Analysis of Clinical Criteria for Discharge Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 can clinically deteriorate after a period of initial stability, making optimal timing of discharge a clinical and operational challenge. OBJECTIVE: To determine risks for post-discharge readmission and death among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective observational cohort study, 2020-2021, with 30-day follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: Adults admitted for care of COVID-19 respiratory disease between March 2, 2020, and February 11, 2021, to one of 180 US hospitals affiliated with the HCA Healthcare system. MAIN MEASURES: Readmission to or death at an HCA hospital within 30 days of discharge was assessed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated using an internal validation set (33% of the HCA cohort), and external validation was performed using similar data from six academic centers associated with a hospital medicine research network (HOMERuN). KEY RESULTS: The final HCA cohort included 62,195 patients (mean age 61.9 years, 51.9% male), of whom 4704 (7.6%) were readmitted or died within 30 days of discharge. Independent risk factors for death or readmission included fever within 72 h of discharge; tachypnea, tachycardia, or lack of improvement in oxygen requirement in the last 24 h; lymphopenia or thrombocytopenia at the time of discharge; being ≤ 7 days since first positive test for SARS-CoV-2; HOSPITAL readmission risk score ≥ 5; and several comorbidities. Inpatient treatment with remdesivir or anticoagulation were associated with lower odds. The model's AUC for the internal validation set was 0.73 (95% CI 0.71-0.74) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.67) for the external validation set. CONCLUSIONS: This large retrospective study identified several factors associated with post-discharge readmission or death in models which performed with good discrimination. Patients 7 or fewer days since test positivity and who demonstrate potentially reversible risk factors may benefit from delaying discharge until those risk factors resolve.

Remdesivir for Treatment of COVID-19 Requiring Oxygen Support: A Cross-Study Comparison from Two Large, Open-Label Studies.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir, an RNA-polymerase prodrug inhibitor approved for treatment of COVID-19, shortens recovery time and improves clinical outcomes. This prespecified analysis compared remdesivir plus standard-of-care (SOC) with SOC alone in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring oxygen support in the early stage of the pandemic. METHODS: Data for 10-day remdesivir treatment plus SOC from the extension phase of an open-label study (NCT04292899) were compared with real-world, retrospective data on SOC alone (EUPAS34303). Both studies included patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 up to 30 May 2020, with oxygen saturation ≤94%, on room air or supplemental oxygen (all forms), and with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score weighting was used to balance patient demographics and clinical characteristics across treatment groups. The primary endpoint was time to all-cause mortality or end of study (day 28). Time-to-discharge, with a 10-day landmark to account for duration of remdesivir treatment, was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: 1974 patients treated with remdesivir plus SOC, and 1426 with SOC alone, were included after weighting. Remdesivir significantly reduced mortality versus SOC (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.39-0.54). This association was observed at each oxygen support level, with the lowest HR for patients on low-flow oxygen. Remdesivir significantly increased the likelihood of discharge at day 28 versus SOC in the 10-day landmark analysis (HR: 1.64; 95% confidence interval: 1.43-1.87). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir plus early-2020 SOC was associated with a 54% lower mortality risk and shorter hospital stays compared with SOC alone in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 requiring oxygen support. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.

Treatment patterns, resource utilization and clinical outcomes in patients with higher risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) in United States community practices.

Management of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS) is challenging in the real world. We studied 200 patients with HR-MDS within a large US community hospital network. We describe the clinical presentation, patient-related factors, prognostic characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes and resource utilization. Patients with HR-MDS, treated in our community setting, were elderly (median age 76 years) with a high comorbidity burden. First-line therapy was hypomethylating agent (HMA) monotherapy (20%), lenalidomide (2%), and venetoclax (2%), while the rest were treated with supportive care. Sixty-one percent of the 200, were subsequently hospitalized within 6 months of initial diagnosis. Overall survival was 11.8 months. Curative transplantation was infrequent, HMA-based therapy was underutilized, responses were not durable, most patients became transfusion-dependent or transformed to AML, and resource utilization was substantial and was highly correlated with total in-hospital days. There is a clear unmet need for tolerable treatments that can produce durable remissions in this population.

Rate of COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2: Analysis of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Registry.

BACKGROUND: The availability of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines has enabled protections against serious COVID-19 outcomes, which are particularly important for patients with cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Registry enabled the study of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in patients with cancer who were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2. METHODS: Medical oncology practices entered data on patients who were in cancer treatment. The cohort included patients who had severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection in 2020 and had visits and vaccine data after December 31, 2020. The primary end point was the time to first vaccination from January 1, 2021. Cumulative incidence estimates and Cox regression with death as a competing risk were used to describe the time to vaccine uptake and factors associated with vaccine receipt. RESULTS: The cohort included 1155 patients from 56 practices. Among 690 patients who received the first vaccine dose, 92% received the second dose. The median time to vaccine was 99 days. After adjustment, older patients were associated with a higher likelihood of vaccination compared with patients younger than 50 years in January through March 2021, and age exhibited a linear effect, with older patients showing higher rates of vaccination. Metastatic solid tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.98) or non-B-cell hematologic malignancies (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93) compared with nonmetastatic solid tumors, and any comorbidity (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95) compared with no comorbidity, were associated with lower vaccination rates. Area-level social determinants of health (lower education attainment and higher unemployment rates) were associated with lower vaccination rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patient age, cancer type, comorbidity, area-level education attainment, and unemployment rates were associated with differential vaccine uptake rates. These findings should inform strategies to communicate about vaccine safety and efficacy to patients with cancer.

Remdesivir Versus Standard-of-Care for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: An Analysis of 28-Day Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been shown to shorten time to recovery and improve clinical outcomes in randomized trials. METHODS: This was the final day 28 comparative analysis of data from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study comparing 2 remdesivir regimens (5 vs 10 days, combined for this analysis [remdesivir cohort]) and a real-world retrospective longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (nonremdesivir cohort). Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score matching (up to 1:10 ratio) was used to ensure comparable populations. We assessed day 14 clinical recovery (determined using a 7-point ordinal scale) and day 28 all-cause mortality (coprimary endpoints). RESULTS: A total of 368 (remdesivir) and 1399 (nonremdesivir) patients were included in the matched analysis. The day 14 clinical recovery rate was significantly higher among the remdesivir versus the nonremdesivir cohort (65.2% vs 57.1%; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.90; P = 0.002). The day 28 mortality rate was significantly lower in the remdesivir cohort versus the nonremdesivir cohort (12.0% vs 16.2%; OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-.95; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir was associated with significantly higher rates of day 14 clinical recovery, and lower day 28 mortality, compared with standard-of-care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These data, taken together, support the use of remdesivir to improve clinical recovery and decrease mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Recommendations to Streamline and Standardize Clinical Trial Site Feasibility Assessments: An ASCO Research Statement.

PURPOSE: Feasibility assessments (FAs) are important to establish site capabilities to conduct clinical trials and their suitability for specific trials. However, current FA methods used by biotechnology and pharmaceutical (biotech-pharma) trial sponsors and contract research organizations (CROs) are costly, inefficient, unnecessarily burdensome, and resource intensive. These methods delay trial start-up, act as a barrier to site participation, and ultimately reduce timely patient access to clinical trials and novel treatments. METHODS: An ASCO Task Force was convened to assess the specific burdens and challenges with FAs and to develop recommendations to improve their efficiencies and effectiveness. Stakeholders (including trial sites, biotech-pharma sponsors, and CROs) provided insights into challenges and offered solutions through two surveys and an in-person meeting. The Task Force used the feedback to formulate consensus recommendations to improve FAs for oncology clinical trials. RESULTS: Three key recommendations were identified for application across all biotech-pharma sponsored trials: (1) implement a streamlined and uniform FA process across trials and sponsors; (2) minimize and standardize questions; and (3) leverage technology to centralize FAs, facilitate communications, and reduce redundancies. CONCLUSION: There is an urgency to improve the current FA process, which is costly, inconsistent, inefficient, labor intensive, and of uncertain effectiveness. All stakeholders stand to benefit from implementing these recommendations, which aim to minimize burdens and ensure that more trial sites and patients have timely access to oncology clinical trials. To have meaningful impact, adoption and consistent execution of these recommendations across all trials, sponsors, CROs, and sites are essential.

Increase in Genetic Counseling and Testing Referrals After Breast Cancer Pathway Implementation.

PURPOSE: Genetic counseling and testing (GC/T) for breast cancer-associated genetic mutations are important components in the appropriate management of newly diagnosed breast cancer. We initiated pathways to help appropriately select patients who meet criteria for GC/T referral (GC/T-R) across the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute Network. This study evaluated physician pathway training as a means to improve access to GC/T-R. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational study, we collected data from 7 regions across 6 states, identifying 3,113 patients eligible for GC/T. Patients were divided into 3 defined cohorts: patients treated before implementation of pathways (n = 988), patients treated by non-pathway physicians after pathways were established (n = 1,094), and patients treated by pathway-trained physicians (n = 1,031). Pathways were established in March 2016. Nurse navigators documented eligible patients who were referred for GC/T within a care coordination software system. RESULTS: Eligible patients were referred for GC/T 71.77% of the time if treated on pathways and only 36.47% of the time if treated off pathways. On-pathway patients eligible for GC/T also received testing referral at a higher rate than pre-pathway patients (21.36%). CONCLUSION: After implementation of pathways and appropriate training of physicians on those pathways, GC/T-R among appropriate patients significantly improved. Pathway training represents a potential solution to improve GC/T-R among patients with breast cancer.

Feasibility of a Centralized Clinical Trials Coverage Analysis: A Joint Initiative of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Cancer Institute.

PURPOSE: Clinical trial billing compliance is a challenge that is faced by overburdened clinical trials sites. The requirements place institutions and research sites at increased potential for financial risk. To reduce their risk, sites develop a coverage analysis (CA) before opening each trial. For multisite trials, this translates into system-wide redundancies, inconsistencies, trial delays, and potential costs to sites and patients. These factors exacerbate low accrual rates to cancer clinical trials. ASCO and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) collaborated to address this problem. METHODS: An ASCO Research Community Forum working group proposed the concept of providing centrally developed CAs to research sites at protocol startup. The group collaborated with NCI and billing compliance experts to hold a symposium for key stakeholders to share knowledge, build skills, provide tools to conduct centralized CAs, and strategize about the next steps. RESULTS: Forty-eight attendees, who represented a range of stakeholders, participated in the symposium. As a result of this initiative, NCI directed the Cancer Trials Support Unit to convene a working group with NCI's National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) to develop tools and processes for generating CAs for their trials. A CA template with core elements was developed and is being adapted in a pilot project across NCTN Group and NCORP Research Bases. CONCLUSION: Centralized CAs for multisite trials-using standardized tools and templates-are feasible. They have the potential to reduce risk for patients and sites, forecast budget needs, and help decrease trial startup times that impede patient access and accrual to clinical trials.

Impact of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program on Clinical Trial and Related Activities at a Community Cancer Center in Rural Nebraska.

PURPOSE: Although 85% of patients with cancer are diagnosed and treated in the community setting, only 3% are enrolled onto clinical trials. Lack of adequate time, infrastructure, resources, incentives, and reimbursement adversely affect clinical trial participation. In July 2007, Saint Francis Cancer Treatment Center (SFCTC) in Grand Island, Nebraska, was selected as one of the initial 16 sites for the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP). METHODS: Clinical trial and related activities data at SFCTC 5 years before and 5 years during the NCCCP were gathered and compared. Data included information on patients in clinical trials, number and type of trials, ratio of underserved patients, staffing, collection and storage of tissue samples, availability of new cancer services, and organizational infrastructure and linkage to National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers. RESULTS: The number and percentage of patients enrolled onto clinical trials increased from 89 (3.2%) to 640 (23%; P<.001). All enrollees were rural Nebraskans, with 70%age > 65 years. Available treatment and nontreatment (eg, prevention, biospecimen,cancer control) trials increased from eight and three per year to 28 and 12 per year (P=.012), respectively. Staffing increased from 1.2 to 3.9 full-time equivalents (P=.012). A genetic counselor, smoking cessation counselor, and outreach project coordinator and two nurse navigators were hired. The number of tissue samples collected and/or stored increased from 26 (19%) to 320 (52%; P<.001). CONCLUSION: NCCCP participation had a direct and positive impact on all activities, with enhanced access to expanded types of trials and cancer care services. Our data demonstrate the feasibility of successful implementation of an expanded spectrum of clinical trials and programs in a rural community.

Immunity to chronic myelogenous leukemia.

Given the high rate of cytogenetic responses to imatinib mesylate in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), logical future treatment strategies will include combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunotherapies such as vaccines. Increased understanding of highly specific immune responses will lead to novel and improved immunotherapy strategies for CML patients. Such advances can be expected to revolutionize the field much in the same way that imatinib mesylate and other targeted small molecules have revolutionized our conception of traditional chemotherapy. This article begins with a brief discussion of why CML may represent a model disease for immunotherapy-based strategies. Laboratory evidence of the immunoresponsiveness of CML is discussed and used to highlight the principles for understanding tumor immunity. Finally,the authors discuss how advances in the understanding of the molecular and cellular nature of immunity are being translated into new therapeutic strategies for the treatment of CML.