Clinician and staff perspectives on potential disparities introduced by the rapid implementation of telehealth services during COVID-19: a mixed-methods analysis

The COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly altered ambulatory health care delivery and may have worsened disparities in health care access. To assess the telehealth implementation experiences of ambulatory personnel in different disciplines and their perspectives on potential telehealth disparities, and to make recommendations for more equitable telehealth delivery. We used a convergent parallel mixed-methods design. Clinic managers from geriatric medicine, internal medicine, and psychiatry e-mailed a survey to clinicians and staff regarding experiences with telehealth care delivery. Quantitative survey responses were analyzed with Fisher's Exact tests. Qualitative responses were coded thematically. Recommendations were categorized by type of implementation strategy. Quantitative and qualitative findings on telehealth disparities were merged in a joint data display. Respondents (n = 147, 57% response rate) were distributed across three specialties: 66% internal medicine, 19% psychiatry, and 14% geriatric medicine. Prior to 2020, 77% of clinicians had never delivered telehealth services. By Spring 2020, 78% reported conducting more than half of clinic visits by telehealth. Among clinicians, 52% agreed/strongly agreed that rapid telehealth implementation exacerbated access to care disparities to: older adult patients, those with limited internet access, and those needing interpretation services. Staff expressed similar difficulties with telehealth set-up especially for these patients. To improve telehealth equity, clinicians recommended to: (i) change infrastructure; (ii) train and educate stakeholders; and (iii) support clinicians. Clinicians and staff reported specific subpopulations had challenges in accessing telehealth visits. To avoid perpetuating telehealth access disparities, further co-discovery of equitable implementation strategies with patients and clinics are urgently needed.

GP2015, a proposed etanercept biosimilar: Pharmacokinetic similarity to its reference product and comparison of its autoinjector device with prefilled syringes

Aims

To assess pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of GP2015, a proposed etanercept biosimilar, in two studies: comparison with etanercept originator (ETN, bioequivalence study) and comparison of GP2015 administered via an autoinjector (AI) or prefilled syringes (PFS, delivery study).

Methods

Both studies were randomized, two‐sequence, two‐period, crossover studies conducted in healthy male subjects. In the bioequivalence study, subjects were randomized to receive a single 50 mg subcutaneous (s.c.) injection of GP2015 or ETN. In the delivery study, subjects were randomized to receive a single 50 mg s.c. injection of GP2015 via AI or PFS. Following a wash‐out period of 35 days, subjects in the bioequivalence study received single 50 mg s.c. injection of GP2015 or ETN, and subjects in the delivery study received single 50 mg s.c. injection of GP2015 via AI or PFS.

Results

The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) of GP2015/ETN for C_max (1.11 [1.05–1.17]), AUC_0–tlast (0.98 [0.94–1.02]) and AUC_0–inf (0.96 [0.93–1.00]) were within the predefined bioequivalence range of 0.80–1.25. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) of AI/PFS for C_max (1.01 [0.94–1.08]), AUC_0–tlast (1.01 [0.95–1.07]) and AUC_0–inf (1.01 [0.96–1.07]) were also within the range 0.80–1.25. No new safety issues were reported. Three subjects had low titres of non‐neutralising anti‐drug antibodies during a follow‐up visit in the bioequivalence study.

Conclusions

The PK of GP2015 was similar to ETN, demonstrating bioequivalence. The safety profile of GP2015 was consistent with previous reports for ETN. The GP2015 AI provided equivalent dosing and tolerability to the GP2015 PFS.

Quality of Cell Products: Authenticity, Identity, Genomic Stability and Status of Differentiation

Cellular therapies that either use modifications of a patient's own cells or allogeneic cell lines are becoming in vogue. Besides the technical issues of optimal isolation, cultivation and modification, quality control of the generated cellular products are increasingly being considered to be more important. This is not only relevant for the cell's therapeutic application but also for cell science in general. Recent changes in editorial policies of respected journals, which now require proof of authenticity when cell lines are used, demonstrate that the subject of the present paper is not a virtual problem at all. In this article we provide 2 examples of contaminated cell lines followed by a review of the recent developments used to verify cell lines, stem cells and modifications of autologous cells. With relative simple techniques one can now prove the authenticity and the quality of the cellular material of interest and therefore improve the scientific basis for the development of cells for therapeutic applications. The future of advanced cellular therapies will require production and characterization of cells under GMP and GLP conditions, which include proof of identity, safety and functionality and absence of contamination.

Evaluating maturation and genetic modification of human dendritic cells in a new polyolefin cell culture bag system

BACKGROUND

Dendritic cells (DCs) are applied worldwide in several clinical studies of immune therapy of malignancies, autoimmune diseases, and transplantations. Most legislative bodies are demanding high standards for cultivation and transduction of cells. Closed-cell cultivating systems like cell culture bags would simplify and greatly improve the ability to reach these cultivation standards. We investigated if a new polyolefin cell culture bag enables maturation and adenoviral modification of human DCs in a closed system and compare the results with standard polystyrene flasks.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Mononuclear cells were isolated from HLA-A*0201-positive blood donors by leukapheresis. A commercially available separation system (CliniMACS, Miltenyi Biotec) was used to isolate monocytes by positive selection using CD14-specific immunomagnetic beads. The essentially homogenous starting cell population was cultivated in the presence of granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor and interleukin-4 in a closed-bag system in parallel to the standard flask cultivation system. Genetic modification was performed on Day 4. After induction of maturation on Day 5, mature DCs could be harvested and cryopreserved on Day 7. During the cultivation period comparative quality control was performed using flow cytometry, gene expression profiling, and functional assays.

RESULTS

Both flasks and bags generated mature genetically modified DCs in similar yields. Surface membrane markers, expression profiles, and functional testing results were comparable. The use of a closed-bag system facilitated clinical applicability of genetically modified DCs.

CONCLUSIONS

The polyolefin bag-based culture system yields DCs qualitatively and quantitatively comparable to the standard flask preparation. All steps including cryopreservation can be performed in a closed system facilitating standardized, safe, and reproducible preparation of therapeutic cells.