A clinician perspective on the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have vastly improved long-term outcomes for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). After imatinib (a first-generation TKI), second- and third-generation TKIs were developed. With five TKIs (imatinib, dasatinib, bosutinib, nilotinib, and ponatinib) targeting BCR::ABL approved in most countries, and with the recent approval of asciminib in the USA, treatment decisions are complex and require assessment of patient-specific factors. Optimal treatment strategies for CML continue to evolve, with an increased focus on achieving deep molecular responses. Using clinically relevant case studies developed by the authors of this review, we discuss three major scenarios from the perspective of international experts. Firstly, this review explores patient-specific characteristics that affect decision-making between first- and second-generation TKIs upon initial diagnosis of CML, including patient comorbidities. Secondly, a thorough assessment of therapeutic options in the event of first-line treatment failure (as defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European LeukemiaNet guidelines) is discussed along with real-world considerations for monitoring optimal responses to TKI therapy. Thirdly, this review illustrates the considerations and importance of achieving treatment-free remission as a treatment goal. Due to the timing of the writing, this review addresses global challenges commonly faced by hematologists treating patients with CML during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lastly, as new treatment approaches continue to be explored in CML, this review also discusses the advent of newer therapies such as asciminib. This article may be a useful reference for physicians treating patients with CML with second-generation TKIs and, as it is focused on the physicians' international and personal experiences, may give insight into alternative approaches not previously considered.

The impact of different CPAP delivery approaches on nightly adherence and discontinuation rate in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The impact of direct mail order sales of positive airway pressure (PAP) devices, accentuated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, on PAP adherence in patients with obstructive sleep apnea remains unclear. In this study we compared the impact of different modes of continuous positive airway pressure delivery on adherence and daytime symptoms. We hypothesized that adherence would not be affected by remote PAP setup, aided by telehealth technology. METHODS: Three groups were studied: 1) standard group PAP setup (3-4 people); 2) direct home shipment of PAP, followed by telehealth interactions; 3) direct home shipment of PAP, during the COVID-19 pandemic where delivery choice was removed. Demographics, sleepiness, PAP data, and insurance information were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 666 patients were studied in 3 groups. 1) Standard group PAP setup had 225 patients and adherence with PAP (% of nights used more than 4 hours) was 65.3 ± 2.1%. 2) Direct home shipment of PAP group had 231 patients, and adherence was 54.2 ± 2.4%. 3) Direct mailed PAP units during the COVID-19 pandemic group had 210 patients, and adherence was 55.9 ± 2.5%. Adherence was lower in both groups receiving home shipments compared to those in groups in-center (analysis of variance, Tukey, P = .002). Discontinuation of PAP was less in the in-center group setup patients (χ2 = 10.938 P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving direct home PAP shipments had lower adherence and were more likely to discontinue PAP compared to standard in-person setup. CITATION: Stanchina M, Lincoln J, Prenda S, et al. The impact of different CPAP delivery approaches on nightly adherence and discontinuation rate in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(8):2023-2027.

Treating Leukemia in the Time of COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses several challenges to the management of patients with leukemia. The biology of each leukemia and its corresponding treatment with conventional intensive chemotherapy, with or without targeted therapies (venetoclax, FLT3 inhibitors, IDH1/2 inhibitors, Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors), introduce additional layers of complexity during COVID-19 high-risk periods. The knowledge about COVID-19 is accumulating rapidly. An important distinction is the prevalence of "exposure" versus "clinical infectivity," which determine the risk versus benefit of modifying potentially highly curative therapies in leukemia. At present, the rate of clinical infection is <1-2% worldwide. With a mortality rate of 1-5% in CO-VID-19 patients in the general population and potentially of >30% in patients with cancer, careful consideration should be given to the risk of COVID-19 in leukemia. Instead of reducing patient access to specialized cancer centers and modifying therapies to ones with unproven curative benefit, there is more rationale for less intensive, yet effective therapies that may require fewer clinic visits or hospitalizations. Here, we offer recommendations on the optimization of leukemia management during high-risk COVID-19 periods.