ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: In response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, teprotumumab production was temporarily halted with resources diverted toward vaccine production. Many patients who initiated treatment with teprotumumab for thyroid eye disease were forced to deviate from the standard protocol. This study investigates the response of teprotumumab when patients receive fewer than the standard 8-dose regimen. METHODS: This observational cross-sectional cohort study included patients from 15 institutions with active or minimal to no clinical activity thyroid eye disease treated with the standard teprotumumab infusion protocol. Patients were included if they had completed at least 1 teprotumumab infusion and had not yet completed all 8 planned infusions. Data were collected before teprotumumab initiation, within 3 weeks of last dose before interruption, and at the visit before teprotumumab reinitiation. The primary outcome measure was reduction in proptosis more than 2 mm. Secondary outcome measures included change in clinical activity score (CAS), extraocular motility restriction, margin reflex distance-1 (MRD1), and reported adverse events. RESULTS: The study included 74 patients. Mean age was 57.8 years, and 77% were female. There were 62 active and 12 minimal to no clinical activity patients. Patients completed an average of 4.2 teprotumumab infusions before interruption. A significant mean reduction in proptosis (-2.9 mm in active and -2.8 mm in minimal to no clinical activity patients, P < 0.01) was noted and maintained during interruption. For active patients, a 3.4-point reduction in CAS (P < 0.01) and reduction in ocular motility restriction (P < 0.01) were maintained during interruption. CONCLUSIONS: Patients partially treated with teprotumumab achieve significant reduction in proptosis, CAS, and extraocular muscle restriction and maintain these improvements through the period of interruption.
ABSTRACT
Due to COVID-19, an annual interactive statistics and research methodology workshop for radiation oncology trainees was adapted at short notice into a live virtual format. This study aimed to evaluate trainee opinions around the educational value of the workshop, logistical aspects and impact on interactivity. A post-course on-line survey was completed by 26/42 trainee attendees (response rate 62%). For five pre-specified learning outcomes (LO), 58 to 69% of trainees agreed that the LO was completely or largely met (Likert scores 6 and 7 on a scale 1 = not met at all; 7 = completely met). All trainees felt that logistical aspects of the workshop including organisation, accessibility to the platform and sound/image quality were good or excellent. With regard to opportunities for interaction and suitability for small-group 'break-out' sessions, the majority felt that interaction could be adequately maintained whilst just under a quarter felt the delivery method was not fit for the purpose. Networking/social engagement with peers and teachers was the factor most impaired using the live virtual delivery format. Over three-quarters of trainees replied they would favour the current event or other educational sessions being offered (at least as an option) in a virtual format in the future. Cost and convenience were given as the major non-COVID-19-related benefits of virtual on-line learning. These preliminary findings provide valuable feedback to help adapt or develop further on-line educational and training initiatives that will be necessary in the COVID-19 pandemic period and beyond.