Search

PURPOSE: The use of virtual care rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and has persisted as a routine method of care delivery. Much of the literature on virtual care in oncology has focused on solid tumors, and little is known about its application in malignant hematology. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with hematologic malignancies at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from October 2019 to March 2021 to determine the use of virtual care during this period, cost-savings associated with virtual visits, and patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Your Voice Matters survey, a provincially administered survey to evaluate patient experience. RESULTS: Overall, 12.1% (1,122/9,295) of patients had a virtual visit during the study period (0% from October 2019 to February 2020, 36% from March to August 2020, and 30% from September 2020 to March 2021), of which 36% were in the lymphoma clinic and 46% were in the myeloma clinic. The mean two-way opportunity cost for an in-person visit was $168.00 CAD per person with public transit, and $120.40 CAD per person driving. Responses to the Your Voice Matters survey indicated that patients with a virtual visit reported that physical symptoms were discussed appropriately (mean 4.73/5), and were more likely to ask for a follow-up virtual visit compared with patients with in-person visits (mean 4.50/5 v 3.02/5, respectively; P < .01). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that virtual care may be a feasible and well-received tool for delivering care to a substantial proportion of patients with hematologic malignancies, while enabling substantial cost-savings to patients.

COVID-19 and our armamentarium of strategies to combat it have evolved dramatically since the virus first emerged in late 2019. Vaccination remains the primary strategy to prevent severe illness, although the protective effect can vary in patients with hematologic malignancy. Strategies such as additional vaccine doses and now bivalent boosters can contribute to increased immune response, especially in the face of evolving viral variants. Because of these new variants, no approved monoclonal antibodies are available for pre-exposure or postexposure prophylaxis. Patients with symptomatic, mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and risk features for developing severe COVID-19, who present within 5-7 days of symptom onset, should be offered outpatient therapy with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NR) or in some cases with intravenous (IV) remdesivir. NR interacts with many blood cancer treatments, and reviewing drug interactions is essential. Patients with severe COVID-19 should be managed with IV remdesivir, tocilizumab (or an alternate interleukin-6 receptor blocker), or baricitinib, as indicated based on the severity of illness. Dexamethasone can be considered on an individual basis, weighing oxygen requirements and patients' underlying disease and their perceived ability to clear infection. Finally, as CD19-targeted and B-cell maturation (BCMA)–targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies become more heavily used for relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies, viral infections including COVID-19 are increasingly recognized as common complications, but data on risk factors and prophylaxis in this patient population are scarce. We summarize the available evidence regarding viral infections after CAR T-cell therapy.

Background: The use of virtual care, defined as providing healthcare in ways other than in-person visits, dramatically increased during the COVID-19 pandemic to minimize infection risk and maintain care provision. However, the majority of studies evaluating the use of virtual care in oncology have focused on patients with solid tumor malignancies. Patients with hematologic malignancies represent a unique population related to their underlying malignancy and treatment, but the extent to which virtual care has been successfully integrated into clinical practice is unknown. As the demand for incorporating virtual care into routine clinical practice grows, understanding how to safely and effectively use virtual care in this specific patient population is essential. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to describe the use of virtual care in the management of patients with hematologic malignancies and to examine physician- and patient-reported outcomes based on its use. A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify articles on the use of virtual modalities (digital applications, phone visits, or video visits) to deliver routine clinical care to patients with hematologic malignancies published in English between January 2000 and April 2021 in the following databases: PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus. No restrictions were applied to the phase of care (surveillance, active treatment, and or survivorship). A combination of search terms to encompass hematologic malignancies and virtual care was used. Screening and data abstraction were performed by two independent reviewers (AS, AV) and conflicts were adjudicated by two additional reviewers (DR, AP). Data were extracted to assess the study design, population, setting, patient characteristics, virtual care methodology and study results. Results: A total of 350 abstracts were screened and 60 studies underwent full-text review. Of these, 15 studies met inclusion criteria (13 retrospective studies, 1 prospective pilot study, and 1 randomized controlled trial). The majority of papers were published from 2020 onward (Figure 1). Three studies found that app-based tools were effective in monitoring patient symptoms and triggering alerts which resulting in sooner follow-up if indicated. One app-based tool was also used in a resource limited country during the COVID-19 pandemic to allow for communication between hematologists and their patients. Four studies described the use of phone-based interventions for new consults and follow-up visits. Phone visits for used even in high-risk patients (for example, in 29 out of 50 patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic stem cell transplant). Five studies found that videoconferencing, with both physicians and oncology nurses, was highly rated by patients. Emerging themes included high levels of patient satisfaction across all domains of virtual care. Provider satisfaction scores were rated lower than patient scores, with concerns about technical issues leading to challenges with virtual care. Four studies found that virtual care allowed providers to promptly respond to patient concerns, specifically when patients were experiencing side-effects or had questions about their treatment. One study also suggested a decreased risk of death when telemedicine was used to monitor symptoms in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. There were no data addressing the impact of virtual care on costs or resource utilization. Conclusion: The use of virtual care in patients with hematologic malignancies appears to be feasible, even in high-risk populations. Patients were highly satisfied with virtual care, although providers had some challenges related to the specific technologies. More research is needed to evaluate the optimal method of integrating virtual care, informed by a wider range of patient-related outcomes, as well as the downstream consequences of this integration for patient, providers, and health systems. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Prica: Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria; Kite Gilead: Honoraria.

Outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy infected with COVID-19 have not been aggregated. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the risk of death and other important outcomes for these patients. We searched PubMed and EMBASE up to 20 August 2020 to identify reports of patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19. The primary outcome was a pooled mortality estimate, considering all patients and only hospitalized patients. Secondary outcomes included risk of intensive care unit admission and ventilation in hospitalized patients. Subgroup analyses included mortality stratified by age, treatment status, and malignancy subtype. Pooled prevalence, risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirty-four adult and 5 pediatric studies (3377 patients) from Asia, Europe, and North America were included (14 of 34 adult studies included only hospitalized patients). Risk of death among adult patients was 34% (95% CI, 28-39; N = 3240) in this sample of predominantly hospitalized patients. Patients aged ≥60 years had a significantly higher risk of death than patients, Key Points • Adult patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19 found a 34% risk of death, whereas pediatric patients had a 4% risk of death. • Patients on systemic anticancer therapy had a similar risk of death to patients on no treatment (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.83-1.64).

PURPOSE Recent studies of polatuzumab vedotin and CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) have shown significant improvements in progression-free survival over standard of care (SOC) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, they are costly, and it is unclear whether these strategies, alone or combined, are cost-effective over SOC. METHODS A Markov model was constructed to compare four strategies for patients with newly diagnosed intermediate- to high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: strategy 1: polatuzumab-rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (R-CHP) plus second-line CAR-T for early relapse (< 12 months); strategy 2: polatuzumab-R-CHP plus second-line salvage therapy ± autologous stem-cell transplant; strategy 3: rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus second-line CAR-T for early relapse; strategy 4: SOC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus second-line salvage therapy ± autologous stem-cell transplant). Transition probabilities were estimated from trial data. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from US and Canadian payer perspectives. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $150,000 US dollars (USD) or Canadian dollars (CAD)/QALY were used. RESULTS In probabilistic analyses (10,000 simulations), each strategy was incrementally more effective than the previous strategy, but also more costly. Adding polatuzumab-R-CHP to the SOC had an ICER of $546,956 (338,797-1,199,923) USD/QALY and $245,381 (151,671-573,250) CAD/QALY. Adding second-line CAR-T to the SOC had an ICER of $309,813 (190,197-694,200) USD/QALY and $303,163 (221,300-1,063,864) CAD/QALY. Simultaneously adding both polatuzumab-R-CHP and second-line CAR-T to the SOC had an ICER of $488,284 (326,765-840,157) USD/QALY and $267,050 (182,832-520,922) CAD/QALY. CONCLUSION Given uncertain incremental benefits in long-term survival and high costs, neither polatuzumab-R-CHP frontline, CAR-T second-line, nor a combination are likely to be cost-effective in the United States or Canada at current pricing compared with the SOC.

The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on vaccine responsiveness in patients who have received anti-CD20 therapy. PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to 4 January 2021 to identify studies of vaccine immunogenicity in patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy, including patients with hematologic malignancy or autoimmune disease. The primary outcomes were seroprotection (SP), seroconversion (SC), and/or seroresponse rates for each type of vaccine reported. As the pandemic influenza vaccine (2009 H1N1) has standardized definitions for SP and SC, and represented a novel primary antigen similar to the COVID-19 vaccine, meta-analysis was conducted for SC of studies of this vaccine. Pooled estimates, relative benefit ratios (RBs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirty-eight studies (905 patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy) were included (19 studies of patients with hematologic malignancies). Patients on active (

Background In many jurisdictions, cancer patients were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination because of increased risk of infection and death. To understand sociodemographic disparities that affected timely receipt of COVID-19 vaccination among cancer patients, we undertook a population-based study in Ontario, Canada. Methods Patients older than 18 years and diagnosed with cancer January 2010 to September 2020 were identified using administrative data; vaccination administration was captured between approval (December 2020) up to February 2022. Factors associated with time to vaccination were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Results The cohort consisted of 356 535 patients, the majority of whom had solid tumor cancers (85.9%) and were not on active treatment (74.1%); 86.8% had received at least 2 doses. The rate of vaccination was 25% lower in recent (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.76) and nonrecent immigrants (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.81). A greater proportion of unvaccinated patients were from neighborhoods with a high concentration of new immigrants or self-reported members of racialized groups (26.0% vs 21.3%, standardized difference = 0.111, P Conclusions Despite funding of vaccines and prioritization of high-risk populations, marginalized patients were less likely to be vaccinated. Differences are likely due to the interplay between systemic barriers to access and cultural or social influences affecting uptake.

BACKGROUND Platelets are the most commonly discarded blood product in Canada, with the most common cause of in-date product loss being improper storage. Transport containers to maintain temperature and extend acceptable return time may represent a method to reduce wastage. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a validated Platelet Transport Bag (PTB) on platelet wastage. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Thirty-six hospitals with the highest platelet discards were invited to participate in a before-after observational study. Hospitals were instructed to utilize a validated 4-h PTB for clinical situations where immediate transfusion was not planned. Five hospitals audited in-date platelet discards from July 2018 to November 2019 to characterize wastage causes. In-date platelet discard data 12 months before and after the start date for each site were analyzed to determine changes in wastage. RESULTS Of 36 hospital sites, 16 agreed to participate. Pre- and postdiscards were 277 and 301, respectively, for all sites combined. There were no significant before-after change in wastage rate (+0.05%, p = .51). Fifty discards were included in the detailed audit; the most common reasons were return to the blood bank after more than 60 min outside a PTB (n = 17, 34%) and return in a red cell cooler (n = 10, 20%). CONCLUSION Implementation of PTB did not improve wastage. Common causes of in-date discards were return after 1 h outside of a PTB and placement in a red cell cooler in error. Further research is required to investigate potential strategies to mitigate in-date platelet wastage.