Outpatient COVID-19 convalescent plasma recipient antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations within a randomized trial

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) virus-specific antibody levels that translate into recipient posttransfusion antibody levels sufficient to prevent disease progression are not defined.METHODSThis secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within the outpatient, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low posttransfusion antibody levels was established by 2 methods: (i) analyzing virus neutralization-equivalent anti-Spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (anti-S-RBD IgG) responses in donors or (ii) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.RESULTSSARS-CoV-2 anti-S-RBD IgG antibody was volume diluted 21.3-fold into posttransfusion seronegative recipients from matched donor units. Virus-specific antibody delivered was approximately 1.2 mg. The high-antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP-recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a statistical significant association between early transfusion and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma), with antibody cutoffs established by both methods-donor-based virus neutralization cutoffs in posttransfusion recipients (0/85 [0%] versus 15/276 [5.6%]; P = 0.03) or ROC-based cutoff (0/94 [0%] versus 15/267 [5.4%]; P = 0.01).CONCLUSIONIn unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients, early transfusion of plasma units in the upper 30% of study donors' antibody levels reduced outpatient hospitalizations. High antibody level plasma units, given early, should be reserved for therapeutic use.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04373460.FUNDINGDepartment of Defense (W911QY2090012); Defense Health Agency; Bloomberg Philanthropies; the State of Maryland; NIH (3R01AI152078-01S1, U24TR001609-S3, 1K23HL151826NIH); the Mental Wellness Foundation; the Moriah Fund; Octapharma; the Healthnetwork Foundation; the Shear Family Foundation; the NorthShore Research Institute; and the Rice Foundation.

Outpatient COVID-19 convalescent plasma recipient antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations within a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) viral specific antibody levels that translate into recipient post-transfusion antibody levels sufficient to prevent disease progression is not defined.

METHODS

This secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within the outpatient, double blind, randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low post-transfusion antibody levels was established by two methods: 1) analyzing virus neutralization-equivalent anti-S-RBD IgG responses in donors or 2) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

SARS-CoV-2 anti-S-RBD IgG antibody was diluted by a factor of 21.3 into post-transfusion seronegative recipients from matched donor units. Viral specific antibody delivered approximated 1.2 mg. The high antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a significant association with Fisher's exact test between early and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma) with antibody cutoffs established by both methods-donor virus neutralization-based cutoff: (0/85; 0% versus 15/276; 5.6%) p=0.03 or ROC based cutoff: (0/94; 0% versus 15/267; 5.4%) p=0.01.

CONCLUSION

In unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients, early transfusion of plasma units corresponding to the upper 30% of all study donors reduced outpatient hospitalizations. These high antibody level plasma units, given early, should be reserved for therapeutic use.Trial registration: NCT04373460.

FUNDING

Defense Health Agency and others.

Transfusion reactions associated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma in outpatient clinical trials

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important therapeutic option for outpatients at high risk of hospitalization from SARS-CoV-2 infection. We assessed the safety of outpatient CCP transfusions administered during clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed data pertaining to transfusion-related reactions from two randomized controlled trials in the U.S. that evaluated the efficacy of CCP versus control plasma in various ambulatory settings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess whether CCP was associated with transfusion reactions, after adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

The combined study reported 79/1351 (5.9%) adverse events during the transfusion visit, with the majority 62/1351 (4.6%) characterized by mild, allergic-type findings of urticaria, and/or pruritus consistent with minor allergic transfusion reactions; the other reported events were attributed to the patients' underlying disease, COVID-19, or vasovagal in nature. We found no difference in the likelihood of allergic transfusion reactions between those receiving CCP versus control plasma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43-1.31). Risk of urticaria and/or pruritus increased with a pre-existing diagnosis of asthma (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.16-4.67). We did not observe any CCP-attributed antibody disease enhancement in participants with COVID-19 or increased risk of infection. There were no life-threatening severe transfusion reactions and no patients required hospitalization related to transfusion-associated complications.

DISCUSSION

Outpatient plasma administration was safely performed for nearly 1400 participants. CCP is a safe therapeutic option for outpatients at risk of hospitalization from COVID-19.

Afternoons in the Tower of Babel

Oncologists and families of ICU patients lack common language when discussing status and prognosis. Harmful jargon abounds.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Convalescent Plasma Outpatient Therapy to Prevent Outpatient Hospitalization: A Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data From 5 Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Outpatient monoclonal antibodies are no longer effective and antiviral treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease remain largely unavailable in many countries worldwide. Although treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is promising, clinical trials among outpatients have shown mixed results.

METHODS

We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis from outpatient trials to assess the overall risk reduction for all-cause hospitalizations by day 28 in transfused participants. Relevant trials were identified by searching Medline, Embase, medRxiv, World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2020 to September 2022.

RESULTS

Five included studies from 4 countries enrolled and transfused 2620 adult patients. Comorbidities were present in 1795 (69%). The virus neutralizing antibody dilutional titer levels ranged from 8 to 14 580 in diverse assays. One hundred sixty of 1315 (12.2%) control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 of 1305 (8.5%) CCP-treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-6.0%; P = .001) absolute risk reduction and 30.1% relative risk reduction for all-cause hospitalization. The hospitalization reduction was greatest in those with both early transfusion and high titer with a 7.6% absolute risk reduction (95% CI, 4.0%-11.1%; P = .0001) accompanied by at 51.4% relative risk reduction. No significant reduction in hospitalization was seen with treatment >5 days after symptom onset or in those receiving CCP with antibody titers below the median titer.

CONCLUSIONS

Among outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with CCP reduced the rate of all-cause hospitalization and may be most effective when given within 5 days of symptom onset and when antibody titer is higher.

COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Outpatient Therapy to Prevent Outpatient Hospitalization: A Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data From Five Randomized Trials

Background

Monoclonal antibody and antiviral treatments for COVID-19 disease remain largely unavailable worldwide, and existing monoclonal antibodies may be less active against circulating omicron variants. Although treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is promising, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) among outpatients have shown mixed results.

Methods

We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis from all outpatient CCP RCTs to assess the overall risk reduction for all-cause hospitalizations by day 28 in all participants who had transfusion initiated. Relevant trials were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, MedRxiv, WHO, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2020 to September 2022.

Results

Five included studies from four countries enrolled and transfused 2,620 adult patients. Comorbidities were present in 1,795 (69%). The anti-Spike or virus neutralizing antibody titer range across all trials was broad. 160 (12.2%) of 1315 control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 (8.5%) of 1305 CCP-treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95%CI: 1.3%-6.0%; p=.001) ARR and 30.1% RRR for all-cause hospitalization. The effect size was greatest in those with both early transfusion and high titer with a 7.6% ARR (95%CI: 4.0%-11.1%; p=.0001) accompanied by at 51.4% RRR. No significant reduction in hospitalization was seen with treatment > 5 days after symptom onset or in those receiving CCP with antibody titers below the median titer.

Conclusions

Among outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with CCP reduced the rate of all-cause hospitalization. CCP may be most effective when given within 5 days of symptom onset and when antibody titer is higher.

Key Points

While the outpatient COVID-19 randomized controlled trial meta-analysis indicated heterogeneity in participant risk factors and convalescent plasma, the combined CCP efficacy for reducing hospitalization was significant, improving with transfusion within 5 days of symptom onset and high antibody neutralization levels.

Convalescent plasma with a high level of virus-specific antibody effectively neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern

The ongoing evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants severely limits available effective monoclonal antibody therapies. Effective drugs are also supply limited. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) qualified for high antibody levels effectively reduces immunocompetent outpatient hospitalization. The Food and Drug Administration currently allows outpatient CCP for the immunosuppressed. Viral-specific antibody levels in CCP can range 10- to 100-fold between donors, unlike the uniform viral-specific monoclonal antibody dosing. Limited data are available on the efficacy of polyclonal CCP to neutralize variants. We examined 108 pre-δ/pre-ο donor units obtained before March 2021, 20 post-δ COVID-19/postvaccination units, and 1 pre-δ/pre-ο hyperimmunoglobulin preparation for variant-specific virus (vaccine-related isolate [WA-1], δ, and ο) neutralization correlated to Euroimmun S1 immunoglobulin G antibody levels. We observed a two- to fourfold and 20- to 40-fold drop in virus neutralization from SARS-CoV-2 WA-1 to δ or ο, respectively. CCP antibody levels in the upper 10% of the 108 donations as well as 100% of the post-δ COVID-19/postvaccination units and the hyperimmunoglobulin effectively neutralized all 3 variants. High-titer CCP neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants despite no previous donor exposure to the variants.

Early Outpatient Treatment for Covid-19 with Convalescent Plasma

BACKGROUND

Polyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain.

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19-related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion.

RESULTS

Participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P = 0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized.

CONCLUSIONS

In participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.).

How do I implement an outpatient program for the administration of convalescent plasma for COVID-19?

Convalescent plasma, collected from donors who have recovered from a pathogen of interest, has been used to treat infectious diseases, particularly in times of outbreak, when alternative therapies were unavailable. The COVID-19 pandemic revived interest in the use of convalescent plasma. Large observational studies and clinical trials that were executed during the pandemic provided insight into how to use convalescent plasma, whereby high levels of antibodies against the pathogen of interest and administration early within the time course of the disease are critical for optimal therapeutic effect. Several studies have shown outpatient administration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to be both safe and effective, preventing clinical progression in patients when administered within the first week of COVID-19. The United States Food and Drug Administration expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow for the administration of CCP in an outpatient setting in December 2021, at least for immunocompromised patients or those on immunosuppressive therapy. Outpatient transfusion of CCP and infusion of monoclonal antibody therapies for a highly transmissible infectious disease introduces nuanced challenges related to infection prevention. Drawing on our experiences with the clinical and research use of CCP, we describe the logistical considerations and workflow spanning procurement of qualified products, infrastructure, staffing, transfusion, and associated management of adverse events. The purpose of this description is to facilitate the efforts of others intent on establishing outpatient transfusion programs for CCP and other antibody-based therapies.

COVID-19-related anxieties: Impact on duty to care among nurses

Background

Duty to care is integral to nursing practice. Personal obligations that normally conflict with professional obligations are likely amplified during a public health emergency such as COVID-19. Organizations can facilitate a nurse’s ability to fulfill the duty to care without compromising on personal obligations.

Research Aim

The study aimed to explore the relationships among duty to care, perception of supportive environment, perceived stress, and COVID-19-specific anxieties in nurses working directly with COVID-19 patients.

Research Design

The study design was a cross-sectional descriptive study using an online survey. It was conducted at an ANCC Magnet® designated 385-bed acute care teaching hospital located in a suburban area.

Participants and Research Context

Included in this study were 339 medical surgical nurses working directly with COVID-19 patients during the early phase of the pandemic.

Ethical Considerations

The study was reviewed by the institution’s clinical research committee and determined to be exempt. A survey invitation letter with a voluntary implied consent agreement was sent to participants with a description of the research study attached to the anonymous survey.

Results

Nurses with specific COVID-19-related anxieties were more likely to agree that it was ethical to abandon the workplace during a pandemic.

Conclusions

Organizations can and ought to mitigate the negative effects of COVID-19 on duty to care in future pandemics and healthcare emergencies by incorporating several recommendations derived from this study.

High Viral Specific Antibody Convalescent Plasma Effectively Neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern

The ongoing evolution of SARS-Co-V2 variants to omicron severely limits available effective monoclonal antibody therapies. Effective drugs are also supply limited. Covid-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) qualified for high antibody levels effectively reduces immunocompetent outpatient hospitalization. The FDA currently allows outpatient CCP for the immunosuppressed. Viral specific antibody levels in CCP can range ten-to hundred-fold between donors unlike the uniform viral specific monoclonal antibody dosing. Limited data are available on the efficacy of polyclonal CCP to neutralize variants. We examined 108 pre-delta/pre-omicron donor units obtained before March 2021, 20 post-delta COVID-19/post-vaccination units and one pre-delta/pre-omicron hyperimmunoglobulin preparation for variant specific virus (vaccine-related isolate (WA-1), delta and omicron) neutralization correlated to Euroimmun S1 IgG antibody levels. We observed a 2-to 4-fold and 20-to 40-fold drop in virus neutralization from SARS-CoV-2 WA-1 to delta or omicron, respectively. CCP antibody levels in the upper 10% of the 108 donations as well as 100% of the post-delta COVID-19/post-vaccination units and the hyperimmunoglobulin effectively neutralized all three variants. High-titer CCP neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants despite no previous donor exposure to the variants.

Key points

All of the post-delta COVID-19/post vaccination convalescent plasma effectively neutralizes the omicron and delta variants.High-titer CCP and hyperimmunoglobulin neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants despite no previous donor exposure to the variants.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Early Outpatient COVID-19 Treatment with High-Titer Convalescent Plasma

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of polyclonal high titer convalescent plasma to prevent serious complications of COVID-19 in outpatients with recent onset of illness is uncertain.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 high titer convalescent plasma to placebo control plasma in symptomatic adults ≥18 years positive for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of risk factors for disease progression or vaccine status. Participants with symptom onset within 8 days were enrolled, then transfused within the subsequent day. The measured primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospitalization within 28 days of plasma transfusion. The enrollment period was June 3, 2020 to October 1, 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 1225 participants were randomized and 1181 transfused. In the pre-specified modified intention-to-treat analysis that excluded those not transfused, the primary endpoint occurred in 37 of 589 (6.3%) who received placebo control plasma and in 17 of 592 (2.9%) participants who received convalescent plasma (relative risk, 0.46; one-sided 95% upper bound confidence interval 0.733; P=0.004) corresponding to a 54% risk reduction. Examination with a model adjusting for covariates related to the outcome did not change the conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Early administration of high titer SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma reduced outpatient hospitalizations by more than 50%. High titer convalescent plasma is an effective early outpatient COVID-19 treatment with the advantages of low cost, wide availability, and rapid resilience to variant emergence from viral genetic drift in the face of a changing pandemic.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.

Covid-19 Mortality in an Acute Care Hospital: Association of Patient Factors With Decision to Forego the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Public awareness of the large mortality toll of COVID-19 particularly among elderly and frail persons is high. This public awareness represents an enhanced opportunity for early and urgent goals-of-care discussions to reduce medically ineffective care.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the end-of-life experiences of hospitalized patients dying of COVID-19 with respect to identifying the clinical factors associated with utilization or non-utilization of the ICU.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of hospital outcomes using electronic medical records and individual chart review from March 15, 2020 to October 15, 2020 of every patient with a COVID-19 diagnosis who died or was admitted to hospice while hospitalized. Logistic regression multivariate analysis was used to identify the clinical and demographic factors associated with non-utilization of the ICU.

RESULTS

133/749 (18%) of hospitalized COVID-19 patients died or were admitted to hospice as a result of COVID-19. Of the 133, 66 (49.6%) had no ICU utilization. In multivariate analysis, the significant patient factors associated with non-ICU utilization were increasing age, normal body mass index, and the presence of an advanced directive calling for limited life sustaining therapies. Race and residence at time of admission (home vs. facility) were significant only in the unadjusted analyses but not in adjusted. Gender was not significant in either form of analyses.

CONCLUSION

Goals of care discussions performed by an augmented palliative care team and other bedside clinicians had renewed urgency during COVID-19. Large percentages of patients and surrogates, perhaps motivated by public awareness of poor outcomes, opted not to utilize the ICU.

Operational Recommendations for Scarce Resource Allocation in a Public Health Crisis

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic may require rationing of various medical resources if demand exceeds supply. Theoretical frameworks for resource allocation have provided much needed ethical guidance, but hospitals still need to address objective practicalities and legal vetting to operationalize scarce resource allocation schemata. To develop operational scarce resource allocation processes for public health catastrophes, including the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, five health systems in Maryland formed a consortium—with diverse expertise and representation—representing more than half of all hospitals in the state. Our efforts built on a prior statewide community engagement process that determined the values and moral reference points of citizens and health-care professionals regarding the allocation of ventilators during a public health catastrophe. Through a partnership of health systems, we developed a scarce resource allocation framework informed by citizens’ values and by general expert consensus. Allocation schema for mechanical ventilators, ICU resources, blood components, novel therapeutics, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and renal replacement therapies were developed. Creating operational algorithms for each resource posed unique challenges; each resource’s varying nature and underlying data on benefit prevented any single algorithm from being universally applicable. The development of scarce resource allocation processes must be iterative, legally vetted, and tested. We offer our processes to assist other regions that may be faced with the challenge of rationing health-care resources during public health catastrophes.

Risk factors for severe illness in hospitalized Covid-19 patients at a regional hospital

BACKGROUND

The Covid-19 pandemic threatens to overwhelm scarce clinical resources. Risk factors for severe illness must be identified to make efficient resource allocations.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate risk factors for severe illness.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational case series.

SETTING

Single-institution.

PARTICIPANTS

First 117 consecutive patients hospitalized for Covid-19 from March 1 to April 12, 2020.

EXPOSURE

None.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Intensive care unit admission or death.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality was 24.8% and average total length of stay was 11.82 days (95% CI: 10.01 to 13.63 days). 30.8% of patients required intensive care unit admission and 29.1% required mechanical ventilation. Multivariate regression identified the amount of supplemental oxygen required at admission (OR: 1.208, 95% CI: 1.011-1.443, p = .037), sputum production (OR: 6.734, 95% CI: 1.630-27.812, p = .008), insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (OR: 11.873, 95% CI: 2.218-63.555, p = .004) and chronic kidney disease (OR: 4.793, 95% CI: 1.528-15.037, p = .007) as significant risk factors for intensive care unit admission or death. Of the 48 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit or died, this occurred within 3 days of arrival in 42%, within 6 days in 71%, and within 9 days in 88% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

At our regional medical center, patients with Covid-19 had an average length of stay just under 12 days, required ICU care in 31% of cases, and had a 25% mortality rate. Patients with increased sputum production and higher supplemental oxygen requirements at admission, and insulin dependent diabetes or chronic kidney disease may be at increased risk for severe illness. A model for predicting intensive care unit admission or death with excellent discrimination was created that may aid in treatment decisions and resource allocation. Early identification of patients at increased risk for severe illness may lead to improved outcomes in patients hospitalized with Covid-19.

Assessment of Opioid Prescribing Practices Before and After Implementation of a Health System Intervention to Reduce Opioid Overprescribing

IMPORTANCE

Overprescribing of opioids has generated and sustains the opioid overdose epidemic. Health systems have a responsibility to lead the effort to reduce overprescribing.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the effects of multilevel interventions on opioid prescribing within a health system.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Quality improvement study comparing a 6-month preintervention baseline with a 16-month postintervention period ending in April 2018. Inpatient and outpatient clinical activity within a regional health system including an acute care hospital, same-day surgery, and outpatient clinics. Opioid prescribing activity by hundreds of clinicians involving over a million clinical encounters was measured using a health system's electronic medical record.

INTERVENTIONS

Multiple parallel interventions in different domains, including prescriber education and accountability, enhanced oversight via measurement of individual prescribers, tools to right-size postoperative discharge prescriptions, reduction of default amounts on standard opioid prescription orders, and professionally written patient and public education about opioid risks and alternatives.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per encounter per month, MME per opioid prescription, and rate of opioid prescriptions (opioid prescriptions per encounter per month).

RESULTS

More than 44 000 clinical encounters per month were recorded. All baseline trends were not significantly different from 0. Total health system MME per encounter decreased 1.0 MME per encounter per month. At the end of the postintervention observation period, the monthly MME per encounter was 58% lower than the average of the 6-month baseline, the MME per opioid prescription per month was 34% less than the average of the baseline, and the opioid prescription rate was 38% lower than the average of the baseline.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Opioid overprescribing was reduced with multifocal interventions targeting patient and public demand, creating prescriber awareness and accountability, and creating tools for clinical leadership accountability. The interventions described are adoptable by most organized health systems. Reducing total opioid supply within communities should be given high priority by those with a mission to protect and improve public health.

Lung Cancer Screening in the Community Setting

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer has high incidence and high mortality burden, particularly because it is typically diagnosed in later stages. The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated a lung cancer-specific mortality benefit in high-risk current and former smokers with yearly low-dose chest computed tomography (CT). Lung cancer screening is thus recommended, but it is unclear whether the results of the National Lung Screening Trial can be replicated in community settings.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of the lung screening program over its first 5 years, 2012 to 2016. Patients' demographics, initial screening results, follow-up, and management results were analyzed in relation to the National Lung Screening Trial results. Annual adherence was defined as returning for imaging within 1 year + 90 days.

RESULTS

A total of 1,241 persons underwent initial screening over the 5-year period; 78.6% of findings were benign, and only annual repeat low-dose chest CT was recommended. A total of 29 cancers were identified in 26 participants (2%), of which 72% were stage I. The annual adherence rate to repeat imaging after a low-risk baseline scan was 37%, and the any follow-up rate was 51% despite programmatic efforts to follow screening recommendations. When positive findings required more intensive evaluation, most commonly by repeat chest CT scan, adherence was 88%. A total of 1.1% of all participants had invasive biopsies for benign results. Complications of biopsy were minimal.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that a community-based program can approximate the results of the National Lung Screening Trial in detecting early lung cancers. Further study of the adherence phenomenon is essential.

ReCAP: Insights Into the Potential Preventability of Oncology Readmissions

QUESTION ADDRESSED:

Are oncology readmissions preventable? If so, what resources and changes in practice or culture would be required to reduce readmissions?

CONCLUSION:

Three independent reviewers analyzed 72 hospital readmissions and found that 22 (31%) of the 72 readmissions were preventable. The most common causes of preventability were overwhelming symptoms in patients who qualified for hospice but were not participating and insufficient communication between patients and the care team about symptom burden. The most common reason for nonpreventability were high symptom burden among patients not appropriate for hospice or for whom aggressive outpatient management was inadequate despite extensive efforts (Table). Readmissions from nursing facilities—where there is little oncology supervision—accounted for 35% of the total.

METHODS:

Standardized criteria to define preventability/nonpreventability were developed before data collection began. The records of sequential nonsurgical readmissions were reviewed independently by two experienced oncology reviewers. When the reviewers disagreed about assignment, a third reviewer broke the tie. Seventy-two readmissions from 69 patients were analyzed. The first two reviewers agreed that 18 (25%) were preventable and that 29 (40%) were not. A third reviewer found four of the split 25 cases to be preventable, so the consensus preventability rate was 22 (31%) of 72.

BIAS, CONFOUNDING FACTOR(S), DRAWBACKS:

A large minority of readmissions can be viewed as a failure of some aspect of the medical care system: symptom management, communication, psychosocial support, education or expectation management. The exact ratio of preventable to nonpreventable readmissions is less important than the finding that many are preventable with better outreach to frail or vulnerable patients and more rigorous or effective goals of care discussions. The findings are consistent with the small number of other studies of readmissions, all judged retrospectively. Such efforts are inherently subjective, but we attempted to minimize bias by creating standard definitions of preventability (Table) and by using independent assessments, avoiding an open consensus process that introduces additional types of bias.

REAL-LIFE IMPLICATIONS:

Some hospital readmissions may be preventable, depending on the conditions and social situation of the patients. Unfortunately, there are no ideal methods for determining preventability of hospital readmissions. Analyses of coded administrative data allow for large data sets, but such methods are silent about the appropriateness or potential preventability of the readmission. Coded data necessarily overlook patient-level issues such as fear, frailty, social isolation or symptom burden, and ignore a patient’s desire for aggressive cancer care. Indeed, some readmissions in oncology are a consequence of continued aggressive therapy that is requested by patients or families and is rendered due to the “shared decision making” process. Chart review, although limiting the sample size, allows more insights into the patient-level and social factors associated with readmissions as well as gaps in the care process, but not all. It cannot determine, for example, if a decision not to opt for hospice care was primarily motivated by patient attitudes, oncologist approach or some combination. Although these data include only 30-day readmissions, the same sort of issue likely pertain to all unplanned admissions and to emergency department visits as well. Oncology programs are encouraged to study their own patterns of unplanned admissions and readmission in order to learn about care gaps. Greater outreach to at–risk patients as in a medical home might prevent many unplanned admissions. Finally, we note that most studies of oncology readmissions have focused on physician assessment of causes with less attention on the patient perspective about reasons for unplanned admission. Such a study is ongoing and will complement these findings. [Table: see text]

Patient Attitudes Regarding the Cost of Illness in Cancer Care

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The cost of illness in cancer care and the subsequent distress has attracted scrutiny. Guidelines recommend enhanced discussion of costs, assuming this will reduce both stress and costs. Little is known about patient attitudes about cost considerations influencing treatment decisions.

METHODS

A convenience-sample survey of patients currently receiving radiation and/or intravenous chemotherapy at an outpatient cancer center was performed. Assessments included prevalence and extent of financial burden, level of financial distress, attitudes about using costs to influence treatment decisions, and frequency or desirability of cost discussions with oncologists.

RESULTS

A total of 132 participants (94%) responded. Overall, 47% reported high financial stress, 30.8% felt well informed about costs prior to treatment, and 71% rarely spoke to their oncologists about cost. More than 71% of patients did not want either society's or personal costs to influence treatment, and this result did not change based on degree of financial stress. Even when asked to assume that lower cost regimens were equally effective, only 28% would definitely want the lower cost regimen. Patients did not believe it was the oncologist's duty to perform cost discussions.

CONCLUSION

Even insured patients have a high degree of financial distress. Most, including those with the highest levels of distress, did not speak often with oncologists about costs and were strongly adverse to having cost considerations influence choice of regimen. The findings suggest that patients are not cost sensitive with regard to treatment decisions. Oncologists will require improved tools to have meaningful cost discussion, as recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The political use of the cancer metaphor: negative consequences for the public and the cancer community

There has been an increase in the use of cancer as a political metaphor, most recently to describe the threat of international terrorism. The powerful cancer metaphor implies a particular political problem is serious, progressive and deadly. As such to use a cancer metaphor prepares the public for a set of serious, intense and prolonged actions. While politically useful for a governmental to communicate policy, there are negative consequences to the use of the cancer metaphor. It perpetuates among the public and patients old stereotypes of cancer prognosis and therapies that oncologists have tried to combat through education. These education efforts are designed to help patients avoid overly aggressive treatments, surveillance, monitoring and surgeries. It is hard to successfully educate the general public and patients when they continuously receive alternative messages from political leaders who use the cancer metaphor for a different purpose. Professional cancer educators and clinicians should be aware of this trend and redouble efforts to educate that the political metaphor is for politics only and misleading in the public health and clinical arenas.

Reduction in chemotherapy order errors with computerized physician order entry

PURPOSE

To measure the number and type of errors associated with chemotherapy order composition associated with three sequential methods of ordering: handwritten orders, preprinted orders, and computerized physician order entry (CPOE) embedded in the electronic health record.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2008 to 2012, a sample of completed chemotherapy orders were reviewed by a pharmacist for the number and type of errors as part of routine performance improvement monitoring. Error frequencies for each of the three distinct methods of composing chemotherapy orders were compared using statistical methods.

RESULTS

The rate of problematic order sets-those requiring significant rework for clarification-was reduced from 30.6% with handwritten orders to 12.6% with preprinted orders (preprinted v handwritten, P < .001) to 2.2% with CPOE (preprinted v CPOE, P < .001). The incidence of errors capable of causing harm was reduced from 4.2% with handwritten orders to 1.5% with preprinted orders (preprinted v handwritten, P < .001) to 0.1% with CPOE (CPOE v preprinted, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The number of problem- and error-containing chemotherapy orders was reduced sequentially by preprinted order sets and then by CPOE. CPOE is associated with low error rates, but it did not eliminate all errors, and the technology can introduce novel types of errors not seen with traditional handwritten or preprinted orders. Vigilance even with CPOE is still required to avoid patient harm.

Activity of single-agent melphalan 220–300 mg/m2 with amifostine cytoprotection and autologous hematopoietic stem cell support in non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma

High-dose chemotherapy using melphalan (HDMEL) is an important component of many conditioning regimens that are given before autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT). In contrast to the situation in myeloma, and to a lesser degree acute leukemia, only a very limited published experience exists with the use of HDMEL conditioning as a single agent in doses requiring AHSCT for lymphoma, both Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and especially non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Thus, we report results of treating 26 lymphoma patients (22 with NHL and four with HL) with HDMEL 220-300 mg/m(2) plus amifostine (AF) cytoprotection and AHSCT as part of a phase I-II trial. Median age was 51 years (range 24-62 years); NHL histology was varied, but was aggressive (including transformed from indolent) in 19 patients, indolent in two patients and mantle cell in one. All 26 patients had been extensively treated; 11 were refractory to the immediate prior therapy on protocol entry and two had undergone prior AHSCT. All were deemed ineligible for other, 'first-line' AHSCT regimens. Of these 26 patients, 22 survived to initial tumor evaluation on D +100. At this time, 13 were in complete remission, including four patients who were in second CR before HDMEL+AF+AHSCT. Responses occurred at all HDMEL doses. Currently, seven patients are alive, including five without progression, with a median follow-up in these latter patients of D +1163 (range D +824 to D +1630); one of these patients had a nonmyeloablative allograft as consolidation on D +106. Conversely, 14 patients relapsed or progressed, including five who had previously achieved CR with the AHSCT procedure. Two patients, both with HL, remain alive after progression; one is in CR following salvage radiotherapy. Six patients died due to nonrelapse causes, including two NHL patients who died while in CR. We conclude that HDMEL+AF+AHSCT has significant single-agent activity in relapsed or refractory NHL and HL. This experience may be used as a starting point for subsequent dose escalation of HDMEL (probably with AF) in established combination regimens.

Phase I study of docetaxel and topotecan in patients with solid tumors

PURPOSE

Both docetaxel (DOC), a promoter and stabilizer of microtubule assembly, and topotecan (TOPO), a topoisomerase I inhibitor, have shown antitumor activity in a variety of solid tumor malignancies. This phase I trial was conducted to determine the overall and dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the pharmacokinetics of the combination of DOC and TOPO in patients with advanced solid tumor malignancies.

METHODS

DOC was administered first at 60 mg/m2 without G-CSF and at 60, 70, and 80 mg/m2 with G-CSF by 1-h infusion on day 1 of the odd-numbered cycles (1, 3, 5, etc.) and on day 4 of the even-numbered cycles (2, 4, 6, etc.). TOPO 0.75 mg/m2 was administered as a 30-min infusion on days 1, 2, 3 and 4 of each cycle. G-CSF 300 micrograms was administered subcutaneously (s.c.) on days 5-14. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. All patients were premedicated with dexamethasone 8 mg orally every 12 h for a total of six doses starting on the day before DOC infusion.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients were treated. Six patients were treated in cohort I with DOC and TOPO doses of 60 and 0.75 mg/m2, respectively, without G-CSF, and two patients developed DLT (febrile neutropenia). Four patients were treated in cohort II with DOC and TOPO doses of 60 and 0.75 mg/m2, respectively, with G-CSF, and no DLT was observed. Four patients were treated in cohort III with DOC and TOPO doses of 80 and 0.75 mg/m2, respectively, with G-CSF, and three developed DLT (febrile neutropenia). DOC was then de-escalated to 70 mg/m2 and delivered with TOPO 0.75 mg/m2 and G-CSF (cohort IV). Eight patients were treated at this dose level, and one DLT (febrile neutropenia) was observed. Two patients developed a severe hypersensitivity reaction shortly after the DOC infusion was started, one in cycle 1 and one in cycle 2. Both patients were removed from the study. Two patients developed severe dyspnea in the presence of progressive pulmonary metastases. Other nonhematological toxicities were mild. One patient with extensively pretreated ovarian carcinoma had a partial response, and eight patients with various solid tumor malignancies had stable disease with a median time to progression of 12 weeks (range 9-18 weeks). Administration of TOPO on days 1-4 and DOC on day 4 resulted in increased neutropenia.

CONCLUSIONS

DOC 80 mg/m2 given first as a 1-h infusion on day 1 with TOPO 0.75 mg/m2 given as a 0.5-h infusion on days 1, 2, 3 and 4 with G-CSF was considered the MTD. The recommended phase II dose for DOC given on day 1 is 70 mg/m2 with TOPO 0.75 mg/m2 given on days 1, 2, 3 and 4 every 21 days with G-CSF 300 micrograms s.c. on days 5-14. The alternative schedule with DOC given on day 4 and TOPO on days 1-4 is not recommended.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the combination of docetaxel and topotecan in patients with solid tumors

PURPOSE

The sequence in which chemotherapeutic agents are administered can alter their pharmacokinetics, therapeutic effect, and toxicity. We evaluated the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of docetaxel and topotecan when coadministered on two different sequences of administration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

On cycle 1, docetaxel was administered as a 1-hour infusion at 60 mg/m(2) without filgrastim and at 60, 70, and 80 mg/m(2) with filgrastim on day 1, and topotecan was administered at 0.75 mg/m(2) as a 0.5-hour infusion on days 1 to 4. On cycle 2, topotecan was administered on days 1 to 4, and docetaxel was administered on day 4. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. Blood samples for high-performance liquid chromatography measurement of docetaxel (CL(DOC)) and topotecan (CL(TPT)) total clearance were obtained on day 1 of cycle 1 and day 4 of cycle 2. CL(DOC) and CL(TPT) were calculated using compartmental methods.

RESULTS

Mean +/- SD CL(DOC) in cycles 1 and 2 were 75.9 +/- 79.6 L/h/m(2) and 29.2 +/- 17.3 L/h/m(2), respectively (P: <.046). Mean +/- SD CL(TPT) in cycles 1 and 2 were 8.5 +/- 4.4 L/h/m(2) and 9.3 +/- 3.4 L/h/m(2), respectively (P: >. 05). Mean +/- SD neutrophil nadir in cycles 1 and 2 were 4,857 +/- 6, 738/microL and 2,808 +/- 4,518/microL, respectively (P: =.02).

CONCLUSION

Administration of topotecan on days 1 to 4 and docetaxel on day 4 resulted in an approximately 50% decrease in docetaxel clearance and was associated with increased neutropenia.

Reduced charges and costs associated with outpatient autologous stem cell transplantation

High-dose chemotherapy and stem cell rescue is increasingly being delivered in the outpatient setting. Such intensive outpatient management programs have reduced the total hospital length of stay without compromising clinical outcomes. However, a detailed financial analysis of outpatient programs has not been performed. These data are the results of a prospective study of 94 patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant in one of three settings: traditional inpatient, partial outpatient, total outpatient. Patients were allowed to choose their own treatment setting based upon the availability of a caregiver and personal preference. Total hospital length of stay and the actual cost and charges for each patient were monitored prospectively. The patients in the three groups were well balanced with regard to age and functional status prior to high-dose chemotherapy. The average length of stay was reduced from 17.3 to 8.2 to 2.7 days in the three different treatment settings (P < 0.01). Mean procedure costs were reduced from $39.7 thousand (US dollars) to $36.2 thousand to $29.4 thousand in the three treatment settings (P < 0.029). No differences in toxicity or overall response to therapy was noted. High-dose chemotherapy and stem cell rescue can be safely administered in the outpatient setting and results in significant cost savings.

An all oral antiemetic regimen for patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy with peripheral blood stem cell transplant

The purpose of the study was to assess the toxicity and efficacy of an oral, combination antiemetic regimen including granisetron (Kytril; SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Philadelphia, PA, USA) in the setting of highly emetogenic conditioning chemotherapy for stem cell transplantation. Antiemetic prophylaxis consisted of oral granisetron 2 mg once daily, oral prochlorperazine 10 mg q 6 h and oral dexamethasone 4 mg q 6 h, beginning 1 h prior to chemotherapy on each of the 4 days of chemotherapy and continuing until 24 h after the completion of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC). Patients received either CVP (cyclophosphamide 6 g/m2, VP-16 1800 mg/m2 and carboplatin 1200 mg/m2) or CTP (thiotepa 500 mg/m2 in place of VP-16) in four daily doses given over 4 h from days -4 to -1. Previously mobilized and cryopreserved peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) were reinfused on day +1. Evaluation of nausea, emetic episodes (EE), adverse events, and rescue medications were recorded on a daily patient diary. Thirty-six patients were entered. Fifty-three percent (95% CI = 37-75%) of patients achieved complete response for emesis (CR = 0 EE/24 h) and 75% (95% CI = 58-90%) had combined complete and major response (CR+MR = 0-3 EE/24 h) during all 5 of the treatment days. During the 5 study days, the average number of patient-days with no emesis was 3.7 (74%) and with 1-3 EE was 4.3 (86%). On days -4, -3, -2, -1 and 0, the combined CR+MR rate for emesis was 97, 92, 86, 78 and 75%, respectively. Nausea was absent or mild on all 5 study days in 57% (95% CI = 37-75%). Eight patients had severe late-onset emesis occurring on days +1 to +3 after reinfusion of stem cells. No clinically significant toxicities attributable to the antiemetic regimen were observed. An all oral antiemetic regimen of granisetron, prochlorperazine and dexamethasone appears to be safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple, daily, high-dose chemotherapy regimens. This regimen offers the advantage of cost-savings, a low side-effect profile and ease of administration in the predominately outpatient setting of HDC with peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT).

Complications associated with central venous catheters used for the collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells to support high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell rescue

The purpose of this study was to review the incidence and type of complications associated with the insertion and use of central venous catheters for leukapheresis and high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue. One hundred sixty-seven central venous catheters placed either at the transplant center or by various community surgeons were studied for insertion complications, inability to perform leukapheresis and incidence of infection. The overall incidence of hemo- or pneumothorax was 3.6%. Inability to pherese occurred in 13% of catheters placed by outside surgeons and 6.5% of catheters inserted at the transplant institution. Most often, these were due to malposition of the catheter too high in the superior vena cava or in other veins. Deep venous thrombosis was often related to this malposition and occurred in 4.8% of all patients. Pulmonary embolism was not seen in these patients despite the fact the catheters were often left in place during the thrombotic episode. Early or late-onset infections occurred in 6.5% of patients and were most often exit site infections. The incidence of complications of pheresis catheters is high but might be reduced by more attention to proper placement of the catheter closer to the right atrial/superior vena cava junction, and limiting insertion to a cadre of surgeons familiar with leukapheresis requirements.

Outpatient high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell rescue for hematologic and nonhematologic malignancies

PURPOSE

A prospective study to determine the feasibility of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and autologous stem-cell rescue (ASCR) in the outpatient setting.

METHODS

One hundred thirteen consecutive patients underwent 165 cycles of HDC/ASCR for a variety of malignancies. HDC regimens were disease-specific. Initially, patients were hospitalized for HDC, discharged on completion, and maintained as outpatients unless toxicities required rehospitalization (subtotal outpatient transplantation [STOT]). Once this was established as safe, a total outpatient transplant (TOT) program was developed in which patients received all of the HDC, as well as supportive care, as outpatients. Patients who declined the outpatient programs received the same HDC and supportive care as inpatients.

RESULTS

In 140 of 165 (85%) HDC cycles, patients agreed to participate in one of the outpatient transplant programs. Five patients in the STOT program could not be discharged from the hospital because of toxicities that developed during HDC; thus, 135 patients were monitored the outpatient setting, 95 (70%) of whom were never readmitted. The mean +/- SEM total hospital length of stay (LOS), including all readmissions and excess days after chemotherapy, was 18.33 +/- 5.06 days for patients who refused the outpatient program, 8.22 +/- 5.76 days for patients in the STOT program, and 2.81 +/- 7.66 days for those in the TOT program (P < .001). One treatment-related death occurred in each treatment setting: day 120 inpatient, day 17 STOT, and day 110 TOT.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient management of HDC/ASCR is safe and acceptable for the vast majority of patients. The STOT program resulted in significant reduction in hospital LOS, while the TOT program appears equally safe and further reduces LOS. Hospitalization for HDC/ASCR is unnecessary in most patients.

Mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) in support of tandem cycles of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC)

We evaluated the efficacy, toxicity and feasibility of two cycles of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC), each supported with mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC). Ninety-six patients with metastatic or high-risk cancers received disease-specific HDC regimens. The first cycle consisted of cyclophosphamide 6000 mg/m2, thiotepa 500 mg/m2 and carboplatin 1200 mg/m2. Alternatively, some patients received etoposide 1800 mg/m2 substituted for thiotepa. A second cycle was planned 6-8 weeks later and consisted of mitoxantrone 60 mg/m2 with either melphalan 140 mg/m2 or thiotepa 600 mg/m2. PBPC were mobilized with either growth factor alone or cyclophosphamide followed by growth factor(s). Thirty-four of 96 enrolled patients (35%) did not receive the second cycle. The reasons were: patient refusal (15); insurance refusal (three); toxicities of cycle 1 (seven); no response to cycle 1 (four); and inadequate mobilization or poor engraftment, (five). Of the 33 patients who entered cycle 2 with measurable disease, 28 demonstrated further response after cycle 2 (including 10 who entered CR). One patient died of toxicity after each cycle. Hematologic recovery was rapid and complete in most patients. Tandem cycles of high-dose chemotherapy supported by PBPC are feasible and safe, although many patients fail to receive the second treatment. Preliminary evaluation shows evidence of further antitumor efficacy following cycle 2.

Randomized trial of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow support as adjuvant therapy for high-risk, multi-node-positive malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy adjuvant to surgery in metastatic melanoma has been evaluated in only a few prospective randomized trials. In the treatment of metastatic melanoma, dacarbazine has response rates of 15%-25% and in several studies, when combined with other alkylating agents, has yielded even higher response rates. Among the highest response rates are those achieved by using high-dose chemotherapy regimens combined with autologous bone marrow support (transplantation).

PURPOSE

We conducted a prospective randomized clinical trial to test the efficacy of high-dose alkylating agents in combination with autologous bone marrow support given as adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage II (World Health Organization) melanoma.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients with metastases involving five or more lymph nodes were randomly assigned to one of two treatment arms within 8 weeks of lymphadenectomy: immediate treatment or observation only. The immediate-treatment arm consisted of 19 patients who, immediately after random assignment, received high-dose chemotherapy with alkylating agents, followed 3 days later by reinfusion of autologous bone marrow. The observation arm consisted of 20 patients who were observed until relapse (confirmed by biopsy) and were then treated with the identical high-dose alkylating agent chemotherapy followed by reinfusion of autologous bone marrow. Bone marrow was harvested from the patients under general anesthesia 1-2 weeks prior to chemotherapy and was cryopreserved. Chemotherapy consisted of intravenous administration of cyclophosphamide (1875 mg/m2 as a 1-hour infusion daily for 3 days), cisplatin (55 mg/m2 per day by continuous infusion over the same 72-hour period), and carmustine (BCNU) (600 mg/m2) given immediately after cisplatin on the 4th day as a 2-hour infusion. The total doses of the three drugs were 5625, 165, and 600 mg/m2, respectively. All patients received medical evaluations every 6-12 weeks over the study period. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the time to disease progression on the basis of intent to treat.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival or in time to disease progression between the two treatment arms. However, the median time to progression was 16 weeks in the observation arm and 35 weeks in the immediate-treatment arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate adjuvant high-dose chemotherapy with alkylating agents followed by autologous bone marrow support more than doubled the time to disease progression compared with observation alone, though the difference was not statistically significant. No differences in overall survival were noted.

Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for mustard-induced bone marrow suppression

The authors describe the development of a clinical protocol to treat mustard gas-induced myelosuppression with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), a hematopoietic growth factor. Limited clinical evidence suggests a significant role for mustard gas-induced myelosuppression in the overall morbidity of mustard gas victims. Initial data from primates revealed that G-CSF could ameliorate neutropenia following nitrogen mustard exposure. Exploiting the extensive oncologic experience with G-CSF, which demonstrated its safety and absence of serious side effects the authors developed a clinical protocol for use of this drug in potential mustard gas victims in the Persian Gulf conflict.

A comparison of therapeutic schedules for administering granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to nonhuman primates after high-dose chemotherapy

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has been shown to be effective in clinical trials for reducing the period of neutropenia after chemotherapy. In this study, we compared the timing for initiating G-CSF administration after chemotherapy with the duration of neutropenia and hematopoietic regeneration. Nonhuman primates treated with high-dose chemotherapy (mechloroethamine, 1.5 mg/kg, intravenously) and not administered G-CSF therapy experienced 8 days of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] less than 1,000/mm3) and had an ANC nadir of 124 +/- 64/mm3 at day 7. Monkeys receiving G-CSF (5 micrograms/kg/d, subcutaneously) began treatment on either days 1, 3, 5, or 7 after chemotherapy. Monkeys treated with G-CSF had an earlier ANC recovery and the number of days with an ANC less than 500/mm3 and ANC less than 1,000/mm3 was reduced by approximately 50% in all treatment strategies. All G-CSF-treated animals, irrespective of the time that G-CSF was initiated, reached an ANC of 10,000/mm3 on day 13 +/- 1 day after chemotherapy. These results demonstrated that the duration of G-CSF therapy was almost twice as long for monkeys treated on day 1 as it was for monkeys that received therapy beginning on day 7. A comparison of the results for all treated monkeys identified a distinct difference in the responses of monkeys treated on day 1 from that of animals treated with G-CSF at later times. G-CSF initiated 1 day after chemotherapy led to an earlier onset of neutropenia and a more rapid and augmented recovery of myeloid progenitor cells in the peripheral blood when compared with control and delayed therapy groups. This study demonstrates that neutropenia due to a single dose of mechloroethamine can be equally reduced with both early and delayed initiation of G-CSF. Further, initiating G-CSF therapy after 7 days required approximately 50% less days of therapy to reach an appropriate termination point. The applicability of these findings to other chemotherapy regimens and for repeated cycles is uncertain and needs to be further evaluated. This is a US government work. There are no restrictions on its use.

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura in human immunodeficiency (HIV)-seropositive males

Two male patients with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) were found to have antibodies to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In one patient, platelet-associated antibody levels were measured serially and were found to be initially elevated, but the levels decreased with initiation of successful therapy. The simultaneous occurrence of these two conditions in two of three patients admitted for TTP within the previous 2 years at this institution suggests an association between the two diseases. The precise nature of this association remains speculative inasmuch as the pathogenesis of TTP remains uncertain.