ABSTRACT
This study examines the role of the non-profit organization SouthEast Regional Advisory Council (SETRAC) in capacity-building among healthcare institutions in the largest medical center in the world in the Houston, Texas region. Specifically, using conceptual resilience model accessed by organizations as they respond to crisis or disruption, we assess the linking dimension of SETRAC in healthcare delivery during COVID-19 concurrent disasters through supporting and coordinating services to healthcare institutions amid the pandemic. Specifically, the assessment comprises two critical events in the region concurrent to the COVID-19 pandemic - Hurricane Laura in fall 2020 and Winter Storm Uri in spring 2021. Our inquiry adopts the classical content analysis suitable for analyzing large textual data of 802 open-ended after-action report (AAR) surveys conducted among healthcare system entities in the region of which 403 collected post Hurricane Laura and 399 AARs collected after the Winter Storm Uri. Our findings center on discussion of three categories of capabilities: (a) established capabilities;(b) developing capabilities;and (c) unmet capabilities. The purpose of the study is to illuminate the role of a non-profit coalition in enhancing and sustaining a decentralized network of healthcare providers in the management of increasingly complex and compounded disasters and to identify best practices for coordination and collaboration across a range of concurrent hazards and threats. © 2021 WIT Press.
ABSTRACT
Background: Among patients with Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML) over the age of 60, a considerable number are not considered suitable for intensive remission-induction chemotherapy. Survival in these patients is poor, whether they are treated using hypomethylating agents or low-dose ara-C (LDAC). The possibility of combination therapy with additional agents represents an attractive option. Arginine metabolism plays a key role in AML pathogenesis (Mussai et al. Blood 2013);BCT-100 is a pegylated recombinant human arginase that leads to a rapid depletion in extracellular and intracellular arginine concentrations resulting in G0/G1 arrest, and subsequent death by necrosis. BCT-100 demonstrates significant activity as single-agent against AML cell lines, AML xenografts and primary AML blasts from newly diagnosed or relapsed patients (Mussai et al. Blood 2015). Importantly BCT-100 is synergistic in combination with cytarabine. Aims: To assess the efficacy of LDAC+BCT100 versus LDAC alone in patients aged 60+ unsuitable for intensive therapy, in a “pick a winner” design. This design allows several treatments to be assessed simultaneously in a randomised fashion, with the aim of doubling 2-year survival from 11% to 22% (HR 0.69), with interim assessments after 50 and 100 patients per arm are recruited. Methods: LDAC was given at 20mg BD SC on days 1-10 of each course. Patients randomised to the combination received LDAC as above with BCT-100 1600U/kg on Days 1, 8, 15 and 22 as a 1-hour intravenous infusion. Courses occurred at 4-6 week intervals. Toxicities were recorded using CTCAE version 3. Pharmacokinetic and biomarker samples were assessed in BCT-100 patients. Results here are based upon median follow-up of 3.8 months (range: 0.1 - 20.6 months) Results: Between September 2018 and December 2020, 83 patients were randomised. The trial was prematurely closed due to the COVID pandemic and did not reach the pre-planned first evaluation. Median age was 76.7 years (range 62-88). Overall, 65% were male;70% de novo AML, 23% secondary AML, and 6% high risk MDS;2% favourable, 59% intermediate, 23% adverse and 15% unknown/unreported cytogenetics. Median of 2 courses was delivered in either arm (mean 2 LDAC, 2 LDAC+BCT, range for both: 1-12). BCT-100 leads to a depletion of arginine from baseline in the majority of patients. Overall response (CR/CRi) was achieved in 12/81 patients (15%), (LDAC+BCT-100 15%, LDAC 15%, R 1.03 (0.30, 3.51),P=0.963). Thirty-day mortality was not significantly increased (18% vs 11%, HR 1.71 (0.50, 5.84), P=0.393;and 1-year survival showed no evidence of a difference (31% vs 30%, HR 1.28 (0.72, 2.25). Median overall survival time was 3.8 vs 6.4months;overall survival HR 1.11 (0.64, 1.90), P=0.715. The most common cause of death was resistant/recurrent disease: 12(46%) vs 16(59%). BCT-100 was not associated with any haematological toxicity;although rare grade 3/4 cardiac and hepatic events were reported, these were not significantly increased with BCT-100. Summary: The addition of BCT-100 to LDAC did not improve response rate or survival. BCT-100 was well tolerated with an acceptable toxicity profile. Further clinical evaluation of BCT-100 induced arginase depletion continues in a variety of malignancies. Acknowledgements: We are grateful to Blood Cancer UK for funding the trial and Bio-Cancer Treatment International for providing drug and additional support for this Investigator Initiated Study. Figure 1. OS All patients [Formula presented] Disclosures: Knapper: Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;Astellas: Ended employment in the past 24 months, Speakers Bureau;Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. McMullin: Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding;Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Abb ie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;AOP Orphan: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Copland: Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Cyclacel Ltd: Research Funding;Astellas: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Jazz: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Russell: Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Novartis: Speakers Bureau;Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Jazz: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.
ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare delivery and education of physicians, including rheumatology trainees. Objectives: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical experiences, research opportunities, and well-being of rheumatology trainees. Methods: A voluntary, anonymous, web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish, or French from 19/08/2020 to 05/10/2020. Adult and paediatric rheumatology trainees worldwide in training in 2020 were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple choice questions, Likert scales, and free text answers, we assessed trainee patient care activities, redeployment, research, and well-being. Results: The 302 respondents were from 33 countries, with most (83%, 252/302) in adult rheumatology training. Many trainees (45%, 135/300) reported an increase in non-rheumatology clinical work (e.g. care of COVID-19 patients), with 52% of these (70/135) also continuing rheumatology clinical work. COVID-19 redeployment was not optional for 68% (91/134). Trainees reported a negative impact of the pandemic in their growth in rheumatology (Figure 1). They also reported a substantial impact on several training areas: outpatient clinics (79%, 238/302), inpatient consultations (59%, 177/302), formal teaching (55%, 167/302), procedures (53%, 147/302), teaching opportunities (52%, 157/302), and ultrasonography (36%, 110/302), with 87-96% perceiving a negative impact on these areas. Only 54% (159/294) reported feeling comfortable with their level of clinical supervision during the pandemic (Figure 1). Many trainees (46%, 128/280) reported changes in research experiences during the pandemic;39% (110/285) reported that COVID-19 negatively affected their ability to continue their pre-pandemic research and 50% (142/285) reported difficulty maintaining research goals (Figure 1). Some rheumatology trainees reported having health condition(s) putting them at high risk for COVID-19 (10%, 30/302) and 14% of trainees (41/302) reported having had COVID-19 (Table 1). Only 53% (160/302) reported feeling physically safe in the workplace while 25% (76/302) reported not feeling physically safe;reasons included lack of training about COVID-19, lack of comfort in the clinical setting, insufficient personal protective equipment, immunocompromised state, and pregnancy. Half (151/302) reported burnout and 68% (204/302) an increase in stress from work during the pandemic (Figure 1), whilst 25% (75/302) reported that changes to their training programme negatively impacted their physical health. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted the experience of rheumatology training as well as the well-being of trainees globally. Our data highlight concerns for rheumatology trainees including research opportunities and clinical care which should be a focus for curriculum planning.
ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid increase in remote consultations in rheumatology care. Due to the potential impact of this change on rheumatology clinical training, we investigated trainees' experiences with telemedicine. Objectives: To assess the impact of telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatology training, including supervision. Methods: A voluntary, anonymous web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish, or French from 19/08/2020 to 05/10/2020. Adult and paediatric rheumatology trainees worldwide in training in 2020 were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple choice questions, Likert scales, and free text answers, we collected data regarding prior and current telemedicine use, training, and supervision. Results: 302 respondents from 33 countries completed the survey, with most (83%, 252/302) in adult rheumatology training. Reported use of telemedicine increased from 13% (39/302) pre-pandemic to 82% (247/302) (Table 1). European trainees predominantly utilised audio-only compared to trainees from the rest of the world (ROW) who predominantly utilised audio-video telemedicine. Most trainees continued to evaluate new patients using telemedicine (65%, 161/247). A larger proportion of trainees were comfortable using telemedicine to evaluate follow-up (69% 170/247) versus new patients (25%, 41/161) (Figure 1). Only 32% (97/302) were trained in telemedicine, with the highest proportion among United States (US) trainees (59%, 69/116);subjects included software, clinical skills, and billing. The majority of trainees found this helpful (92%, 89/97). Supervision was most frequently in the form of verbal discussion after the consultation (Table 1);24% (59/247) had no telemedicine supervision during the pandemic. In general, trainees found telemedicine negatively impacted their supervision (51%, 123/242) and clinical teaching quality (70%, 171/244);only 9% reported a positive impact on these areas. Conclusion: Adoption of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to areas of concern for rheumatology trainees including inadequate supervision and clinical teaching. Our results suggest a need for education on evaluation of new patients using telemedicine, increasing telemedicine training, and ensuring adequate supervisory arrangements.