, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, and even jaundice in more severe cases. “I want to stress that some of these symptoms appear much later during the course of the disease,” Dr. Chung said. “At the early phase, people might be asymptomatic. By the time people develop symptoms it might be too late. That’s why it’s important to ask.”

“I really believe that physicians of all specialties should make it routine when you have a patient encounter to include assessment for alcohol use,” he added.

Creating a clinical environment where patients feel safe to disclose their alcohol use is likewise essential.

Suggested questions include: Do you drink alcohol? How much did you drink in the past week?

“A few people will be offended by me asking this way, but it helps people who might think they have an alcohol problem open up [about it],” he said.

After Dr. Chung and colleagues noticed an increase in patients with alcohol-related GI and liver diseases, they conducted a hospital system–wide audit. They evaluated 558 inpatient GI consults during a lockdown phase from March 23 to May 10, 2020, and another 713 consults during a reopening phase from June 1 to July 19, 2020. They also compared results with consults from similar periods in 2019.

At the same time, consults for non–alcohol-related liver diseases, such as biliary obstruction/injury, inflammatory bowel disease, and gastrointestinal bleeding, did not change significantly. Also, during reopening the total volume of consults rebounded to 101% of the volume during the same period in 2019.

However, reopening also saw the proportion of these alcohol-related conditions remain elevated by 79%. Patients diagnosed with alcoholic hepatitis increased by 127%, for example. At the same time, patients in this population requiring inpatient endoscopy nearly tripled from 14% to 35%.

Alcohol-related GI and liver diseases included acute alcoholic hepatitis, alcoholic cirrhosis, alcoholic gastritis, alcoholic esophagitis, and pancreatitis. Most patients (70%) were men. Median ages were 56 years during the lockdown phase and 51 years during the reopening phase.

“I think it’s interesting. It fits into what people have anecdotally been suggesting,” said Loren Laine, MD, chief of the section of digestive diseases at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and moderator of the media briefing.

“It is [also] interesting to see how COVID has changed so many different things over the past year,” he added when asked his opinion of the findings.

Dr. Chung added that not all patients with alcohol use disorders are admitted to a hospital, “so we believe that the health problems related to increased alcohol use may be even higher in the community.”

Although the study was conducted in one health system in one state, Dr. Chung said, “we do believe that the result of our study is an accurate reflection of what’s happening in many other urban and suburban cities in the United States.”

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

The PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq) combined with carboplatin has shown signs of clinical activity in women with metastatic invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) according to the first results to come from the ongoing GELATO trial.

The 6-month objective response rate was 19%, based on 4 of 21 patients who could be evaluated exhibiting a partial response to the chemoimmunotherapy. A further two (10%) patients had stable disease, meaning that clinical benefit rate was 29%.

GELATO (AssessinG Efficacy of Carboplatin and ATezOlizumab in Metastatic Lobular Breast Cancer) is a phase 2 trial being conducted at four Dutch centers. The primary premise of the study is that “there’s an immune-related subtype of ILC,” researcher Leonie Voorwerk, BSc, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting (Abstract LBA3).

This ILC subtype is “characterized by high expression of immune-related genes and high levels of TILs [tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes] and PDL-1,” said Ms. Voorwerk, a PhD student working with medical oncologist Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

Furthermore, she added, in vitro data suggest sensitivity of immune-related-ILCs to platinum and there is preclinical work showing that there is synergy between platinum-based chemotherapy and checkpoint blockade.
 

First chemoimmunotherapy trial in lobular cancer setting

GELATO is a significant trial as it is “the first chemoimmunotherapy trial in metastatic lobular breast cancer,” said Sylvia Adams, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Breast Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City.

“Of note, the further research should include the immune-related genes and TMB [tumor mutational burden],” proposed Dr. Adams, who was not involved in the trial.

“We should look to tumor mutational burden because while it is not typically high in early disease, metastatic lesions can have higher TMB,” she explained. “Also, metastatic ILC is known to have higher tumor mutational burden compared to IDC [invasive ductal carcinoma], so this is an important thing along with the clinical factors as described in looking at outcomes.”
 

Trial design and patient characteristics

GELATO is a single-arm, nonrandomized trial in which 37 patients with metastatic ILC were screened for inclusion between November 2017 and January 2021. A total of 26 of these patients were registered for the trial, and 23 have so far received at least one cycle of atezolizumab.

Prerequisites for entry into the trial were that patients had to have negative or aberrant E-cadherin, a characteristic feature of ILC. Patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (ER+) disease could be included, but they had to be proven to be resistant to endocrine therapies. No more than two prior lines of palliative chemotherapy were allowed, and all participants had to have lactose dehydrogenase levels of less than 2 times the upper limit of normal.

Patients were then treated with up to 12 cycles of weekly carboplatin (AUC = 1.5 mg/mL/min), with atezolizumab (1,200 mg) added in from cycle 3 onward. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

“Baseline characteristics were mainly as expected for this patient population,” Ms. Voorwerk stated. Patients were aged 45-89 years, with a median of 60 years. Around half each had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and around half each had one to two or three or more metastatic sites; 78% had liver metastases.

“But I want to highlight that we included five patients with the triple-negative ILC,” said Ms. Voorwerk, also highlighting that approximately 50% of patients had received prior palliative chemotherapy. Later in her presentation she noted that four out of the six patients that showed any clinical benefit had triple negative disease.
 

Key findings and next steps

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months, with secondary endpoints of the best overall response rate, PFS at 1 year, overall survival, and safety.

While details of the latter three endpoints are yet to be reported, Ms. Voorwerk noted that there was a median duration of response of 12 weeks and the median PFS was 15 weeks. The primary endpoint of PFS was met as four patients were free of progression at 6 months and the statistical method used called for patients to be progression free at this time point.

“We observed that stromal TILs and CD8+ cells were not associated with clinical benefits,” said Ms. Voorwerk. There was, however, “a slight trend” toward higher PD-L1 expression in responding patients.

“Further translational research is needed to provide the rationale for new strategies to improve checkpoint blockade in patients with lobular breast cancer,” she concluded.

Dr. Adams concurred, adding that a future research question was whether either atezolizumab or carboplatin was contributing to the response. This is “difficult to tell as the study was a single arm trial.”

Another question, said Dr. Adams, is are “anti-CDK 4/6 inhibitors helpful in improving response rates and durability?” In the trial, 70% of patients had prior exposure to CDK 4/6 inhibitors.

The GELATO trial was sponsored by the Netherlands Cancer Institute with funding from Roche Pharma AG. Ms. Voorwerk had nothing to disclose. Dr. Adams disclosed uncompensated consulting or advisory roles with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Merck from whom she has received research funding. Dr. Adams also disclosed research funding from Amgen, Celgene, and Novartis.

The PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq) combined with carboplatin has shown signs of clinical activity in women with metastatic invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) according to the first results to come from the ongoing GELATO trial.

The 6-month objective response rate was 19%, based on 4 of 21 patients who could be evaluated exhibiting a partial response to the chemoimmunotherapy. A further two (10%) patients had stable disease, meaning that clinical benefit rate was 29%.

GELATO (AssessinG Efficacy of Carboplatin and ATezOlizumab in Metastatic Lobular Breast Cancer) is a phase 2 trial being conducted at four Dutch centers. The primary premise of the study is that “there’s an immune-related subtype of ILC,” researcher Leonie Voorwerk, BSc, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting (Abstract LBA3).

This ILC subtype is “characterized by high expression of immune-related genes and high levels of TILs [tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes] and PDL-1,” said Ms. Voorwerk, a PhD student working with medical oncologist Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

Furthermore, she added, in vitro data suggest sensitivity of immune-related-ILCs to platinum and there is preclinical work showing that there is synergy between platinum-based chemotherapy and checkpoint blockade.
 

First chemoimmunotherapy trial in lobular cancer setting

GELATO is a significant trial as it is “the first chemoimmunotherapy trial in metastatic lobular breast cancer,” said Sylvia Adams, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Breast Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City.

“Of note, the further research should include the immune-related genes and TMB [tumor mutational burden],” proposed Dr. Adams, who was not involved in the trial.

“We should look to tumor mutational burden because while it is not typically high in early disease, metastatic lesions can have higher TMB,” she explained. “Also, metastatic ILC is known to have higher tumor mutational burden compared to IDC [invasive ductal carcinoma], so this is an important thing along with the clinical factors as described in looking at outcomes.”
 

Trial design and patient characteristics

GELATO is a single-arm, nonrandomized trial in which 37 patients with metastatic ILC were screened for inclusion between November 2017 and January 2021. A total of 26 of these patients were registered for the trial, and 23 have so far received at least one cycle of atezolizumab.

Prerequisites for entry into the trial were that patients had to have negative or aberrant E-cadherin, a characteristic feature of ILC. Patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (ER+) disease could be included, but they had to be proven to be resistant to endocrine therapies. No more than two prior lines of palliative chemotherapy were allowed, and all participants had to have lactose dehydrogenase levels of less than 2 times the upper limit of normal.

Patients were then treated with up to 12 cycles of weekly carboplatin (AUC = 1.5 mg/mL/min), with atezolizumab (1,200 mg) added in from cycle 3 onward. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

“Baseline characteristics were mainly as expected for this patient population,” Ms. Voorwerk stated. Patients were aged 45-89 years, with a median of 60 years. Around half each had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and around half each had one to two or three or more metastatic sites; 78% had liver metastases.

“But I want to highlight that we included five patients with the triple-negative ILC,” said Ms. Voorwerk, also highlighting that approximately 50% of patients had received prior palliative chemotherapy. Later in her presentation she noted that four out of the six patients that showed any clinical benefit had triple negative disease.
 

Key findings and next steps

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months, with secondary endpoints of the best overall response rate, PFS at 1 year, overall survival, and safety.

While details of the latter three endpoints are yet to be reported, Ms. Voorwerk noted that there was a median duration of response of 12 weeks and the median PFS was 15 weeks. The primary endpoint of PFS was met as four patients were free of progression at 6 months and the statistical method used called for patients to be progression free at this time point.

“We observed that stromal TILs and CD8+ cells were not associated with clinical benefits,” said Ms. Voorwerk. There was, however, “a slight trend” toward higher PD-L1 expression in responding patients.

“Further translational research is needed to provide the rationale for new strategies to improve checkpoint blockade in patients with lobular breast cancer,” she concluded.

Dr. Adams concurred, adding that a future research question was whether either atezolizumab or carboplatin was contributing to the response. This is “difficult to tell as the study was a single arm trial.”

Another question, said Dr. Adams, is are “anti-CDK 4/6 inhibitors helpful in improving response rates and durability?” In the trial, 70% of patients had prior exposure to CDK 4/6 inhibitors.

The GELATO trial was sponsored by the Netherlands Cancer Institute with funding from Roche Pharma AG. Ms. Voorwerk had nothing to disclose. Dr. Adams disclosed uncompensated consulting or advisory roles with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Merck from whom she has received research funding. Dr. Adams also disclosed research funding from Amgen, Celgene, and Novartis.

The PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq) combined with carboplatin has shown signs of clinical activity in women with metastatic invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) according to the first results to come from the ongoing GELATO trial.

The 6-month objective response rate was 19%, based on 4 of 21 patients who could be evaluated exhibiting a partial response to the chemoimmunotherapy. A further two (10%) patients had stable disease, meaning that clinical benefit rate was 29%.

GELATO (AssessinG Efficacy of Carboplatin and ATezOlizumab in Metastatic Lobular Breast Cancer) is a phase 2 trial being conducted at four Dutch centers. The primary premise of the study is that “there’s an immune-related subtype of ILC,” researcher Leonie Voorwerk, BSc, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting (Abstract LBA3).

This ILC subtype is “characterized by high expression of immune-related genes and high levels of TILs [tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes] and PDL-1,” said Ms. Voorwerk, a PhD student working with medical oncologist Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

Furthermore, she added, in vitro data suggest sensitivity of immune-related-ILCs to platinum and there is preclinical work showing that there is synergy between platinum-based chemotherapy and checkpoint blockade.
 

First chemoimmunotherapy trial in lobular cancer setting

GELATO is a significant trial as it is “the first chemoimmunotherapy trial in metastatic lobular breast cancer,” said Sylvia Adams, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Breast Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City.

“Of note, the further research should include the immune-related genes and TMB [tumor mutational burden],” proposed Dr. Adams, who was not involved in the trial.

“We should look to tumor mutational burden because while it is not typically high in early disease, metastatic lesions can have higher TMB,” she explained. “Also, metastatic ILC is known to have higher tumor mutational burden compared to IDC [invasive ductal carcinoma], so this is an important thing along with the clinical factors as described in looking at outcomes.”
 

Trial design and patient characteristics

GELATO is a single-arm, nonrandomized trial in which 37 patients with metastatic ILC were screened for inclusion between November 2017 and January 2021. A total of 26 of these patients were registered for the trial, and 23 have so far received at least one cycle of atezolizumab.

Prerequisites for entry into the trial were that patients had to have negative or aberrant E-cadherin, a characteristic feature of ILC. Patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (ER+) disease could be included, but they had to be proven to be resistant to endocrine therapies. No more than two prior lines of palliative chemotherapy were allowed, and all participants had to have lactose dehydrogenase levels of less than 2 times the upper limit of normal.

Patients were then treated with up to 12 cycles of weekly carboplatin (AUC = 1.5 mg/mL/min), with atezolizumab (1,200 mg) added in from cycle 3 onward. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

“Baseline characteristics were mainly as expected for this patient population,” Ms. Voorwerk stated. Patients were aged 45-89 years, with a median of 60 years. Around half each had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and around half each had one to two or three or more metastatic sites; 78% had liver metastases.

“But I want to highlight that we included five patients with the triple-negative ILC,” said Ms. Voorwerk, also highlighting that approximately 50% of patients had received prior palliative chemotherapy. Later in her presentation she noted that four out of the six patients that showed any clinical benefit had triple negative disease.
 

Key findings and next steps

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months, with secondary endpoints of the best overall response rate, PFS at 1 year, overall survival, and safety.

While details of the latter three endpoints are yet to be reported, Ms. Voorwerk noted that there was a median duration of response of 12 weeks and the median PFS was 15 weeks. The primary endpoint of PFS was met as four patients were free of progression at 6 months and the statistical method used called for patients to be progression free at this time point.

“We observed that stromal TILs and CD8+ cells were not associated with clinical benefits,” said Ms. Voorwerk. There was, however, “a slight trend” toward higher PD-L1 expression in responding patients.

“Further translational research is needed to provide the rationale for new strategies to improve checkpoint blockade in patients with lobular breast cancer,” she concluded.

Dr. Adams concurred, adding that a future research question was whether either atezolizumab or carboplatin was contributing to the response. This is “difficult to tell as the study was a single arm trial.”

Another question, said Dr. Adams, is are “anti-CDK 4/6 inhibitors helpful in improving response rates and durability?” In the trial, 70% of patients had prior exposure to CDK 4/6 inhibitors.

The GELATO trial was sponsored by the Netherlands Cancer Institute with funding from Roche Pharma AG. Ms. Voorwerk had nothing to disclose. Dr. Adams disclosed uncompensated consulting or advisory roles with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Merck from whom she has received research funding. Dr. Adams also disclosed research funding from Amgen, Celgene, and Novartis.

Even in the age of intensive therapy and extensive risk stratification, there are small but significant differences in outcomes between boys and girls with B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

This finding comes from a review of 10 years of clinical trials by the Children’s Oncology Group (COG), which showed that, among patients with B-ALL, 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were inferior with boys, compared with girls, even when adjusted for prognostic factors, reported Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, FRCPC, from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

“Inferior outcomes, although small in absolute terms, continue to exist among boys versus girls despite modern therapy and after adjusting for other risk factors. These persist also despite the longer duration of therapy among boys,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology. (Abstract 2025).

Among pediatric patients with T-cell lineage ALL (T-ALL), however, there were no significant sex-based differences in either EFS or OS, he said.

Although survival for children with ALL has continued to improve, previous studies found inferior survival outcomes in boys, and suggested that the difference might be explained by imbalances in risk factors.

To see whether sex-based disparities persist with modern intensive therapy protocols after adjustment for risk factors, and to determine whether there are sex-based differences in toxicities or patterns of treatment failure, Dr. Gupta and colleagues created a cohort of all patients age 1-30 years enrolled in frontline COG trial for B-ALL and T-ALL from 2004 to 2014.

During this period, boys received an extra year of maintenance. Cranial radiation was limited to B-ALL patients with slow treatment responses and central nervous system status 3, signifying definite CNS involvement. Among patients with T-ALL, cranial radiation was given to all intermediate- and high-risk patients.
 

Sex differences small, but significant

The investigators identified a total of 8,202 patients (4,463 males and 3,739 females) with B-ALL, and 1,562 (1,161 males and 401 females) with T-ALL. Boys were likely to be older (P < .0001), and to have a small but significantly greater likelihood of having unfavorable B-ALL cytogenetics, compared with girls (P = .05).

Boys with B-ALL were less likely to be negative for minimal residual disease (76.1% vs. 78.1%, P = .04), but the opposite was true for those with T-ALL (59% vs. 56.8%, P = .01).

As noted before, among pediatric patients with B-ALL, EFS and OS were both inferior for males, with a hazard ratio for higher EFS rates in girls of 1.19 (P = .001) and a HR for OS of 1.17 (P = .046).

Both EFS and OS were similar between the sexes among patients with T-ALL.

The differences in EFS in patients with B-ALL was attributable to higher CNS relapses among boys (4.2% vs. 2.5%, P < .0001). The CNS relapses occurred at a median of 2.5 years in boys versus 2.1 years in girls, although most relapses occurred during therapy.

There were no differences in cumulative isolated bone marrow relapses, however.

Treatment-related mortality rates were the same, but osteonecrosis rates were significantly lower for boys, with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 5.2% versus 6.7% for girls (P = .001).
 

Possible explanations

Dr. Gupta noted that the inferior outcomes among boys may be attributable to extramedullary relapses among patients with B-ALL.

In addition, the lack of sex-based differences in T-ALL may be caused in part by the increased use of CNS radiation in this population. Previous studies in which CNS radiation was omitted showed an increase in CNS relapsed rates among boys but not girls, he pointed out.

“This does imply that in the more recent generation of T-lineage ALL treatment trials that we’ll need to monitor sex-based differences in outcome, as fewer and fewer patients with T-ALL disease received cranial radiation in these more recent trials and in contemporary therapy,” he said.

One possible mechanism for sex-based outcome differences might be differences in steroid metabolism, as suggested by the higher osteonecrosis rate among girls, he added.

In the question-and-answer following the presentation, William G. Woods, MD, from Emory University, Atlanta, asked what role testicular relapse played in outcomes.

Dr. Gupta replied that the investigators had considered that the excess risk for extramedullary relapse in boys might be accounted for by testicular relapse, but “when you take away testicular relapse from those numbers and really just concentrate on CNS, it’s still that substantial difference when you’re talking about B-lineage disease.”

In patients with T-ALL as well, CNS relapse was more common in boys after controlling for testicular relapse, he said.

Another audience member asked whether the data suggest a benefit to treating boys with CNS-penetrating drugs such as dexamethasone or high-dose methotrexate,

Dr. Gupta said that it’s still uncertain whether it is clinically sound to subject a boy with otherwise–standard-risk disease to more intensive high-risk therapy, given the relatively small absolute differences in outcomes between the sexes.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the St. Baldrick’s Foundation. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Woods, and Dr. Meret had no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

Even in the age of intensive therapy and extensive risk stratification, there are small but significant differences in outcomes between boys and girls with B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

This finding comes from a review of 10 years of clinical trials by the Children’s Oncology Group (COG), which showed that, among patients with B-ALL, 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were inferior with boys, compared with girls, even when adjusted for prognostic factors, reported Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, FRCPC, from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

“Inferior outcomes, although small in absolute terms, continue to exist among boys versus girls despite modern therapy and after adjusting for other risk factors. These persist also despite the longer duration of therapy among boys,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology. (Abstract 2025).

Among pediatric patients with T-cell lineage ALL (T-ALL), however, there were no significant sex-based differences in either EFS or OS, he said.

Although survival for children with ALL has continued to improve, previous studies found inferior survival outcomes in boys, and suggested that the difference might be explained by imbalances in risk factors.

To see whether sex-based disparities persist with modern intensive therapy protocols after adjustment for risk factors, and to determine whether there are sex-based differences in toxicities or patterns of treatment failure, Dr. Gupta and colleagues created a cohort of all patients age 1-30 years enrolled in frontline COG trial for B-ALL and T-ALL from 2004 to 2014.

During this period, boys received an extra year of maintenance. Cranial radiation was limited to B-ALL patients with slow treatment responses and central nervous system status 3, signifying definite CNS involvement. Among patients with T-ALL, cranial radiation was given to all intermediate- and high-risk patients.
 

Sex differences small, but significant

The investigators identified a total of 8,202 patients (4,463 males and 3,739 females) with B-ALL, and 1,562 (1,161 males and 401 females) with T-ALL. Boys were likely to be older (P < .0001), and to have a small but significantly greater likelihood of having unfavorable B-ALL cytogenetics, compared with girls (P = .05).

Boys with B-ALL were less likely to be negative for minimal residual disease (76.1% vs. 78.1%, P = .04), but the opposite was true for those with T-ALL (59% vs. 56.8%, P = .01).

As noted before, among pediatric patients with B-ALL, EFS and OS were both inferior for males, with a hazard ratio for higher EFS rates in girls of 1.19 (P = .001) and a HR for OS of 1.17 (P = .046).

Both EFS and OS were similar between the sexes among patients with T-ALL.

The differences in EFS in patients with B-ALL was attributable to higher CNS relapses among boys (4.2% vs. 2.5%, P < .0001). The CNS relapses occurred at a median of 2.5 years in boys versus 2.1 years in girls, although most relapses occurred during therapy.

There were no differences in cumulative isolated bone marrow relapses, however.

Treatment-related mortality rates were the same, but osteonecrosis rates were significantly lower for boys, with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 5.2% versus 6.7% for girls (P = .001).
 

Possible explanations

Dr. Gupta noted that the inferior outcomes among boys may be attributable to extramedullary relapses among patients with B-ALL.

In addition, the lack of sex-based differences in T-ALL may be caused in part by the increased use of CNS radiation in this population. Previous studies in which CNS radiation was omitted showed an increase in CNS relapsed rates among boys but not girls, he pointed out.

“This does imply that in the more recent generation of T-lineage ALL treatment trials that we’ll need to monitor sex-based differences in outcome, as fewer and fewer patients with T-ALL disease received cranial radiation in these more recent trials and in contemporary therapy,” he said.

One possible mechanism for sex-based outcome differences might be differences in steroid metabolism, as suggested by the higher osteonecrosis rate among girls, he added.

In the question-and-answer following the presentation, William G. Woods, MD, from Emory University, Atlanta, asked what role testicular relapse played in outcomes.

Dr. Gupta replied that the investigators had considered that the excess risk for extramedullary relapse in boys might be accounted for by testicular relapse, but “when you take away testicular relapse from those numbers and really just concentrate on CNS, it’s still that substantial difference when you’re talking about B-lineage disease.”

In patients with T-ALL as well, CNS relapse was more common in boys after controlling for testicular relapse, he said.

Another audience member asked whether the data suggest a benefit to treating boys with CNS-penetrating drugs such as dexamethasone or high-dose methotrexate,

Dr. Gupta said that it’s still uncertain whether it is clinically sound to subject a boy with otherwise–standard-risk disease to more intensive high-risk therapy, given the relatively small absolute differences in outcomes between the sexes.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the St. Baldrick’s Foundation. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Woods, and Dr. Meret had no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

Even in the age of intensive therapy and extensive risk stratification, there are small but significant differences in outcomes between boys and girls with B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

This finding comes from a review of 10 years of clinical trials by the Children’s Oncology Group (COG), which showed that, among patients with B-ALL, 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were inferior with boys, compared with girls, even when adjusted for prognostic factors, reported Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, FRCPC, from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

“Inferior outcomes, although small in absolute terms, continue to exist among boys versus girls despite modern therapy and after adjusting for other risk factors. These persist also despite the longer duration of therapy among boys,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology. (Abstract 2025).

Among pediatric patients with T-cell lineage ALL (T-ALL), however, there were no significant sex-based differences in either EFS or OS, he said.

Although survival for children with ALL has continued to improve, previous studies found inferior survival outcomes in boys, and suggested that the difference might be explained by imbalances in risk factors.

To see whether sex-based disparities persist with modern intensive therapy protocols after adjustment for risk factors, and to determine whether there are sex-based differences in toxicities or patterns of treatment failure, Dr. Gupta and colleagues created a cohort of all patients age 1-30 years enrolled in frontline COG trial for B-ALL and T-ALL from 2004 to 2014.

During this period, boys received an extra year of maintenance. Cranial radiation was limited to B-ALL patients with slow treatment responses and central nervous system status 3, signifying definite CNS involvement. Among patients with T-ALL, cranial radiation was given to all intermediate- and high-risk patients.
 

Sex differences small, but significant

The investigators identified a total of 8,202 patients (4,463 males and 3,739 females) with B-ALL, and 1,562 (1,161 males and 401 females) with T-ALL. Boys were likely to be older (P < .0001), and to have a small but significantly greater likelihood of having unfavorable B-ALL cytogenetics, compared with girls (P = .05).

Boys with B-ALL were less likely to be negative for minimal residual disease (76.1% vs. 78.1%, P = .04), but the opposite was true for those with T-ALL (59% vs. 56.8%, P = .01).

As noted before, among pediatric patients with B-ALL, EFS and OS were both inferior for males, with a hazard ratio for higher EFS rates in girls of 1.19 (P = .001) and a HR for OS of 1.17 (P = .046).

Both EFS and OS were similar between the sexes among patients with T-ALL.

The differences in EFS in patients with B-ALL was attributable to higher CNS relapses among boys (4.2% vs. 2.5%, P < .0001). The CNS relapses occurred at a median of 2.5 years in boys versus 2.1 years in girls, although most relapses occurred during therapy.

There were no differences in cumulative isolated bone marrow relapses, however.

Treatment-related mortality rates were the same, but osteonecrosis rates were significantly lower for boys, with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 5.2% versus 6.7% for girls (P = .001).
 

Possible explanations

Dr. Gupta noted that the inferior outcomes among boys may be attributable to extramedullary relapses among patients with B-ALL.

In addition, the lack of sex-based differences in T-ALL may be caused in part by the increased use of CNS radiation in this population. Previous studies in which CNS radiation was omitted showed an increase in CNS relapsed rates among boys but not girls, he pointed out.

“This does imply that in the more recent generation of T-lineage ALL treatment trials that we’ll need to monitor sex-based differences in outcome, as fewer and fewer patients with T-ALL disease received cranial radiation in these more recent trials and in contemporary therapy,” he said.

One possible mechanism for sex-based outcome differences might be differences in steroid metabolism, as suggested by the higher osteonecrosis rate among girls, he added.

In the question-and-answer following the presentation, William G. Woods, MD, from Emory University, Atlanta, asked what role testicular relapse played in outcomes.

Dr. Gupta replied that the investigators had considered that the excess risk for extramedullary relapse in boys might be accounted for by testicular relapse, but “when you take away testicular relapse from those numbers and really just concentrate on CNS, it’s still that substantial difference when you’re talking about B-lineage disease.”

In patients with T-ALL as well, CNS relapse was more common in boys after controlling for testicular relapse, he said.

Another audience member asked whether the data suggest a benefit to treating boys with CNS-penetrating drugs such as dexamethasone or high-dose methotrexate,

Dr. Gupta said that it’s still uncertain whether it is clinically sound to subject a boy with otherwise–standard-risk disease to more intensive high-risk therapy, given the relatively small absolute differences in outcomes between the sexes.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the St. Baldrick’s Foundation. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Woods, and Dr. Meret had no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

Three-year survival rates were similarly high among postmenopausal women with high-risk early luminal breast cancer who were treated with either the neoadjuvant combination of letrozole and palbociclib (Ibrance) or standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the phase 2 NeoPAL study.

Progression-free survival (PFS) was a respective 86.7% and 87.2%, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.01 (P = .98) comparing the endocrine therapy and cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor combination versus FEC/taxane chemotherapy.

There were also no differences between the two treatment arms in terms of invasive disease-free survival (iDFS, HR = 0.83, P = .71) or breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS), although the latter was an exploratory endpoint alongside overall survival (OS).

“The lack of difference is impressive,” said Hope S. Rugo, MD, FASCO, who commented independently on the study’s findings after their presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

“Overall survival in patients who received chemotherapy appears to be better, but the very small numbers here make interpretation of this difference impossible,” observed Dr. Rugo, professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Unfortunately, this study is underpowered for definitive conclusions,” acknowledged study investigator Suzette Delaloge, MD, associate professor of medical oncology at Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

However, “it shows that the nonchemotherapy, preoperative letrozole/palbociclib approach deserves further exploration and could be an option for a chemotherapy-free regimen in some specific cases.”
 

Primary data already reported

The NeoPAL study was an open-label, randomized study conducted in 27 centers throughout France that compared the preoperative use of letrozole plus palbociclib to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 106 postmenopausal patients with either luminal A or B node-positive disease.

Patients were considered for inclusion in the trial if they had been newly diagnosed with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative stage I-III breast cancer and were not candidates for breast conservation. Genetic testing was used to confirm that only those with luminal B, or luminal A and who were node positive were recruited.

Neoadjuvant treatment consisted of either letrozole (2.5 mg/day) and palbociclib (125 mg daily for 3 weeks out of 4 weeks) for 19 weeks or three 21-day cycles of 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m²), epirubicin (100 mg/m²), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²), followed by three 21-day cycles of docetaxel (100 mg/m²).

The primary endpoint was the pathological complete response (pCR), defined as a residual cancer burden (RCB) of 0 to 1. Results, which have already been reported, showed equivalent, but perhaps disappointingly low, pathological responses in both the letrozole/palbociclib and chemotherapy arms (3.8% and 5.9%, respectively).

There were, however, identical clinical responses (at around 75%) and “encouraging biomarker responses in the Prosigna-defined high risk luminal breast cancer population,” Dr. Delaloge said.

The NeoPAL findings were on par with those of the CORALLEEN study, Dr. Delaloge suggested. That trial, as Dr. Rugo has also pointed out, was conducted in 106 patients with luminal B early breast cancer and used a combination of letrozole and the CDK 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib (Kisquali).
 

Future studies needed

NeoPAL “is a small study with relatively short follow-up even for hormone receptor-positive, high-risk disease,” Dr. Rugo observed. However, she qualified “this short follow-up can be very meaningful in high-risk disease.” as shown by other CDK 4/6 inhibitor trials.

Dr. Rugo also noted: “Short-term biologic endpoints are clearly more informative following and during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy than pCR and this trial, as well as the data from previous studies, indicates that this is the case.”

Further, Dr. Rugo said: “Antiproliferative response is enhanced with CDK 4/6 inhibitors, but this doesn’t seem to translate into a difference in pCR. The lack of impact on longer term, outcome to date, provides support for ongoing trials.”

Two such trials are already underway. The 200-patient CARABELA trial started recruitment in March last year and is comparing endocrine therapy with letrozole plus the CDK 4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to standard chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor–positive, high-risk Ki67 disease.

Then there is the ADAPTcycle trial, a large open-label, phase 3 trial that is randomizing patients based on Ki67 and recurrence score after a short preoperative induction with endocrine therapy to postoperative chemotherapy or to 2 years of endocrine therapy plus ribociclib, with both arms receiving a standard course of 5 years of endocrine therapy.

“These two studies have provided interesting information that will help us design studies in the future,” said Dr. Rugo.

Not only that, but they will also help “investigate the subgroups of patients that benefit the most from CDK 4/6 inhibitors and better study neoadjuvant endocrine therapy which is an important option for patients that can be evaluated in terms of its efficacy by short term measures of antiproliferative response.”

NeoPAL was sponsored by UNICANCER with funding from Pfizer and NanoString Technologies. Dr. Delaloge disclosed receiving research grants or funding via her institution from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, BMS, Orion, Daiichi, Puma, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Rugo reported receipt of grants via her institution to perform clinical trials from Pfizer and multiple other companies. She disclosed receiving honoraria from PUMA, Samsung, and Mylan.

Three-year survival rates were similarly high among postmenopausal women with high-risk early luminal breast cancer who were treated with either the neoadjuvant combination of letrozole and palbociclib (Ibrance) or standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the phase 2 NeoPAL study.

Progression-free survival (PFS) was a respective 86.7% and 87.2%, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.01 (P = .98) comparing the endocrine therapy and cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor combination versus FEC/taxane chemotherapy.

There were also no differences between the two treatment arms in terms of invasive disease-free survival (iDFS, HR = 0.83, P = .71) or breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS), although the latter was an exploratory endpoint alongside overall survival (OS).

“The lack of difference is impressive,” said Hope S. Rugo, MD, FASCO, who commented independently on the study’s findings after their presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

“Overall survival in patients who received chemotherapy appears to be better, but the very small numbers here make interpretation of this difference impossible,” observed Dr. Rugo, professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Unfortunately, this study is underpowered for definitive conclusions,” acknowledged study investigator Suzette Delaloge, MD, associate professor of medical oncology at Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

However, “it shows that the nonchemotherapy, preoperative letrozole/palbociclib approach deserves further exploration and could be an option for a chemotherapy-free regimen in some specific cases.”
 

Primary data already reported

The NeoPAL study was an open-label, randomized study conducted in 27 centers throughout France that compared the preoperative use of letrozole plus palbociclib to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 106 postmenopausal patients with either luminal A or B node-positive disease.

Patients were considered for inclusion in the trial if they had been newly diagnosed with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative stage I-III breast cancer and were not candidates for breast conservation. Genetic testing was used to confirm that only those with luminal B, or luminal A and who were node positive were recruited.

Neoadjuvant treatment consisted of either letrozole (2.5 mg/day) and palbociclib (125 mg daily for 3 weeks out of 4 weeks) for 19 weeks or three 21-day cycles of 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m²), epirubicin (100 mg/m²), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²), followed by three 21-day cycles of docetaxel (100 mg/m²).

The primary endpoint was the pathological complete response (pCR), defined as a residual cancer burden (RCB) of 0 to 1. Results, which have already been reported, showed equivalent, but perhaps disappointingly low, pathological responses in both the letrozole/palbociclib and chemotherapy arms (3.8% and 5.9%, respectively).

There were, however, identical clinical responses (at around 75%) and “encouraging biomarker responses in the Prosigna-defined high risk luminal breast cancer population,” Dr. Delaloge said.

The NeoPAL findings were on par with those of the CORALLEEN study, Dr. Delaloge suggested. That trial, as Dr. Rugo has also pointed out, was conducted in 106 patients with luminal B early breast cancer and used a combination of letrozole and the CDK 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib (Kisquali).
 

Future studies needed

NeoPAL “is a small study with relatively short follow-up even for hormone receptor-positive, high-risk disease,” Dr. Rugo observed. However, she qualified “this short follow-up can be very meaningful in high-risk disease.” as shown by other CDK 4/6 inhibitor trials.

Dr. Rugo also noted: “Short-term biologic endpoints are clearly more informative following and during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy than pCR and this trial, as well as the data from previous studies, indicates that this is the case.”

Further, Dr. Rugo said: “Antiproliferative response is enhanced with CDK 4/6 inhibitors, but this doesn’t seem to translate into a difference in pCR. The lack of impact on longer term, outcome to date, provides support for ongoing trials.”

Two such trials are already underway. The 200-patient CARABELA trial started recruitment in March last year and is comparing endocrine therapy with letrozole plus the CDK 4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to standard chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor–positive, high-risk Ki67 disease.

Then there is the ADAPTcycle trial, a large open-label, phase 3 trial that is randomizing patients based on Ki67 and recurrence score after a short preoperative induction with endocrine therapy to postoperative chemotherapy or to 2 years of endocrine therapy plus ribociclib, with both arms receiving a standard course of 5 years of endocrine therapy.

“These two studies have provided interesting information that will help us design studies in the future,” said Dr. Rugo.

Not only that, but they will also help “investigate the subgroups of patients that benefit the most from CDK 4/6 inhibitors and better study neoadjuvant endocrine therapy which is an important option for patients that can be evaluated in terms of its efficacy by short term measures of antiproliferative response.”

NeoPAL was sponsored by UNICANCER with funding from Pfizer and NanoString Technologies. Dr. Delaloge disclosed receiving research grants or funding via her institution from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, BMS, Orion, Daiichi, Puma, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Rugo reported receipt of grants via her institution to perform clinical trials from Pfizer and multiple other companies. She disclosed receiving honoraria from PUMA, Samsung, and Mylan.

Three-year survival rates were similarly high among postmenopausal women with high-risk early luminal breast cancer who were treated with either the neoadjuvant combination of letrozole and palbociclib (Ibrance) or standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the phase 2 NeoPAL study.

Progression-free survival (PFS) was a respective 86.7% and 87.2%, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.01 (P = .98) comparing the endocrine therapy and cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor combination versus FEC/taxane chemotherapy.

There were also no differences between the two treatment arms in terms of invasive disease-free survival (iDFS, HR = 0.83, P = .71) or breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS), although the latter was an exploratory endpoint alongside overall survival (OS).

“The lack of difference is impressive,” said Hope S. Rugo, MD, FASCO, who commented independently on the study’s findings after their presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

“Overall survival in patients who received chemotherapy appears to be better, but the very small numbers here make interpretation of this difference impossible,” observed Dr. Rugo, professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Unfortunately, this study is underpowered for definitive conclusions,” acknowledged study investigator Suzette Delaloge, MD, associate professor of medical oncology at Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

However, “it shows that the nonchemotherapy, preoperative letrozole/palbociclib approach deserves further exploration and could be an option for a chemotherapy-free regimen in some specific cases.”
 

Primary data already reported

The NeoPAL study was an open-label, randomized study conducted in 27 centers throughout France that compared the preoperative use of letrozole plus palbociclib to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 106 postmenopausal patients with either luminal A or B node-positive disease.

Patients were considered for inclusion in the trial if they had been newly diagnosed with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative stage I-III breast cancer and were not candidates for breast conservation. Genetic testing was used to confirm that only those with luminal B, or luminal A and who were node positive were recruited.

Neoadjuvant treatment consisted of either letrozole (2.5 mg/day) and palbociclib (125 mg daily for 3 weeks out of 4 weeks) for 19 weeks or three 21-day cycles of 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m²), epirubicin (100 mg/m²), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²), followed by three 21-day cycles of docetaxel (100 mg/m²).

The primary endpoint was the pathological complete response (pCR), defined as a residual cancer burden (RCB) of 0 to 1. Results, which have already been reported, showed equivalent, but perhaps disappointingly low, pathological responses in both the letrozole/palbociclib and chemotherapy arms (3.8% and 5.9%, respectively).

There were, however, identical clinical responses (at around 75%) and “encouraging biomarker responses in the Prosigna-defined high risk luminal breast cancer population,” Dr. Delaloge said.

The NeoPAL findings were on par with those of the CORALLEEN study, Dr. Delaloge suggested. That trial, as Dr. Rugo has also pointed out, was conducted in 106 patients with luminal B early breast cancer and used a combination of letrozole and the CDK 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib (Kisquali).
 

Future studies needed

NeoPAL “is a small study with relatively short follow-up even for hormone receptor-positive, high-risk disease,” Dr. Rugo observed. However, she qualified “this short follow-up can be very meaningful in high-risk disease.” as shown by other CDK 4/6 inhibitor trials.

Dr. Rugo also noted: “Short-term biologic endpoints are clearly more informative following and during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy than pCR and this trial, as well as the data from previous studies, indicates that this is the case.”

Further, Dr. Rugo said: “Antiproliferative response is enhanced with CDK 4/6 inhibitors, but this doesn’t seem to translate into a difference in pCR. The lack of impact on longer term, outcome to date, provides support for ongoing trials.”

Two such trials are already underway. The 200-patient CARABELA trial started recruitment in March last year and is comparing endocrine therapy with letrozole plus the CDK 4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to standard chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor–positive, high-risk Ki67 disease.

Then there is the ADAPTcycle trial, a large open-label, phase 3 trial that is randomizing patients based on Ki67 and recurrence score after a short preoperative induction with endocrine therapy to postoperative chemotherapy or to 2 years of endocrine therapy plus ribociclib, with both arms receiving a standard course of 5 years of endocrine therapy.

“These two studies have provided interesting information that will help us design studies in the future,” said Dr. Rugo.

Not only that, but they will also help “investigate the subgroups of patients that benefit the most from CDK 4/6 inhibitors and better study neoadjuvant endocrine therapy which is an important option for patients that can be evaluated in terms of its efficacy by short term measures of antiproliferative response.”

NeoPAL was sponsored by UNICANCER with funding from Pfizer and NanoString Technologies. Dr. Delaloge disclosed receiving research grants or funding via her institution from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, BMS, Orion, Daiichi, Puma, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Rugo reported receipt of grants via her institution to perform clinical trials from Pfizer and multiple other companies. She disclosed receiving honoraria from PUMA, Samsung, and Mylan.

For patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care, giving atorvastatin 20 mg/d did not result in a significant reduction in risk for venous or arterial thrombosis, for treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or for all-cause mortality, compared with placebo in the INSPIRATION-S study.

However, there was a suggestion of benefit in the subgroup of patients who were treated within 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset.

The study was presented by Behnood Bikdeli, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, on May 16 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He explained that COVID-19 is characterized by an exuberant immune response and that there is a potential for thrombotic events because of enhanced endothelial activation and a prothrombotic state.

“In this context, it is interesting to think about statins as potential agents to be studied in COVID-19, because as well as having lipid-lowering actions, they are also thought to have anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects,” he said.

In the HARP-2 trial of simvastatin in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), published a few years ago, the main results were neutral, but in the subgroup of patients with hyperinflammatory ARDS, there was a reduction in mortality with simvastatin in comparison with placebo, Dr. Bikdeli noted.

Moreover, in a series of observational studies of patients with COVID-19, use of statins was associated with a reduction in mortality among hospitalized patients. However, there are limited high-quality data to guide clinical practice, he said.

The INSPIRATION study, conducted in 11 hospitals in Iran, had a two-by-two factorial design to investigate different anticoagulant strategies and the use of atorvastatin for COVID-19 patients in the ICU.

In the anticoagulation part of the trial, which was published in JAMA in March 2020, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of an intermediate dose and standard dose of enoxaparin.

For the statin part of the trial (INSPIRATION-S), 605 patients were randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 20 mg daily or placebo. Patients who had been taking statins beforehand were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups, with around a quarter of patients taking aspirin and more than 90% taking steroids.

Results showed that atorvastatin was not associated with a significant reduction in the primary outcome – a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with ECMO, or mortality within 30 days – which occurred in 32.7% of the statin group versus 36.3% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.84; P = .35).

Atorvastatin was not associated with any significant differences in any of the individual components of the primary composite endpoint. There was also no significant difference in any of the safety endpoints, which included major bleeding and elevations in liver enzyme levels.

Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with the main findings, with one exception.

In the subgroup of patients who presented within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, there was a hint of a potential protective effect with atorvastatin.

In this group of 171 patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 30.9% of those taking atorvastatin versus 40.3% of those taking placebo (OR, 0.60; P = .055).

“This is an interesting observation, and it is plausible, as these patients may be in a different phase of COVID-19 disease. But we need to be cognizant of the multiplicity of comparisons, and this needs to be further investigated in subsequent studies,” Dr. Bikdeli said.
 

Higher dose in less sick patients a better strategy?

Discussing the study at the ACC presentation, Binita Shah, MD, said the importance of enrolling COVID-19 patients into clinical trials was paramount but that these patients in the ICU may not have been the right population in which to test a statin.

“Maybe for these very sick patients, it is just too late. Trying to rein in the inflammatory cytokine storm and the interaction with thrombosis at this point is very difficult,” Dr. Shah commented.

She suggested that it might be appropriate to try statins in an earlier phase of the disease in order to prevent the inflammatory process, rather than trying to stop it after it had already started.

Dr. Shah also questioned the use of such a low dose of atorvastatin for these patients. “In the cardiovascular literature – at least in ACS [acute coronary syndrome] – high statin doses are used to see short-term benefits. In this very inflammatory milieu, I wonder whether a high-intensity regimen would be more beneficial,” she speculated.

Dr. Bikdeli replied that a low dose of atorvastatin was chosen because early on, several antiviral agents, such as ritonavir, were being used for COVID-19 patients, and these drugs were associated with increases in liver enzyme levels.

“We didn’t want to exacerbate that with high doses of statins,” he said. “But we have now established the safety profile of atorvastatin in these patients, and in retrospect, yes, a higher dose might have been better.”

The INSPIRATION study was funded by the Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Tehran, Iran. Dr. Bikdeli has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care, giving atorvastatin 20 mg/d did not result in a significant reduction in risk for venous or arterial thrombosis, for treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or for all-cause mortality, compared with placebo in the INSPIRATION-S study.

However, there was a suggestion of benefit in the subgroup of patients who were treated within 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset.

The study was presented by Behnood Bikdeli, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, on May 16 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He explained that COVID-19 is characterized by an exuberant immune response and that there is a potential for thrombotic events because of enhanced endothelial activation and a prothrombotic state.

“In this context, it is interesting to think about statins as potential agents to be studied in COVID-19, because as well as having lipid-lowering actions, they are also thought to have anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects,” he said.

In the HARP-2 trial of simvastatin in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), published a few years ago, the main results were neutral, but in the subgroup of patients with hyperinflammatory ARDS, there was a reduction in mortality with simvastatin in comparison with placebo, Dr. Bikdeli noted.

Moreover, in a series of observational studies of patients with COVID-19, use of statins was associated with a reduction in mortality among hospitalized patients. However, there are limited high-quality data to guide clinical practice, he said.

The INSPIRATION study, conducted in 11 hospitals in Iran, had a two-by-two factorial design to investigate different anticoagulant strategies and the use of atorvastatin for COVID-19 patients in the ICU.

In the anticoagulation part of the trial, which was published in JAMA in March 2020, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of an intermediate dose and standard dose of enoxaparin.

For the statin part of the trial (INSPIRATION-S), 605 patients were randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 20 mg daily or placebo. Patients who had been taking statins beforehand were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups, with around a quarter of patients taking aspirin and more than 90% taking steroids.

Results showed that atorvastatin was not associated with a significant reduction in the primary outcome – a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with ECMO, or mortality within 30 days – which occurred in 32.7% of the statin group versus 36.3% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.84; P = .35).

Atorvastatin was not associated with any significant differences in any of the individual components of the primary composite endpoint. There was also no significant difference in any of the safety endpoints, which included major bleeding and elevations in liver enzyme levels.

Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with the main findings, with one exception.

In the subgroup of patients who presented within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, there was a hint of a potential protective effect with atorvastatin.

In this group of 171 patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 30.9% of those taking atorvastatin versus 40.3% of those taking placebo (OR, 0.60; P = .055).

“This is an interesting observation, and it is plausible, as these patients may be in a different phase of COVID-19 disease. But we need to be cognizant of the multiplicity of comparisons, and this needs to be further investigated in subsequent studies,” Dr. Bikdeli said.
 

Higher dose in less sick patients a better strategy?

Discussing the study at the ACC presentation, Binita Shah, MD, said the importance of enrolling COVID-19 patients into clinical trials was paramount but that these patients in the ICU may not have been the right population in which to test a statin.

“Maybe for these very sick patients, it is just too late. Trying to rein in the inflammatory cytokine storm and the interaction with thrombosis at this point is very difficult,” Dr. Shah commented.

She suggested that it might be appropriate to try statins in an earlier phase of the disease in order to prevent the inflammatory process, rather than trying to stop it after it had already started.

Dr. Shah also questioned the use of such a low dose of atorvastatin for these patients. “In the cardiovascular literature – at least in ACS [acute coronary syndrome] – high statin doses are used to see short-term benefits. In this very inflammatory milieu, I wonder whether a high-intensity regimen would be more beneficial,” she speculated.

Dr. Bikdeli replied that a low dose of atorvastatin was chosen because early on, several antiviral agents, such as ritonavir, were being used for COVID-19 patients, and these drugs were associated with increases in liver enzyme levels.

“We didn’t want to exacerbate that with high doses of statins,” he said. “But we have now established the safety profile of atorvastatin in these patients, and in retrospect, yes, a higher dose might have been better.”

The INSPIRATION study was funded by the Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Tehran, Iran. Dr. Bikdeli has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care, giving atorvastatin 20 mg/d did not result in a significant reduction in risk for venous or arterial thrombosis, for treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or for all-cause mortality, compared with placebo in the INSPIRATION-S study.

However, there was a suggestion of benefit in the subgroup of patients who were treated within 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset.

The study was presented by Behnood Bikdeli, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, on May 16 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He explained that COVID-19 is characterized by an exuberant immune response and that there is a potential for thrombotic events because of enhanced endothelial activation and a prothrombotic state.

“In this context, it is interesting to think about statins as potential agents to be studied in COVID-19, because as well as having lipid-lowering actions, they are also thought to have anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects,” he said.

In the HARP-2 trial of simvastatin in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), published a few years ago, the main results were neutral, but in the subgroup of patients with hyperinflammatory ARDS, there was a reduction in mortality with simvastatin in comparison with placebo, Dr. Bikdeli noted.

Moreover, in a series of observational studies of patients with COVID-19, use of statins was associated with a reduction in mortality among hospitalized patients. However, there are limited high-quality data to guide clinical practice, he said.

The INSPIRATION study, conducted in 11 hospitals in Iran, had a two-by-two factorial design to investigate different anticoagulant strategies and the use of atorvastatin for COVID-19 patients in the ICU.

In the anticoagulation part of the trial, which was published in JAMA in March 2020, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of an intermediate dose and standard dose of enoxaparin.

For the statin part of the trial (INSPIRATION-S), 605 patients were randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 20 mg daily or placebo. Patients who had been taking statins beforehand were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups, with around a quarter of patients taking aspirin and more than 90% taking steroids.

Results showed that atorvastatin was not associated with a significant reduction in the primary outcome – a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with ECMO, or mortality within 30 days – which occurred in 32.7% of the statin group versus 36.3% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.84; P = .35).

Atorvastatin was not associated with any significant differences in any of the individual components of the primary composite endpoint. There was also no significant difference in any of the safety endpoints, which included major bleeding and elevations in liver enzyme levels.

Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with the main findings, with one exception.

In the subgroup of patients who presented within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, there was a hint of a potential protective effect with atorvastatin.

In this group of 171 patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 30.9% of those taking atorvastatin versus 40.3% of those taking placebo (OR, 0.60; P = .055).

“This is an interesting observation, and it is plausible, as these patients may be in a different phase of COVID-19 disease. But we need to be cognizant of the multiplicity of comparisons, and this needs to be further investigated in subsequent studies,” Dr. Bikdeli said.
 

Higher dose in less sick patients a better strategy?

Discussing the study at the ACC presentation, Binita Shah, MD, said the importance of enrolling COVID-19 patients into clinical trials was paramount but that these patients in the ICU may not have been the right population in which to test a statin.

“Maybe for these very sick patients, it is just too late. Trying to rein in the inflammatory cytokine storm and the interaction with thrombosis at this point is very difficult,” Dr. Shah commented.

She suggested that it might be appropriate to try statins in an earlier phase of the disease in order to prevent the inflammatory process, rather than trying to stop it after it had already started.

Dr. Shah also questioned the use of such a low dose of atorvastatin for these patients. “In the cardiovascular literature – at least in ACS [acute coronary syndrome] – high statin doses are used to see short-term benefits. In this very inflammatory milieu, I wonder whether a high-intensity regimen would be more beneficial,” she speculated.

Dr. Bikdeli replied that a low dose of atorvastatin was chosen because early on, several antiviral agents, such as ritonavir, were being used for COVID-19 patients, and these drugs were associated with increases in liver enzyme levels.

“We didn’t want to exacerbate that with high doses of statins,” he said. “But we have now established the safety profile of atorvastatin in these patients, and in retrospect, yes, a higher dose might have been better.”

The INSPIRATION study was funded by the Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Tehran, Iran. Dr. Bikdeli has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Infectious disease physicians are among the doctors carrying the largest burdens in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Perhaps not surprisingly, they were the specialists least likely to feel they were fairly compensated in the Medscape Infectious Diseases Physician Compensation Report 2021.

Only 44% said the pay was fair (down from 51% the prior year) compared with those at the high end – 79% in oncology, 69% in psychiatry, and 68% in plastic surgery who answered that way.

Income, which averaged $245,000, varied little from the previous year overall, according to the survey, but nearly one-third of ID physicians saw a decline in pay.

Again this year, ID physicians ranked near the bottom on the compensation spectrum. Pediatricians were lowest paid at $221,000. Plastic surgeons topped the chart at $526,000, followed by orthopedists at $511,000.

At the same time, the ID specialty is facing increasing shortages, a gap made even more visible in the pandemic. Medscape reported last year that nearly 80% of U.S. counties have no infectious disease specialists.

Thomas File Jr., MD, last year’s president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, emphasized that COVID-19 is not the only threat that ID specialists have had to deal with or will have. He cited the threats that Zika and SARS posed in past years.

“COVID-19 illustrates the need for more trained ID specialists, because we know we’re going to be seeing more outbreaks in the future,” he said in an interview at the onset of the pandemic in March 2020.
 

Longer hours in pandemic

ID physicians’ hours generally increased during the pandemic, and they remain inflated by 8 hours per week (60 compared with 52 prepandemic) as the nation struggles to manage continuing COVID-19 infections. Physicians in critical care and public health and preventive medicine are seeing heavier workloads as well, by an average of 6-7 hours per week.

At the same time, ID physicians spent the most time of physicians in all specialties on paperwork and administrative tasks. Those tasks, which include electronic health record entry and clinical reading, took ID doctors 24.2 hours a week, more the twice the hours spent by those in anesthesiology (10.1), ophthalmology (10.3), and radiology (11.6).

The 24.2 hours was a substantial increase from the last report, when ID physicians said they spent 18.5 hours on the tasks.

The survey asked about the most challenging part of the job. ID physicians reported “long hours” as number one followed by “having so many rules and regulations.”

Only 4% said the danger or risk associated with treating COVID-19 patients was the most challenging part.

The top two aspects of their work they deemed most rewarding were “being very good at what I do” (chosen by 33%) and “knowing that I’m making the world a better place” (31%).
 

Patient volume up 17%

ID physicians reported seeing 78 patients per week in this report compared with 66 prepandemic, a 17% increase. Conversely, pediatricians saw an 18% drop in patient visits, followed by dermatologists, orthopedists and otolaryngologists (all down about 15%).

Despite the challenges and dissatisfaction with pay, the great majority of  ID physicians said they would choose both medicine (83%) and their specialty (89%, up from 85% last year) again.
 

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

Infectious disease physicians are among the doctors carrying the largest burdens in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Perhaps not surprisingly, they were the specialists least likely to feel they were fairly compensated in the Medscape Infectious Diseases Physician Compensation Report 2021.

Only 44% said the pay was fair (down from 51% the prior year) compared with those at the high end – 79% in oncology, 69% in psychiatry, and 68% in plastic surgery who answered that way.

Income, which averaged $245,000, varied little from the previous year overall, according to the survey, but nearly one-third of ID physicians saw a decline in pay.

Again this year, ID physicians ranked near the bottom on the compensation spectrum. Pediatricians were lowest paid at $221,000. Plastic surgeons topped the chart at $526,000, followed by orthopedists at $511,000.

At the same time, the ID specialty is facing increasing shortages, a gap made even more visible in the pandemic. Medscape reported last year that nearly 80% of U.S. counties have no infectious disease specialists.

Thomas File Jr., MD, last year’s president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, emphasized that COVID-19 is not the only threat that ID specialists have had to deal with or will have. He cited the threats that Zika and SARS posed in past years.

“COVID-19 illustrates the need for more trained ID specialists, because we know we’re going to be seeing more outbreaks in the future,” he said in an interview at the onset of the pandemic in March 2020.
 

Longer hours in pandemic

ID physicians’ hours generally increased during the pandemic, and they remain inflated by 8 hours per week (60 compared with 52 prepandemic) as the nation struggles to manage continuing COVID-19 infections. Physicians in critical care and public health and preventive medicine are seeing heavier workloads as well, by an average of 6-7 hours per week.

At the same time, ID physicians spent the most time of physicians in all specialties on paperwork and administrative tasks. Those tasks, which include electronic health record entry and clinical reading, took ID doctors 24.2 hours a week, more the twice the hours spent by those in anesthesiology (10.1), ophthalmology (10.3), and radiology (11.6).

The 24.2 hours was a substantial increase from the last report, when ID physicians said they spent 18.5 hours on the tasks.

The survey asked about the most challenging part of the job. ID physicians reported “long hours” as number one followed by “having so many rules and regulations.”

Only 4% said the danger or risk associated with treating COVID-19 patients was the most challenging part.

The top two aspects of their work they deemed most rewarding were “being very good at what I do” (chosen by 33%) and “knowing that I’m making the world a better place” (31%).
 

Patient volume up 17%

ID physicians reported seeing 78 patients per week in this report compared with 66 prepandemic, a 17% increase. Conversely, pediatricians saw an 18% drop in patient visits, followed by dermatologists, orthopedists and otolaryngologists (all down about 15%).

Despite the challenges and dissatisfaction with pay, the great majority of  ID physicians said they would choose both medicine (83%) and their specialty (89%, up from 85% last year) again.
 

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

Infectious disease physicians are among the doctors carrying the largest burdens in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Perhaps not surprisingly, they were the specialists least likely to feel they were fairly compensated in the Medscape Infectious Diseases Physician Compensation Report 2021.

Only 44% said the pay was fair (down from 51% the prior year) compared with those at the high end – 79% in oncology, 69% in psychiatry, and 68% in plastic surgery who answered that way.

Income, which averaged $245,000, varied little from the previous year overall, according to the survey, but nearly one-third of ID physicians saw a decline in pay.

Again this year, ID physicians ranked near the bottom on the compensation spectrum. Pediatricians were lowest paid at $221,000. Plastic surgeons topped the chart at $526,000, followed by orthopedists at $511,000.

At the same time, the ID specialty is facing increasing shortages, a gap made even more visible in the pandemic. Medscape reported last year that nearly 80% of U.S. counties have no infectious disease specialists.

Thomas File Jr., MD, last year’s president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, emphasized that COVID-19 is not the only threat that ID specialists have had to deal with or will have. He cited the threats that Zika and SARS posed in past years.

“COVID-19 illustrates the need for more trained ID specialists, because we know we’re going to be seeing more outbreaks in the future,” he said in an interview at the onset of the pandemic in March 2020.
 

Longer hours in pandemic

ID physicians’ hours generally increased during the pandemic, and they remain inflated by 8 hours per week (60 compared with 52 prepandemic) as the nation struggles to manage continuing COVID-19 infections. Physicians in critical care and public health and preventive medicine are seeing heavier workloads as well, by an average of 6-7 hours per week.

At the same time, ID physicians spent the most time of physicians in all specialties on paperwork and administrative tasks. Those tasks, which include electronic health record entry and clinical reading, took ID doctors 24.2 hours a week, more the twice the hours spent by those in anesthesiology (10.1), ophthalmology (10.3), and radiology (11.6).

The 24.2 hours was a substantial increase from the last report, when ID physicians said they spent 18.5 hours on the tasks.

The survey asked about the most challenging part of the job. ID physicians reported “long hours” as number one followed by “having so many rules and regulations.”

Only 4% said the danger or risk associated with treating COVID-19 patients was the most challenging part.

The top two aspects of their work they deemed most rewarding were “being very good at what I do” (chosen by 33%) and “knowing that I’m making the world a better place” (31%).
 

Patient volume up 17%

ID physicians reported seeing 78 patients per week in this report compared with 66 prepandemic, a 17% increase. Conversely, pediatricians saw an 18% drop in patient visits, followed by dermatologists, orthopedists and otolaryngologists (all down about 15%).

Despite the challenges and dissatisfaction with pay, the great majority of  ID physicians said they would choose both medicine (83%) and their specialty (89%, up from 85% last year) again.
 

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

GI Genius recently became the first Food and Drug Administration–approved device to use artificial intelligence (AI) for endoscopy. Soon, similar technology may give gastroenterologists an edge before they even walk into the procedure room.

AI can provide highly accurate risk scores for patients with suspected upper GI bleeding, and make a recommendation for discharge or hospitalization, according to Dennis Shung, MD, MHS, a clinical instructor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. And this could provide extensive benefit.

“Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is the most common gastrointestinal diagnosis requiring hospitalization. It costs around $19.2 billion per year,” Dr. Shung said, citing a study from Gastroenterology. He made these remarks during a virtual presentation at the 2021 AGA Tech Summit sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Emergency department visits for upper GI bleeding increased 17% from 2006 to 2014, Dr. Shung added, suggesting a rising trend.
 

The trouble with using risk scores

A variety of conventional risk scores are presently available to help manage these patients. Generally, they use a composite outcome of hemostatic intervention, transfusion, or death to determine which patients should be hospitalized (high risk) and which patients can go home (low risk). Although these models can offer high sensitivity, they remain underutilized.

“[Clinical risk scores] are cumbersome, it’s difficult to calculate them, [and] you may not remember to do that in your busy workflow,” Dr. Shung said.

He pointed out that low implementation may also stem from poorly defined clinical responsibilities.

“[Observing] providers caring for patients with GI bleeding showed that there was a culture of not taking ownership,” he said. “Emergency department physicians thought that it was the gastroenterologists who needed to [perform risk scoring]. Gastroenterologists thought it was the ED [physicians’ responsibility].”

To overcome these pitfalls, Dr. Shung and colleagues are developing AI that automates risk analysis for upper GI bleeding by integrating the process into the clinical workflow. Like GI Genius, their strategy relies upon machine learning, which is a type of AI that can improve automatically without being explicitly programmed.

Their most recent study (Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 23;11[1]:8827) involved a machine learning model that could predict transfusion in patients admitted for acute GI bleeding. The model was developed and internally validated in a cohort of 2,524 patients, then shown to outperform conventional regression-based models when externally validated in 1,526 patients similarly admitted at large urban hospitals.
 

Google Maps for GI bleeding

“The future, as I envision it, is a Google Maps for GI bleeding,” Dr. Shung said, referring to how the popular web-mapping product analyzes real-time data, such as weather and traffic patterns, to provide the best route and an estimated time of arrival. “With the electronic health record, we have the ability to personalize care by basically using data obtained during the clinical encounter to generate risk assessment in real time.”

In other words, machine learning software reads a patient’s electronic health record, runs relevant data through an algorithm, and produces both a risk score and a clinical recommendation. In the case of suspected upper GI bleeding, the clinician is advised to either discharge for outpatient endoscopy or hospitalize for inpatient evaluation.

Because the quality and consistency of data in EHRs can vary, the most advanced form of machine learning – deep learning – is needed to make this a clinical reality. Deep learning converts simpler concepts into complex ones. In this scenario, that would mean deciding which clinical data are relevant and which are just noise. Taking this a step further, deep learning can actually “draw conclusions” from what’s missing.

“There are huge challenges in [irregular data] that need to be overcome,” Dr. Shung said in an interview. “But I see it as an opportunity. When you see things that are irregularly sampled, when you see things are missing – they mean something. They mean that a human has decided that that is not the way we should do things because this patient doesn’t need it. And I think there is a lot of value in learning how to model those things.”
 

The road to clinical implementation

With further research and validation, deep learning models for gastroenterology are likely to play a role in clinical decision-making, according to Dr. Shung. But to reach the clinic floor, developers will need to outsmart some more fundamental obstacles. “The main thing that’s really barring [AI risk modeling] from being used is the reimbursement issue,” he said, referring to uncertainty in how payers will cover associated costs.

In an interview, Sushovan Guha, MD, PhD, moderator of the virtual session and codirector of the center for interventional gastroenterology at UTHealth (iGUT) in Houston, pointed out another financial unknown: liability.

“What happens if there is an error?” he asked. “It’s done by the computers, but who is at fault?”

In addition to these challenges, some clinicians may need to be persuaded before they are willing to trust an algorithm with a patient’s life.

“We have to have community physicians convinced about the importance of using these tools to further improve their clinical practice,” Dr. Guha said. To this end, he added, “It’s time for us to accept and adapt, and make our decision-making process much more efficient.”

The investigators disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

GI Genius recently became the first Food and Drug Administration–approved device to use artificial intelligence (AI) for endoscopy. Soon, similar technology may give gastroenterologists an edge before they even walk into the procedure room.

AI can provide highly accurate risk scores for patients with suspected upper GI bleeding, and make a recommendation for discharge or hospitalization, according to Dennis Shung, MD, MHS, a clinical instructor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. And this could provide extensive benefit.

“Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is the most common gastrointestinal diagnosis requiring hospitalization. It costs around $19.2 billion per year,” Dr. Shung said, citing a study from Gastroenterology. He made these remarks during a virtual presentation at the 2021 AGA Tech Summit sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Emergency department visits for upper GI bleeding increased 17% from 2006 to 2014, Dr. Shung added, suggesting a rising trend.
 

The trouble with using risk scores

A variety of conventional risk scores are presently available to help manage these patients. Generally, they use a composite outcome of hemostatic intervention, transfusion, or death to determine which patients should be hospitalized (high risk) and which patients can go home (low risk). Although these models can offer high sensitivity, they remain underutilized.

“[Clinical risk scores] are cumbersome, it’s difficult to calculate them, [and] you may not remember to do that in your busy workflow,” Dr. Shung said.

He pointed out that low implementation may also stem from poorly defined clinical responsibilities.

“[Observing] providers caring for patients with GI bleeding showed that there was a culture of not taking ownership,” he said. “Emergency department physicians thought that it was the gastroenterologists who needed to [perform risk scoring]. Gastroenterologists thought it was the ED [physicians’ responsibility].”

To overcome these pitfalls, Dr. Shung and colleagues are developing AI that automates risk analysis for upper GI bleeding by integrating the process into the clinical workflow. Like GI Genius, their strategy relies upon machine learning, which is a type of AI that can improve automatically without being explicitly programmed.

Their most recent study (Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 23;11[1]:8827) involved a machine learning model that could predict transfusion in patients admitted for acute GI bleeding. The model was developed and internally validated in a cohort of 2,524 patients, then shown to outperform conventional regression-based models when externally validated in 1,526 patients similarly admitted at large urban hospitals.
 

Google Maps for GI bleeding

“The future, as I envision it, is a Google Maps for GI bleeding,” Dr. Shung said, referring to how the popular web-mapping product analyzes real-time data, such as weather and traffic patterns, to provide the best route and an estimated time of arrival. “With the electronic health record, we have the ability to personalize care by basically using data obtained during the clinical encounter to generate risk assessment in real time.”

In other words, machine learning software reads a patient’s electronic health record, runs relevant data through an algorithm, and produces both a risk score and a clinical recommendation. In the case of suspected upper GI bleeding, the clinician is advised to either discharge for outpatient endoscopy or hospitalize for inpatient evaluation.

Because the quality and consistency of data in EHRs can vary, the most advanced form of machine learning – deep learning – is needed to make this a clinical reality. Deep learning converts simpler concepts into complex ones. In this scenario, that would mean deciding which clinical data are relevant and which are just noise. Taking this a step further, deep learning can actually “draw conclusions” from what’s missing.

“There are huge challenges in [irregular data] that need to be overcome,” Dr. Shung said in an interview. “But I see it as an opportunity. When you see things that are irregularly sampled, when you see things are missing – they mean something. They mean that a human has decided that that is not the way we should do things because this patient doesn’t need it. And I think there is a lot of value in learning how to model those things.”
 

The road to clinical implementation

With further research and validation, deep learning models for gastroenterology are likely to play a role in clinical decision-making, according to Dr. Shung. But to reach the clinic floor, developers will need to outsmart some more fundamental obstacles. “The main thing that’s really barring [AI risk modeling] from being used is the reimbursement issue,” he said, referring to uncertainty in how payers will cover associated costs.

In an interview, Sushovan Guha, MD, PhD, moderator of the virtual session and codirector of the center for interventional gastroenterology at UTHealth (iGUT) in Houston, pointed out another financial unknown: liability.

“What happens if there is an error?” he asked. “It’s done by the computers, but who is at fault?”

In addition to these challenges, some clinicians may need to be persuaded before they are willing to trust an algorithm with a patient’s life.

“We have to have community physicians convinced about the importance of using these tools to further improve their clinical practice,” Dr. Guha said. To this end, he added, “It’s time for us to accept and adapt, and make our decision-making process much more efficient.”

The investigators disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

GI Genius recently became the first Food and Drug Administration–approved device to use artificial intelligence (AI) for endoscopy. Soon, similar technology may give gastroenterologists an edge before they even walk into the procedure room.

AI can provide highly accurate risk scores for patients with suspected upper GI bleeding, and make a recommendation for discharge or hospitalization, according to Dennis Shung, MD, MHS, a clinical instructor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. And this could provide extensive benefit.

“Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is the most common gastrointestinal diagnosis requiring hospitalization. It costs around $19.2 billion per year,” Dr. Shung said, citing a study from Gastroenterology. He made these remarks during a virtual presentation at the 2021 AGA Tech Summit sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

Emergency department visits for upper GI bleeding increased 17% from 2006 to 2014, Dr. Shung added, suggesting a rising trend.
 

The trouble with using risk scores

A variety of conventional risk scores are presently available to help manage these patients. Generally, they use a composite outcome of hemostatic intervention, transfusion, or death to determine which patients should be hospitalized (high risk) and which patients can go home (low risk). Although these models can offer high sensitivity, they remain underutilized.

“[Clinical risk scores] are cumbersome, it’s difficult to calculate them, [and] you may not remember to do that in your busy workflow,” Dr. Shung said.

He pointed out that low implementation may also stem from poorly defined clinical responsibilities.

“[Observing] providers caring for patients with GI bleeding showed that there was a culture of not taking ownership,” he said. “Emergency department physicians thought that it was the gastroenterologists who needed to [perform risk scoring]. Gastroenterologists thought it was the ED [physicians’ responsibility].”

To overcome these pitfalls, Dr. Shung and colleagues are developing AI that automates risk analysis for upper GI bleeding by integrating the process into the clinical workflow. Like GI Genius, their strategy relies upon machine learning, which is a type of AI that can improve automatically without being explicitly programmed.

Their most recent study (Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 23;11[1]:8827) involved a machine learning model that could predict transfusion in patients admitted for acute GI bleeding. The model was developed and internally validated in a cohort of 2,524 patients, then shown to outperform conventional regression-based models when externally validated in 1,526 patients similarly admitted at large urban hospitals.
 

Google Maps for GI bleeding

“The future, as I envision it, is a Google Maps for GI bleeding,” Dr. Shung said, referring to how the popular web-mapping product analyzes real-time data, such as weather and traffic patterns, to provide the best route and an estimated time of arrival. “With the electronic health record, we have the ability to personalize care by basically using data obtained during the clinical encounter to generate risk assessment in real time.”

In other words, machine learning software reads a patient’s electronic health record, runs relevant data through an algorithm, and produces both a risk score and a clinical recommendation. In the case of suspected upper GI bleeding, the clinician is advised to either discharge for outpatient endoscopy or hospitalize for inpatient evaluation.

Because the quality and consistency of data in EHRs can vary, the most advanced form of machine learning – deep learning – is needed to make this a clinical reality. Deep learning converts simpler concepts into complex ones. In this scenario, that would mean deciding which clinical data are relevant and which are just noise. Taking this a step further, deep learning can actually “draw conclusions” from what’s missing.

“There are huge challenges in [irregular data] that need to be overcome,” Dr. Shung said in an interview. “But I see it as an opportunity. When you see things that are irregularly sampled, when you see things are missing – they mean something. They mean that a human has decided that that is not the way we should do things because this patient doesn’t need it. And I think there is a lot of value in learning how to model those things.”
 

The road to clinical implementation

With further research and validation, deep learning models for gastroenterology are likely to play a role in clinical decision-making, according to Dr. Shung. But to reach the clinic floor, developers will need to outsmart some more fundamental obstacles. “The main thing that’s really barring [AI risk modeling] from being used is the reimbursement issue,” he said, referring to uncertainty in how payers will cover associated costs.

In an interview, Sushovan Guha, MD, PhD, moderator of the virtual session and codirector of the center for interventional gastroenterology at UTHealth (iGUT) in Houston, pointed out another financial unknown: liability.

“What happens if there is an error?” he asked. “It’s done by the computers, but who is at fault?”

In addition to these challenges, some clinicians may need to be persuaded before they are willing to trust an algorithm with a patient’s life.

“We have to have community physicians convinced about the importance of using these tools to further improve their clinical practice,” Dr. Guha said. To this end, he added, “It’s time for us to accept and adapt, and make our decision-making process much more efficient.”

The investigators disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

When the Biden administration announced who would serve on its COVID-19 task force, some asked why a mental health expert had not been included. I have a broader question: In light of the magnitude of the pandemic’s fallout, why doesn’t the administration create a mental health post parallel to the surgeon general?

I have been making the case for creation of a high-level mental health post for quite some time. In fact, in the late 1970s, toward the end of then-President Jimmy Carter’s term, I wrote and talked about the need for a special cabinet post of mental health. At the time I realized that, besides chronic mental disorders, the amount of mental distress people experienced from a myriad of life issues leading to anxiety, depression, even posttraumatic stress disorder (although not labeled as such then), needed focused and informed leadership.

Before the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported that depression was the leading cause of disability worldwide. In the prepandemic United States, mental and substance use disorders were the top cause of disability among younger people.

We’ve lost almost 600,000 people to COVID-19, and people have been unable to grieve properly. More than 2 million women have left the labor force to care for children and sick family members. As we continue to learn about the mental health–related devastation wrought by SARS-CoV-2 – particularly long-haul COVID-19 – it’s time to dust off my proposal, update it, and implement it.
 

Building on a good decision

Back in 2017, President Trump appointed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, to a new post officially called “assistant secretary for mental health and substance use” and unofficially called the “mental health czar.” This was a groundbreaking step, because Dr. McCance-Katz, a psychiatrist, is known for developing innovative approaches to addressing the opioid crisis in her home state of Rhode Island. She resigned from her post on Jan. 7, 2021, citing her concerns about the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol.

As of this writing, President Biden has nominated psychologist Miriam Delphin-Rittmon, PhD, who is commissioner of Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, as mental health czar. I’m glad to see that the new administration wants a new czar, but I would prefer to see a more expansive role for a mental health professional at the federal level. The reason is because the COVID-19 fallout is requiring us to offer a greater array of mental health and substance use disorder services than ever before.
 

Processing the current crisis

Americans managed to recover emotionally from the ravages of death and dying from World War II; we lived through the “atomic age” of mutual destruction, sometimes calling it the age of anxiety. But nothing has come close to the overwhelming devastation that COVID-19 has brought to the world – and to this country.

A recent Government Accountability Office report shows 38% of U.S. adults reported symptoms of anxiety or depression from April 2020 through February 2021. That was up from 11% from January to June 2019, the report said, citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, the report cites data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration showing that opioid deaths were 25%-50% higher during the pandemic than a year earlier.

My sense is that people generally have opened up regarding their emotional problems in a freer manner, thus allowing us to speak about and accept mental health problems as part of our human reality – just as we accept physical disorders and search for treatment and care.

In terms of talk therapy, I still believe that the “thinking” therapies, that is, cognitive therapies that involved getting a new perspective on problems, are most effective in dealing with the myriad of emotional issues people experience as well as those that have arisen because of COVID-19, and the tremendous fear of severe illness and death that the virus can bring. Besides anxiety, depression, and fear, the psychological toll of a fractured lifestyle, coupled with social isolation, will lead many into a variety of PTSD-related conditions. Many of those conditions, including PTSD, might lift when COVID-19 is controlled, but the time frame for resolution is far from clear and will vary, depending on each person. National leadership, as well as therapists, need to be ready to work with the many mental health problems COVID-19 will leave in its wake.

Therapeutically, as we develop our cognitive approaches to the problems this pandemic has brought, whether affecting people with no past psychiatric history or those with a previous or ongoing problems, we are in a unique position ourselves to offer even more support based on our own experiences during the pandemic. Our patients have seen us wear masks and work remotely, and just as we know about their suffering, they know we have been affected as well. These shared experiences with patients can allow us to express even greater empathy and offer even greater support – which I believe enhances the cognitive process and adds more humanism to the therapeutic process.

The therapists I’ve talked with believe that sharing coping skills – even generally sharing anxieties – can be very therapeutic. They compared these exchanges to what is done in support or educational groups.

As a psychiatrist who has been treating patients using cognitive-behavioral therapy – the thinking therapy – for more than 40 years, I agree that sharing our experiences in this worldwide pandemic with those we are helping can be extremely beneficial. Using this approach would not distract from other cognitive work. CBT, after all, is a far cry from dynamic or psychoanalytic talking or listening.

Change is in the air. More and more Americans are getting vaccinated, and the CDC is constantly updating its guidance on COVID-19. That guidance should have a mental health component.

I urge the president to put mental health at the forefront by nominating an expert who could offer mental health solutions on a daily basis. This person should be on equal footing with the surgeon general. Taking this step would help destigmatize mental suffering and despair – and create greater awareness about how to address those conditions.
 

Dr. London has been a practicing psychiatrist for 4 decades and a newspaper columnist for almost as long. He has a private practice in New York and is author of “Find Freedom Fast: Short-Term Therapy That Works” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). Dr. London has no conflicts of interest.

When the Biden administration announced who would serve on its COVID-19 task force, some asked why a mental health expert had not been included. I have a broader question: In light of the magnitude of the pandemic’s fallout, why doesn’t the administration create a mental health post parallel to the surgeon general?

I have been making the case for creation of a high-level mental health post for quite some time. In fact, in the late 1970s, toward the end of then-President Jimmy Carter’s term, I wrote and talked about the need for a special cabinet post of mental health. At the time I realized that, besides chronic mental disorders, the amount of mental distress people experienced from a myriad of life issues leading to anxiety, depression, even posttraumatic stress disorder (although not labeled as such then), needed focused and informed leadership.

Before the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported that depression was the leading cause of disability worldwide. In the prepandemic United States, mental and substance use disorders were the top cause of disability among younger people.

We’ve lost almost 600,000 people to COVID-19, and people have been unable to grieve properly. More than 2 million women have left the labor force to care for children and sick family members. As we continue to learn about the mental health–related devastation wrought by SARS-CoV-2 – particularly long-haul COVID-19 – it’s time to dust off my proposal, update it, and implement it.
 

Building on a good decision

Back in 2017, President Trump appointed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, to a new post officially called “assistant secretary for mental health and substance use” and unofficially called the “mental health czar.” This was a groundbreaking step, because Dr. McCance-Katz, a psychiatrist, is known for developing innovative approaches to addressing the opioid crisis in her home state of Rhode Island. She resigned from her post on Jan. 7, 2021, citing her concerns about the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol.

As of this writing, President Biden has nominated psychologist Miriam Delphin-Rittmon, PhD, who is commissioner of Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, as mental health czar. I’m glad to see that the new administration wants a new czar, but I would prefer to see a more expansive role for a mental health professional at the federal level. The reason is because the COVID-19 fallout is requiring us to offer a greater array of mental health and substance use disorder services than ever before.
 

Processing the current crisis

Americans managed to recover emotionally from the ravages of death and dying from World War II; we lived through the “atomic age” of mutual destruction, sometimes calling it the age of anxiety. But nothing has come close to the overwhelming devastation that COVID-19 has brought to the world – and to this country.

A recent Government Accountability Office report shows 38% of U.S. adults reported symptoms of anxiety or depression from April 2020 through February 2021. That was up from 11% from January to June 2019, the report said, citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, the report cites data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration showing that opioid deaths were 25%-50% higher during the pandemic than a year earlier.

My sense is that people generally have opened up regarding their emotional problems in a freer manner, thus allowing us to speak about and accept mental health problems as part of our human reality – just as we accept physical disorders and search for treatment and care.

In terms of talk therapy, I still believe that the “thinking” therapies, that is, cognitive therapies that involved getting a new perspective on problems, are most effective in dealing with the myriad of emotional issues people experience as well as those that have arisen because of COVID-19, and the tremendous fear of severe illness and death that the virus can bring. Besides anxiety, depression, and fear, the psychological toll of a fractured lifestyle, coupled with social isolation, will lead many into a variety of PTSD-related conditions. Many of those conditions, including PTSD, might lift when COVID-19 is controlled, but the time frame for resolution is far from clear and will vary, depending on each person. National leadership, as well as therapists, need to be ready to work with the many mental health problems COVID-19 will leave in its wake.

Therapeutically, as we develop our cognitive approaches to the problems this pandemic has brought, whether affecting people with no past psychiatric history or those with a previous or ongoing problems, we are in a unique position ourselves to offer even more support based on our own experiences during the pandemic. Our patients have seen us wear masks and work remotely, and just as we know about their suffering, they know we have been affected as well. These shared experiences with patients can allow us to express even greater empathy and offer even greater support – which I believe enhances the cognitive process and adds more humanism to the therapeutic process.

The therapists I’ve talked with believe that sharing coping skills – even generally sharing anxieties – can be very therapeutic. They compared these exchanges to what is done in support or educational groups.

As a psychiatrist who has been treating patients using cognitive-behavioral therapy – the thinking therapy – for more than 40 years, I agree that sharing our experiences in this worldwide pandemic with those we are helping can be extremely beneficial. Using this approach would not distract from other cognitive work. CBT, after all, is a far cry from dynamic or psychoanalytic talking or listening.

Change is in the air. More and more Americans are getting vaccinated, and the CDC is constantly updating its guidance on COVID-19. That guidance should have a mental health component.

I urge the president to put mental health at the forefront by nominating an expert who could offer mental health solutions on a daily basis. This person should be on equal footing with the surgeon general. Taking this step would help destigmatize mental suffering and despair – and create greater awareness about how to address those conditions.
 

Dr. London has been a practicing psychiatrist for 4 decades and a newspaper columnist for almost as long. He has a private practice in New York and is author of “Find Freedom Fast: Short-Term Therapy That Works” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). Dr. London has no conflicts of interest.

When the Biden administration announced who would serve on its COVID-19 task force, some asked why a mental health expert had not been included. I have a broader question: In light of the magnitude of the pandemic’s fallout, why doesn’t the administration create a mental health post parallel to the surgeon general?

I have been making the case for creation of a high-level mental health post for quite some time. In fact, in the late 1970s, toward the end of then-President Jimmy Carter’s term, I wrote and talked about the need for a special cabinet post of mental health. At the time I realized that, besides chronic mental disorders, the amount of mental distress people experienced from a myriad of life issues leading to anxiety, depression, even posttraumatic stress disorder (although not labeled as such then), needed focused and informed leadership.

Before the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported that depression was the leading cause of disability worldwide. In the prepandemic United States, mental and substance use disorders were the top cause of disability among younger people.

We’ve lost almost 600,000 people to COVID-19, and people have been unable to grieve properly. More than 2 million women have left the labor force to care for children and sick family members. As we continue to learn about the mental health–related devastation wrought by SARS-CoV-2 – particularly long-haul COVID-19 – it’s time to dust off my proposal, update it, and implement it.
 

Building on a good decision

Back in 2017, President Trump appointed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, to a new post officially called “assistant secretary for mental health and substance use” and unofficially called the “mental health czar.” This was a groundbreaking step, because Dr. McCance-Katz, a psychiatrist, is known for developing innovative approaches to addressing the opioid crisis in her home state of Rhode Island. She resigned from her post on Jan. 7, 2021, citing her concerns about the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol.

As of this writing, President Biden has nominated psychologist Miriam Delphin-Rittmon, PhD, who is commissioner of Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, as mental health czar. I’m glad to see that the new administration wants a new czar, but I would prefer to see a more expansive role for a mental health professional at the federal level. The reason is because the COVID-19 fallout is requiring us to offer a greater array of mental health and substance use disorder services than ever before.
 

Processing the current crisis

Americans managed to recover emotionally from the ravages of death and dying from World War II; we lived through the “atomic age” of mutual destruction, sometimes calling it the age of anxiety. But nothing has come close to the overwhelming devastation that COVID-19 has brought to the world – and to this country.

A recent Government Accountability Office report shows 38% of U.S. adults reported symptoms of anxiety or depression from April 2020 through February 2021. That was up from 11% from January to June 2019, the report said, citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, the report cites data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration showing that opioid deaths were 25%-50% higher during the pandemic than a year earlier.

My sense is that people generally have opened up regarding their emotional problems in a freer manner, thus allowing us to speak about and accept mental health problems as part of our human reality – just as we accept physical disorders and search for treatment and care.

In terms of talk therapy, I still believe that the “thinking” therapies, that is, cognitive therapies that involved getting a new perspective on problems, are most effective in dealing with the myriad of emotional issues people experience as well as those that have arisen because of COVID-19, and the tremendous fear of severe illness and death that the virus can bring. Besides anxiety, depression, and fear, the psychological toll of a fractured lifestyle, coupled with social isolation, will lead many into a variety of PTSD-related conditions. Many of those conditions, including PTSD, might lift when COVID-19 is controlled, but the time frame for resolution is far from clear and will vary, depending on each person. National leadership, as well as therapists, need to be ready to work with the many mental health problems COVID-19 will leave in its wake.

Therapeutically, as we develop our cognitive approaches to the problems this pandemic has brought, whether affecting people with no past psychiatric history or those with a previous or ongoing problems, we are in a unique position ourselves to offer even more support based on our own experiences during the pandemic. Our patients have seen us wear masks and work remotely, and just as we know about their suffering, they know we have been affected as well. These shared experiences with patients can allow us to express even greater empathy and offer even greater support – which I believe enhances the cognitive process and adds more humanism to the therapeutic process.

The therapists I’ve talked with believe that sharing coping skills – even generally sharing anxieties – can be very therapeutic. They compared these exchanges to what is done in support or educational groups.

As a psychiatrist who has been treating patients using cognitive-behavioral therapy – the thinking therapy – for more than 40 years, I agree that sharing our experiences in this worldwide pandemic with those we are helping can be extremely beneficial. Using this approach would not distract from other cognitive work. CBT, after all, is a far cry from dynamic or psychoanalytic talking or listening.

Change is in the air. More and more Americans are getting vaccinated, and the CDC is constantly updating its guidance on COVID-19. That guidance should have a mental health component.

I urge the president to put mental health at the forefront by nominating an expert who could offer mental health solutions on a daily basis. This person should be on equal footing with the surgeon general. Taking this step would help destigmatize mental suffering and despair – and create greater awareness about how to address those conditions.
 

Dr. London has been a practicing psychiatrist for 4 decades and a newspaper columnist for almost as long. He has a private practice in New York and is author of “Find Freedom Fast: Short-Term Therapy That Works” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). Dr. London has no conflicts of interest.