Age-based disparities in telehealth use in an urban, underserved population in cancer and pulmonary clinics: A need for policy change.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth rapidly emerged as an essential health care service and became particularly important for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. However, the benefits of telehealth have not been fully realized for some of the most vulnerable populations due to inequitable access to telehealth capable technology. PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess accessibility and satisfaction with telehealth technology by vulnerable patients with cancer and pulmonary disease. METHODOLOGY: A paper survey and internet-based survey were developed and administered to adult (≥18 years) cancer and pulmonary clinic patients (July 1, 2020 to October 30, 2020). RESULTS: Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact test were performed. Two hundred eleven patients completed the survey. Adults ≥50 years old (older) had reduced access to smartphone video capability and internet connection compared with adults less than 50 years old (59% vs. 90%, p < .01). Older adults reported more challenges with telehealth visits compared with younger adults (50.3%, 28.6%; p < .01). No difference in access to technology and preferences for telehealth versus in-person care was found by race, gender, or education level. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all patients (95%) who had a previous experience with a telehealth visit felt confident in the quality of care they received via telehealth. Younger adults preferred video visits compared with older adults (75% vs. 50.6%, p < .01). Older adults were less likely to have access to smartphones with internet access, have more challenges with telehealth visits, and were less likely to prefer audio-video telehealth visits compared with younger adults. IMPLICATIONS: Ensuring equitable access to all health care delivery modalities by telehealth, including audio-only visits for patients across the age continuum, is paramount.

Racial Disparities in COVID-19 Outcomes Among Black and White Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Non-Hispanic Black individuals experience a higher burden of COVID-19 than the general population; hence, there is an urgent need to characterize the unique clinical course and outcomes of COVID-19 in Black patients with cancer. Objective: To investigate racial disparities in severity of COVID-19 presentation, clinical complications, and outcomes between Black patients and non-Hispanic White patients with cancer and COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry from March 17, 2020, to November 18, 2020, to examine the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in Black patients with cancer. Data analysis was performed from December 2020 to February 2021. Exposures: Black and White race recorded in patient's electronic health record. Main Outcomes and Measures: An a priori 5-level ordinal scale including hospitalization intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause death. Results: Among 3506 included patients (1768 women [50%]; median [IQR] age, 67 [58-77] years), 1068 (30%) were Black and 2438 (70%) were White. Black patients had higher rates of preexisting comorbidities compared with White patients, including obesity (480 Black patients [45%] vs 925 White patients [38%]), diabetes (411 Black patients [38%] vs 574 White patients [24%]), and kidney disease (248 Black patients [23%] vs 392 White patients [16%]). Despite the similar distribution of cancer type, cancer status, and anticancer therapy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, Black patients presented with worse illness and had significantly worse COVID-19 severity (unweighted odds ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.15-1.58]; weighted odds ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.11-1.33]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that Black patients with cancer experience worse COVID-19 outcomes compared with White patients. Understanding and addressing racial inequities within the causal framework of structural racism is essential to reduce the disproportionate burden of diseases, such as COVID-19 and cancer, in Black patients.

Coinfections in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Study.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of coinfections and their association with outcomes have not been adequately studied among patients with cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a high-risk group for coinfection. METHODS: We included adult (≥18 years) patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection, using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19, NCT04354701). We captured coinfections within ±2 weeks from diagnosis of COVID-19, identified factors cross-sectionally associated with risk of coinfection, and quantified the association of coinfections with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 8765 patients (hospitalized or not; median age, 65 years; 47.4% male), 16.6% developed coinfections: 12.1% bacterial, 2.1% viral, 0.9% fungal. An additional 6.4% only had clinical diagnosis of a coinfection. The adjusted risk of any coinfection was positively associated with age >50 years, male sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal comorbidities, diabetes, hematologic malignancy, multiple malignancies, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, progressing cancer, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and baseline corticosteroids; the adjusted risk of superinfection was positively associated with tocilizumab administration. Among hospitalized patients, high neutrophil count and C-reactive protein were positively associated with bacterial coinfection risk, and high or low neutrophil count with fungal coinfection risk. Adjusted mortality rates were significantly higher among patients with bacterial (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95) and fungal (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.28-3.76) coinfections. CONCLUSIONS: Viral and fungal coinfections are infrequent among patients with cancer and COVID-19, with the latter associated with very high mortality rates. Clinical and laboratory parameters can be used to guide early empiric antimicrobial therapy, which may improve clinical outcomes.

Assessment of Regional Variability in COVID-19 Outcomes Among Patients With Cancer in the United States.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a distinct spatiotemporal pattern in the United States. Patients with cancer are at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19, but it is not well known whether COVID-19 outcomes in this patient population were associated with geography. Objective: To quantify spatiotemporal variation in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients with a historical diagnosis of invasive malignant neoplasm and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and November 2020. Data were collected from cancer care delivery centers in the United States. Exposures: Patient residence was categorized into 9 US census divisions. Cancer center characteristics included academic or community classification, rural-urban continuum code (RUCC), and social vulnerability index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary composite outcome consisted of receipt of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and all-cause death. Multilevel mixed-effects models estimated associations of center-level and census division-level exposures with outcomes after adjustment for patient-level risk factors and quantified variation in adjusted outcomes across centers, census divisions, and calendar time. Results: Data for 4749 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [56-76] years; 2439 [51.4%] female individuals, 1079 [22.7%] non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 690 [14.5%] Hispanic individuals) were reported from 83 centers in the Northeast (1564 patients [32.9%]), Midwest (1638 [34.5%]), South (894 [18.8%]), and West (653 [13.8%]). After adjustment for patient characteristics, including month of COVID-19 diagnosis, estimated 30-day mortality rates ranged from 5.2% to 26.6% across centers. Patients from centers located in metropolitan areas with population less than 250 000 (RUCC 3) had lower odds of 30-day mortality compared with patients from centers in metropolitan areas with population at least 1 million (RUCC 1) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.84). The type of center was not significantly associated with primary or secondary outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in outcome rates across the 9 census divisions, but adjusted mortality rates significantly improved over time (eg, September to November vs March to May: aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.58). Conclusions and Relevance: In this registry-based cohort study, significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes across US census divisions were not observed. However, substantial heterogeneity in COVID-19 outcomes across cancer care delivery centers was found. Attention to implementing standardized guidelines for the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 could improve outcomes for these vulnerable patients.

Social and Demographic Factors Contributing to COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

Background Vaccine hesitancy, defined as the delay in acceptance or refusal of safe vaccines, remains a challenge in the general population. Given that patients with hematologic malignancies frequently encounter healthcare professionals and are at high risk of severe COVID-19 infection, their attitudes towards vaccines may differ from other patient groups. We therefore performed a survey-based study to investigate vaccine hesitancy within an ethnically diverse group of patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies. Methods We administered a 122-item questionnaire from December 2020 to January 2021 (prior to commercial availability of the COVID-19 vaccines) to 60 patients with hematologic malignancies. Questions were separated into the following categories: demographic and socioeconomic data;personal impact of COVID-19 infection;COVID-19 pandemic experience;COVID-19 infection perceptions;COVID-19 vaccine perceptions;and baseline COVID-19 vaccine knowledge. Results The majority of patients were Black (n=33, 55%) or Hispanic (n=11, 18.3%) and were undergoing active treatment (n=43, 71.7%) or had received prior hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (n=9, 15%). Eight (13.3%) patients had prior COVID-19 infection. Sixteen (26.7%) patients reported infection in an immediate family member while 15 (25%) reported infection in a friend. 20 of these cases were moderate in severity requiring healthcare interaction, and 17 of these cases were reported to result in severe infection (n=7, 9.6%) or death (n=10, 13.7%). Only 16 (29.6%) patients perceived themselves to be at high or very high risk of COVID-19 infection. The COVID-19 pandemic was reported to moderately or severely affect employment/income in 10 (22.8%) patients and led to worse mental health in 10 (22.3%) patients. However, the majority of patients reported no negative impact on their cancer treatment (n=37, 88.1%) or prognosis (n=45, 93.8%). Of the 60 patients, 22 (40.7%) reported that if a COVID-19 vaccine was made publicly available in the next 30 days, they would not vaccinate themselves, either due to safety concerns (n=4, 20%) or indifference (n=6, 30%). Despite this, 43 (78.2%) patients stated that vaccination was an important tool in ending the pandemic. More patients agreed to accept the vaccine if it was made available in 6 months from the time of survey (n=40, 76.9%). Only 32 (59.3%) patients were extremely or very likely to accept a yearly vaccine. In terms of perception on cancer outcomes, 31 (62%) patients were uncertain if the vaccine would interact negatively with their current chemotherapy treatment, while 27 (52.9%) believed the vaccine would make their cancer worse. The biggest fear patients had about COVID-19 vaccines were side effects or death (n=15, 38.5%) and complications to cancer/cancer therapy (n=5, 12.8%). Only 6 (15.4%) patients stated they had no fears related to COVID-19 vaccination. In fact, only 21 (39.6%) patients agreed or strongly agreed that the side effects of most vaccines outweigh the benefits. In a modified (age- and sex-adjusted) Poisson regression model (Table 1) that included baseline demographics and answers to select survey questions, older age was associated with a stronger likelihood of vaccine acceptance (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.11-2.71;p=0.016), while female gender was associated with less likelihood to accept the vaccine (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.90;p=0.016). Patients reported as “other” race (e.g., Asian) were more inclined to accept the vaccine (RR. 2.21, 95% CI 1.16-4.20;p=0.016) compared to White patients. Finally, when compared to patients who receive information primarily from medical professionals, those patients who received their information from social media or friends were far less likely to accept the vaccine (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.04;p<0.001). Conclusion This is the first study to report that although patients with hematologic malignancies experienced significant medical and social burdens from the COVID-19 pandemic and have frequent interaction with healthcare professionals, a high rate of CO

Development and validation of a simple, selective, and sensitive LC-MS/MS assay for the quantification of remdesivir in human plasma.

Remdesivir, formerly GS-5734, has recently become the first antiviral drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. Therapeutic dosing and pharmacokinetic studies require a simple, sensitive, and selective validated assay to quantify drug concentrations in clinical samples. Therefore, we developed a rapid and sensitive LC-MS/MS assay for the quantification of remdesivir in human plasma with its deuterium-labeled analog, remdesivir-2H5, as the internal standard. Chromatographic separation was achieved on a Phenomenex® Synergi™ HPLC Fusion-RP (100 × 2 mm, 4 µm) column by gradient elution. Excellent accuracy and precision (<5.2% within-run variations and. <9.8% between-run variations) were obtained over the range of 0.5-5000 ng/mL. The assay met the FDA Bioanalytical Guidelines for selectivity and specificity, and low inter-matrix lot variability (<2.7%) was observed for extraction efficiency (77%) and matrix effect (123%) studies. Further, stability tests showed that the analyte does not degrade under working conditions, nor during freezing and thawing processes.