Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Patient’s Voice: Personal Experience with Invasive Medical Procedures’ Category


Live Notes and Conference Coverage in Real Time. COVID19 And The Impact on Cancer Patients Town Hall with Leading Oncologists; April 4, 2020

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD 

@StephenJWillia2

UPDATED 4/08/2020 see below

The Second in a Series of Virtual Town Halls with Leading Oncologist on Cancer Patient Care during COVID-19 Pandemic: What you need to know

The second virtual Town Hall with Leading International Oncologist, discussing the impact that the worldwide COVID-19 outbreak has on cancer care and patient care issues will be held this Saturday April 4, 2020.  This Town Hall Series is led by Dr. Roy Herbst and Dr. Hossain Borghaei who will present a panel of experts to discuss issues pertaining to oncology practice as well as addressing physicians and patients concerns surrounding the risk COVID-19 presents to cancer care.  Some speakers on the panel represent oncologist from France and Italy, and will give their views of the situation in these countries.

 

Speakers include:

Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, Ensign Professor of Medicine (Medical Oncology) and Professor of Pharmacology; Chief of Medical Oncology, Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Hospital; Associate Cancer Center Director for Translational Research, Yale Cancer Center

Hossain Borghaei, DO, MS , Chief of Thoracic Medical Oncology and Director of Lung Cancer Risk Assessment, Fox Chase Cancer Center

Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, University of Milan and Head of Phase I Division at IEO, European Institute of Oncology

Paolo Ascierto, MD National Tumor Institute Fondazione G. Pascale, Medical oncologist from National Cancer Institute of Naples, Italy

Fabrice Barlesi, MD, PhD, Thoracic oncologist Cofounder Marseille Immunopole Coordinator #ThePioneeRproject, Institut Gustave Roussy

Jack West, MD, Department of Medical Oncology & Therapeutics Research, City of Hope California

Rohit Kumar, MD Department of Medicine, Section of Pulmonary Medicine, Fox Chase Cancer Center

Christopher Manley, MD Director, Interventional Pulmonology Fox Chase Cancer Center

Hope Rugo, MD FASCO Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center

Harriet Kluger, MD Professor of Medicine (Medical Oncology); Director, Yale SPORE in Skin Cancer, Yale Cancer Center

Marianne J. Davies, DNP, MSN, RN, APRN, CNS-BC, ACNP-BC, AOCNP Assistant Professor of Nursing, Yale University

Barbara Burtness, MD Professor of Medicine (Medical Oncology);  Head and Neck Cancers Program, Yale University

 

@pharma_BI and @StephenJWillia2 will be Tweeting out live notes using #CancerCareandCOVID19

Live Notes

Part I: Practice Management

Dr. Jack West from City of Hope talked about telemedicine:  Coordination of the patient experience, which used to be face to face now moved to a telemedicine alternative.  For example a patient doing well on personalized therapy, many patients are well suited for a telemedicine experience.  A benefit for both patient and physician.

Dr. Rohit Kumar: In small cancer hospitals, can be a bit difficult to determine which patient needs to come in and which do not.  For outpatients testing for COVID is becoming very pertinent as these tests need to come back faster than it is currently.  For inpatients the issue is personal protection equipment.  They are starting to reuse masks after sterilization with dry heat.   Best to restructure the system of seeing patients and scheduling procedures.

Dr. Christopher Manley: hypoxia was an issue for COVID19 patients but seeing GI symptoms in 5% of patients.  Nebulizers have potential to aerosolize.  For patients in surgery prep room surgical masks are fine.  Ventilating these patients are a challenge as hypoxia a problem.  Myocarditis is a problem in some patients.  Diffuse encephalopathy and kidney problems are being seen. So Interleukin 6 (IL6) inhibitors are being used to reduce the cytokine storm presented in patients suffering from COVID19.

Dr. Hope Rugo from UCSF: Breast cancer treatment during this pandemic has been challenging, even though they don’t use too much immuno-suppressive drugs.  How we decide on timing of therapy and future visits is crucial.  For early stage breast cancer, neoadjuvant therapy is being used to delay surgeries.  Endocrine therapy is more often being used. In patients that need chemotherapy, they are using growth factor therapy according to current guidelines.  Although that growth factor therapy might antagonize some lung problems, there is less need for multiple visits.

For metastatic breast cancer,  high risk ER positive are receiving endocrine therapy and using telemedicine for followups.  For chemotherapy they are trying to reduce the schedules or frequency it is given. Clinical trials have been put on hold, mostly pharmokinetic studies are hard to carry out unless patients can come in, so as they are limiting patient visits they are putting these type of clinical studies on hold.

Dr. Harriet Kluger:  Melanoma community of oncologists gathered together two weeks ago to discuss guidelines and best practices during this pandemic.   The discussed that there is a lack of data on immunotherapy long term benefit and don’t know the effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy.  She noted that many patients on BRAF inhibitors like Taflinar (dabrafenib)   or Zelboraf (vemurafenib) might get fevers as a side effect from these inhibitors and telling them to just monitor themselves and get tested if they want. Yale has also instituted a practice that, if a patient tests positive for COVID19, Yale wants 24 hours between the next patient visit to limit spread and decontaminate.

Marianne Davies:  Blood work is now being done at satellite sites to limit number of in person visits to Yale.  Usually they did biopsies to determine resistance to therapy but now relying on liquid biopsies (if insurance isn’t covering it they are working with patient to assist).  For mesothelioma they are dropping chemotherapy that is very immunosuppressive and going with maintenance pembrolizumab (Keytruda).  It is challenging in that COPD mimics the symptoms of COVID and patients are finding it difficult to get nebulizers at the pharmacy because of shortages; these patients that develop COPD are also worried they will not get the respirators they need because of rationing.

Dr. Barbara Burtness: Head and neck cancer.  Dr. Burtness stresses to patients that the survival rate now for HPV positive head and neck is much better and leaves patients with extra information on their individual cancers.  She also noted a registry or database that is being formed to track data on COVID in patients undergoing surgery  and can be found here at https://globalsurg.org/covidsurg/

About CovidSurg

  • There is an urgent need to understand the outcomes of COVID-19 infected patients who undergo surgery.
  • Capturing real-world data and sharing international experience will inform the management of this complex group of patients who undergo surgery throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, improving their clinical care.
  • CovidSurg has been designed by an international collaborating group of surgeons and anesthetists, with representation from Canada, China, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Korea, Singapore, Spain, United Kingdom, and the United States.

Dr. Burtness had noted that healthcare care workers are at high risk of COVID exposure during ear nose and throat (ENT) procedures as the coronavirus resides in the upper respiratory tract.  As for therapy for head and neck cancers, they are staying away from high dose cisplatin because of the nephrotoxicity seen with high dose cisplatin.  An alternative is carboplatin which generally you do not see nephrotoxicity as an adverse event (a weekly carboplatin).  Changing or increasing dose schedule (like 6 weeks Keytruda) helps reduce immunologic problems related to immunosupression and patients do not have to come in as often.

Italy and France

Dr. Paolo Ascierto:   with braf inhibitors, using in tablet form so patients can take from home.  Also they are moving chemo schedules for inpatients so longer dosing schedules.  Fever still a side effect from braf inhibitors and they require a swab to be performed to ascertain patient is COVID19 negative.  Also seeing pneumonitis as this is an adverse event from checkpoint inhibitors so looking at CT scans and nasal swab to determine if just side effect of I/O drugs or a COVID19 case.  He mentioned that their area is now doing okay with resources.

Dr. Guiseppe Curigliano mentioned about the redesign of the Italian health system with spokes and hubs of health care.  Spokes are generalized medicine while the hubs represent more specialized centers like CV hubs or cancer hubs.  So for instance, if a melanoma patient in a spoke area with COVID cases they will be referred to a hub.  He says they are doing better in his area

In the question and answer period, Dr. West mentioned that they are relaxing many HIPAA regulations concerning telemedicine.  There is a website on the Centers for Connective Health Policy that shows state by state policy on conducting telemedicine.   On immuno oncology therapy, many in the panel had many questions concerning the long term risk to COVID associated with this type of therapy.  Fabrice mentioned they try to postpone use of I/O and although Dr. Kluger said there was an idea floating around that PD1/PDL1 inhibitors could be used as a prophylactic agent more data was needed.

Please revisit this page as the recording of this Town Hall will be made available next week.

UPDATED 4/08/2020

Below find the LIVE RECORDING and TAKEAWAYS by the speakers

 

 
Town Hall Takeaways
 

Utilize Telehealth to Its Fullest Benefit

 

·       Patients doing well on targeted therapy or routine surveillance are well suited to telemedicine

·       Most patients are amenable to this, as it is more convenient for them and minimizes their exposure

·       A patient can speak to multiple specialists with an ease that was not previously possible

·       CMS has relaxed some rules to accommodate telehealth, though private insurers have not moved as quickly, and the Center for Connected Health Policy maintains a repository of current state-by-state regulations:  https://www.cchpca.org/

 

Practice Management Strategies

 

·       In the face of PPE shortages, N95 masks can be decontaminated using UV light, hydrogen peroxide, or autoclaving with dry heat; the masks can be returned to the original user until the masks are no longer suitable for use

·       For blood work or scans, the use of external satellite facilities should be explored

·       Keep pumps outside of the room so nurses can attend to them quickly

·       Limit the use of nebulizers, CPAPs, and BiPAPs due to risk of aerosolization

 

Pool Our Knowledge for Care of COVID Patients

 

·       There is now a global registry for tracking surgeries in COVID-positive cancer patients:  https://globalsurg.org/cancercovidsurg/

·       Caution is urged in the presence of cardiac complications, as ventilated patients may appear to improve, only to suffer severe myocarditis and cardiac arrest following extubation

·       When the decision is made to intubate, intubate quickly, as less invasive methods result in aerosolization and increased risks to staff

 

Study the Lessons of Europe

 

·       The health care system in Italy has been reorganized into “spokes” and “hubs,” with a number of cancer hubs; if there is a cancer patient in a spoke hospital with many COVID patients, this patient may be referred to a hub hospital

·       Postpone adjuvant treatments whenever possible

·       Oral therapies, which can be managed at home, are preferred over therapies that must be administered in a healthcare setting

·       Pneumonitis patients without fevers may be treated with steroids, but nasal swab testing is needed in the presence of concomitant fever

·       Any staff who are not needed on site should be working from home, and rotating schedules can be used to keep people healthy

·       Devise an annual epidemic control plan now that we have new lessons from COVID

 

We Must Be Advocates for Our Cancer Patients

 

·       Be proactive with other healthcare providers on behalf of patients with a good prognosis

·       Consider writing letters for cancer patients for inclusion into their chart, or addendums on notes, then encourage patients to print these out, or give it to them during their visit

·       The potential exists for a patient to be physiologically stable on a ventilator, but intolerant of decannulation; early discussions are necessary to determine reasonable expectations of care

·       Be sure to anticipate a second wave of patients, comprised of cancer patients for whom treatments and surgery have been delayed!

 

Tumor-Specific Learnings

 

Ø  Strategies in Breast Cancer:

·       In patients with early-stage disease, promote the use of neoadjuvant therapy where possible to delay the need for surgery

·       For patients with metastatic disease in the palliative setting, transition to less frequent chemotherapy dosing if possible

·       While growth factors may pose a risk in interstitial lung disease, new guidelines are emerging

 

Ø  Strategies in Melanoma:

·       The melanoma community has released specific recommendations for treatment during the pandemic:  https://www.nccn.org/covid-19/pdf/Melanoma.pdf

·       The use of BRAF/MEK inhibitors can cause fevers that are drug-related, and access to an alternate clinic where patients can be assessed is a useful resource

 

Ø  Strategies in Lung Cancer:

·       For patients who are stable on an oral, targeted therapy, telehealth check-in is a good option

·       For patients who progress on targeted therapies, increased use of liquid biopsies when appropriate can minimize use of bronchoscopy suites and other resources

·       For patients on pembrolizumab monotherapy, consider switching to a six-week dosing of 400 mg

·       Many lung cancer patients worry about “discrimination” should they develop a COVID infection; it is important to support patients and help manage expectations and concerns

 

 

Read Full Post »


The Second in a Series of Virtual Town Halls with Leading Oncologist on Cancer Patient Care during COVID-19 Pandemic: What you need to know

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD 

@StephenJWillia2

The second virtual Town Hall with Leading International Oncologist, discussing the impact that the worldwide COVID-19 outbreak has on cancer care and patient care issues will be held this Saturday April 4, 2020.  This Town Hall Series is led by Dr. Roy Herbst and Dr. Hossein Borghaei who will present a panel of experts to discuss issues pertaining to oncology practice as well as addressing physicians and patients concerns surrounding the risk COVID-19 presents to cancer care.  Some speakers on the panel represent oncologist from France and Italy, and will give their views of the situation in these countries.

Please register at the link below.

Link to register: https://us04web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_YzsFbGacTg2DV73j6pYqxQ

This series is being hosted in partnership with Axiom Healthcare Strategies, Inc..

The Town Hall proceedings and live notes will be made available on this site and Live Notes will be Tweeted in Real Time using the #CancerCareandCOVID19 and @pharma_BI

 

Webinar banner

   Microsoft (Outlook)
Topic

COVID-19 Oncology Town Hall
Description

The goal of these town halls is to improve outcomes of cancer patients across the globe, by sharing insights and lessons learned from oncologists fighting COVID-19. Dr. Roy Herbst and Dr. Hossein Borghaei will be joined by a panel of thought leaders with expertise in a variety of solid tumors to discuss how COVID-19 has impacted patient care in oncology.

Following the session, a video, transcript, and key takeaways will be released on Monday 4/6.

Time

For Live Notes From the Last Town Hall Meeting Specifically on Lung Cancer and COVID19 please go to

For more information on Cancer Care and Issues of Cancer and COVID19 please see our Coronavirus Portal at

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

 

 

Read Full Post »


US Responses to Coronavirus Outbreak Expose Many Flaws in Our Medical System

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

The  coronavirus pandemic has affected almost every country in every continent however, after months of the novel advent of novel COVID-19 cases, it has become apparent that the varied clinical responses in this epidemic (and outcomes) have laid bare some of the strong and weak aspects in, both our worldwide capabilities to respond to infectious outbreaks in a global coordinated response and in individual countries’ response to their localized epidemics.

 

Some nations, like Israel, have initiated a coordinated government-private-health system wide action plan and have shown success in limiting both new cases and COVID-19 related deaths.  After the initial Wuhan China outbreak, China closed borders and the government initiated health related procedures including the building of new hospitals. As of writing today, Wuhan has experienced no new cases of COVID-19 for two straight days.

 

However, the response in the US has been perplexing and has highlighted some glaring problems that have been augmented in this crisis, in the view of this writer.    In my view, which has been formulated after social discussion with members in the field ,these issues can be centered on three major areas of deficiencies in the United States that have hindered a rapid and successful response to this current crisis and potential future crises of this nature.

 

 

  1. The mistrust or misunderstanding of science in the United States
  2. Lack of communication and connection between patients and those involved in the healthcare industry
  3. Socio-geographical inequalities within the US healthcare system

 

1. The mistrust or misunderstanding of science in the United States

 

For the past decade, anyone involved in science, whether directly as active bench scientists, regulatory scientists, scientists involved in science and health policy, or environmental scientists can attest to the constant pressure to not only defend their profession but also to defend the entire scientific process and community from an onslaught of misinformation, mistrust and anxiety toward the field of science.  This can be seen in many of the editorials in scientific publications including the journal Science and Scientific American (as shown below)

 

Stepping Away from Microscopes, Thousands Protest War on Science

Boston rally coincides with annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference and is a precursor to the March for Science in Washington, D.C.

byLauren McCauley, staff writer

Responding to the troubling suppression of science under the Trump administration, thousands of scientists, allies, and frontline communities are holding a rally in Boston’s Copley Square on Sunday.

#standupforscience Tweets

 

“Science serves the common good,” reads the call to action. “It protects the health of our communities, the safety of our families, the education of our children, the foundation of our economy and jobs, and the future we all want to live in and preserve for coming generations.”

It continues: 

But it’s under attack—both science itself, and the unalienable rights that scientists help uphold and protect. 

From the muzzling of scientists and government agencies, to the immigration ban, the deletion of scientific data, and the de-funding of public science, the erosion of our institutions of science is a dangerous direction for our country. Real people and communities bear the brunt of these actions.

The rally was planned to coincide with the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference, which draws thousands of science professionals, and is a precursor to the March for Science in Washington, D.C. and in cities around the world on April 22.

 

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/02/19/stepping-away-microscopes-thousands-protest-war-science

https://images.app.goo.gl/UXizCsX4g5wZjVtz9

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/85438fbe-278d-11e7-928e-3624539060e8

 

 

The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) also had marches for public awareness of science and meaningful science policy at their annual conference in Washington, D.C. in 2017 (see here for free recordings of some talks including Joe Biden’s announcement of the Cancer Moonshot program) and also sponsored events such as the Rally for Medical Research.  This patient advocacy effort is led by the cancer clinicians and scientific researchers to rally public support for cancer research for the benefit of those affected by the disease.

Source: https://leadingdiscoveries.aacr.org/cancer-patients-front-and-center/

 

 

     However, some feel that scientists are being too sensitive and that science policy and science-based decision making may not be under that much of a threat in this country. Yet even as some people think that there is no actual war on science and on scientists they realize that the public is not engaged in science and may not be sympathetic to the scientific process or trust scientists’ opinions. 

 

   

From Scientific American: Is There Really a War on Science? People who oppose vaccines, GMOs and climate change evidence may be more anxious than antagonistic

 

Certainly, opponents of genetically modified crops, vaccinations that are required for children and climate science have become louder and more organized in recent times. But opponents typically live in separate camps and protest single issues, not science as a whole, said science historian and philosopher Roberta Millstein of the University of California, Davis. She spoke at a standing-room only panel session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, held in Washington, D.C. All the speakers advocated for a scientifically informed citizenry and public policy, and most discouraged broadly applied battle-themed rhetoric.

 

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/

 

      In general, it appears to be a major misunderstanding by the public of the scientific process, and principles of scientific discovery, which may be the fault of miscommunication by scientists or agendas which have the goals of subverting or misdirecting public policy decisions from scientific discourse and investigation.

 

This can lead to an information vacuum, which, in this age of rapid social media communication,

can quickly perpetuate misinformation.

 

This perpetuation of misinformation was very evident in a Twitter feed discussion with Dr. Eric Topol, M.D. (cardiologist and Founder and Director of the Scripps Research Translational  Institute) on the US President’s tweet on the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine based on President Trump referencing a single study in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.  The Twitter thread became a sort of “scientific journal club” with input from international scientists discussing and critiquing the results in the paper.  

 

Please note that when we scientists CRITIQUE a paper it does not mean CRITICIZE it.  A critique is merely an in depth analysis of the results and conclusions with an open discussion on the paper.  This is part of the normal peer review process.

 

Below is the original Tweet by Dr. Eric Topol as well as the ensuing tweet thread

 

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1241442247133900801?s=20

 

Within the tweet thread it was discussed some of the limitations or study design flaws of the referenced paper leading the scientists in this impromptu discussion that the study could not reasonably conclude that hydroxychloroquine was not a reliable therapeutic for this coronavirus strain.

 

The lesson: The public has to realize CRITIQUE does not mean CRITICISM.

 

Scientific discourse has to occur to allow for the proper critique of results.  When this is allowed science becomes better, more robust, and we protect ourselves from maybe heading down an incorrect path, which may have major impacts on a clinical outcome, in this case.

 

 

2.  Lack of communication and connection between patients and those involved in the healthcare industry

 

In normal times, it is imperative for the patient-physician relationship to be intact in order for the physician to be able to communicate proper information to their patient during and after therapy/care.  In these critical times, this relationship and good communication skills becomes even more important.

 

Recently, I have had multiple communications, either through Twitter, Facebook, and other social media outlets with cancer patients, cancer advocacy groups, and cancer survivorship forums concerning their risks of getting infected with the coronavirus and how they should handle various aspects of their therapy, whether they were currently undergoing therapy or just about to start chemotherapy.  This made me realize that there were a huge subset of patients who were not receiving all the information and support they needed; namely patients who are immunocompromised.

 

These are patients represent

  1. cancer patient undergoing/or about to start chemotherapy
  2. Patients taking immunosuppressive drugs: organ transplant recipients, patients with autoimmune diseases, multiple sclerosis patients
  3. Patients with immunodeficiency disorders

 

These concerns prompted me to write a posting curating the guidance from National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated cancer centers to cancer patients concerning their risk to COVID19 (which can be found here).

 

Surprisingly, there were only 14 of the 51 US NCI Cancer Centers which had posted guidance (either there own or from organizations like NCI or the National Cancer Coalition Network (NCCN).  Most of the guidance to patients had stemmed from a paper written by Dr. Markham of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle Washington, the first major US city which was impacted by COVID19.

 

Also I was surprised at the reactions to this posting, with patients and oncologists enthusiastic to discuss concerns around the coronavirus problem.  This led to having additional contact with patients and oncologists who, as I was surprised, are not having these conversations with each other or are totally confused on courses of action during this pandemic.  There was a true need for each party, both patients/caregivers and physicians/oncologists to be able to communicate with each other and disseminate good information.

 

Last night there was a Tweet conversation on Twitter #OTChat sponsored by @OncologyTimes.  A few tweets are included below

https://twitter.com/OncologyTimes/status/1242611841613864960?s=20

https://twitter.com/OncologyTimes/status/1242616756658753538?s=20

https://twitter.com/OncologyTimes/status/1242615906846547978?s=20

 

The Lesson:  Rapid Communication of Vital Information in times of stress is crucial in maintaining a good patient/physician relationship and preventing Misinformation.

 

3.  Socio-geographical Inequalities in the US Healthcare System

It has become very clear that the US healthcare system is fractioned and multiple inequalities (based on race, sex, geography, socio-economic status, age) exist across the whole healthcare system.  These inequalities are exacerbated in times of stress, especially when access to care is limited.

 

An example:

 

On May 12, 2015, an Amtrak Northeast Regional train from Washington, D.C. bound for New York City derailed and wrecked on the Northeast Corridor in the Port Richmond neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Of 238 passengers and 5 crew on board, 8 were killed and over 200 injured, 11 critically. The train was traveling at 102 mph (164 km/h) in a 50 mph (80 km/h) zone of curved tracks when it derailed.[3]

Some of the passengers had to be extricated from the wrecked cars. Many of the passengers and local residents helped first responders during the rescue operation. Five local hospitals treated the injured. The derailment disrupted train service for several days. 

(Source Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Philadelphia_train_derailment)

What was not reported was the difficulties that first responders, namely paramedics had in finding an emergency room capable of taking on the massive load of patients.  In the years prior to this accident, several hospitals, due to monetary reasons, had to close their emergency rooms or reduce them in size. In addition only two in Philadelphia were capable of accepting gun shot victims (Temple University Hospital was the closest to the derailment but one of the emergency rooms which would accept gun shot victims. This was important as Temple University ER, being in North Philadelphia, is usually very busy on any given night.  The stress to the local health system revealed how one disaster could easily overburden many hospitals.

 

Over the past decade many hospitals, especially rural hospitals, have been shuttered or consolidated into bigger health systems.  The graphic below shows this

From Bloomberg: US Hospital Closings Leave Patients with Nowhere to go

 

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/JdZ6UtaG3Ra3EA3J8

 

Note the huge swath of hospital closures in the midwest, especially in rural areas.  This has become an ongoing problem as the health care system deals with rising costs.

 

Lesson:  Epidemic Stresses an already stressed out US healthcare system

 

Please see our Coronavirus Portal at

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

 

for more up-to-date scientific, clinical information as well as persona stories, videos, interviews and economic impact analyses

and @pharma_BI

Read Full Post »


Reporter: Gail S. Thornton

This article appeared on the website of Cardiovascular Business

‘Patient No. 1’ from a Hep C heart transplant study shares his story

By the time three transplant physicians approached Tom Giangiulio Jr. about being the first patient in a new clinical trial to accept a heart from a Hepatitis C-positive donor, Giangiulio didn’t have much of a choice.

He had already been on the heart transplant waitlist for more than two years, he was a live-in at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and he had a body size (6-foot-2, 220 pounds) and blood type (O-positive) that was difficult to match to a donor.

It took Giangiulio less than 24 hours to speak to his previous cardiologist and his family and decide to enroll in the program. The doctors at Penn explained to him that because of new medications that can cure Hepatitis C, they were confident the virus could be eradicated post-transplant.

“There was no hesitation at all, not with me,” said Carin Giangiulio, Tom’s wife of 33 years. “Because I knew what the alternative was and we didn’t have too much choice except for going on a VAD (ventricular assist device) … and he didn’t want to do that. I said, ‘If they have a cure, then it’s a no-brainer. Let’s just do it.’ And I’m glad we did because I don’t think he would’ve been here today.”

Tom, 59, is set to celebrate his second anniversary with his new heart in June. He received the heart the day after Father’s Day in 2017 and subsequently contracted Hepatitis C, which was promptly wiped out with a 12-week regimen of elbasvir/grazoprevir (Zepatier).

Some of Giangiulio’s doctors at Penn published in February their experience with the first 10 patients in the clinical trial, called USHER, in the American Journal of Transplantation. All nine patients who survived were cured of Hepatitis C thanks to the antiviral therapy.

The implications of the research are massive, said Rhondalyn McLean, MD, MHS, the medical director of Penn’s heart transplant program and lead author of the recently published study. For the past two decades, the U.S. has struggled to increase the number of heart transplants above about 3,000 per year. And every year, patients die waiting for a heart transplant or become too sick to handle a transplant surgery.

McLean estimated 700 hearts from donors with Hepatitis C are discarded each year in the U.S. If even half of those are suitable for transplant, it would increase by 10 percent the number of organs that are available for implantation.

“There are so many people who have end-stage heart failure who die waiting for transplant, so anytime that we can increase our access to organs then I think we’re all going to be happy about that,” McLean said. “I think the people believe in the medicine, they believe that Hepatitis C is curable, so the risk to these folks is low. With the results of the study, I think we’ve proven that we can do this safely and the medications have great efficacy.”

Transplanting Hepatitis C-positive hearts isn’t a new idea, McLean explained.

“We used to do this all the time (with) the thinking that Hepatitis C usually doesn’t cause a problem for many, many years, so if hearts are only going to last 13 years or so and Hepatitis C doesn’t usually cause a problem for 30 years in someone, it should be an OK thing to do,” she said.

But then a study published in the 1990s found Hepatitis C-negative patients who accepted a heart from a donor with Hepatitis C actually had an increased risk of death compared to those who received normal hearts, and the practice of using these organs ceased.

However, with the new medications—the first commercially available treatment for Hepatitis C was approved by the FDA in 2014—McLean and her team are systematically studying the safety of implanting these hearts and then wiping out the virus once it’s contracted. And they’re optimistic about the program, which showed the first 10 patients had no evidence of the virus after their 12-week medication regimens.

“That met the criteria for sustained virologic response and those patients are deemed to be cured,” she said. “There’s no reason to think that this population would be any different than your normal, nontransplant population (in terms of Hepatitis C reappearing) so I think it was a pretty successful study.”

Penn researchers are also studying a similar approach in kidney and lung transplant candidates, which could help patients stuck on waitlists for those organs as well.

McLean described the increasing availability of these organs as an “unfortunate benefit” of the opioid epidemic. Through sharing needles, many opioid users are contracting Hepatitis C and dying young. Organs from young donors tend to perform better and often have no other problems, so solving the Hep C issue through medication could have a huge impact if this strategy is eventually rolled out on a broader scale.

“It’s hard when you have single-center studies,” McLean said. “They’re always promising, but in order to get a better assessment of what we’re doing and how the drug is doing I think you need to combine numbers so there has to be a registry that looks at all of the patients who have received these drugs and then using numbers to determine whether this is a successful strategy for us. And I believe that it will be.”

Those are the large-scale implications of this research. Tom Giangiulio can share the personal side.

Patient No. 1

Giangiulio said he feels “extremely gifted” to be Patient No. 1 in the USHER program. He knows he may not be alive if he wasn’t.

He recalls going into ventricular tachycardia about a week before his transplant and said it “scared the daylights” out of him.

“The amount of red tape, meetings and research, technology, and things that had to happen at a very precise moment in time for me to be the first … it’s mind-boggling to think about it,” he said. “But for all that to happen and for it to happen when it happened—and for me to get the heart when I got it—there was a lot of divine intervention along with a lot of people that were involved.”

Giangiulio has also experienced some powerful moments since receiving the transplant. After a bit of written correspondence with his donor’s family, he met the young man’s family one weekend in December of 2018.

He said riding over to the meeting was probably the most tense he’s ever been, but once he arrived the experience far exceeded his expectations.

“We were there for 2 ½ hours and nobody wanted to leave,” Giangiulio said.

The donor’s mother got Giangiulio a gift, a ceramic heart with a photograph of her son. A fellow transplant patient had told Giangiulio about a product called Enso, a kidney-shaped object you can hold in your hand which plays a recording of a user’s heartbeat.

Giangiulio decided to give it to her.

“I was very cautious at the advice of the people here at Penn,” he said. “Nobody knew how she would react to it. It might bother her, she could be thrilled to death. And she was, she was thrilled to death with it and she sleeps with it every night. She boots up the app and she listens to my heartbeat on that app every night.”

Another moment that sticks out to Giangiulio is meeting Patient No. 7 in the USHER program, who he remains in touch with. They ran into each other while waiting to get blood work done, and began talking about their shared experience as transplant recipients.

The clinical trial came up and Giangiulio slow-played his involvement, asking Patient No. 7 about the trial and not letting on that he was ultra-familiar with the program.

When Giangiulio finally told him he was Patient No. 1, Patient No. 7 “came launching out of his chair” to hug him.

“He said, ‘I owe you my life,’” Giangiulio recalled.

After Giangiulio responded that it was the doctors he really owed, Patient No. 7 said he had specifically asked how Patient No. 1 was doing when McLean first offered the program to him.

“She explained that I was going to be No. 7. … I didn’t care about 6, 5, 4, 3 or 2. I wanted to know how No. 1 was doing,” Giangiulio recalled of the conversation. “He said, ‘That was you. … They told me how well you were doing and that if I wanted you’d come here and talk to me, so I owe you.’”

Giangiulio feels strongly about giving back and reciprocating the good fortune he’s had. That’s why he talks to fellow patients and the media to share his story—because it could save other people’s lives, too.

He can’t do as much physical labor as he used to, but he remains involved in the excavating company he owns with his brothers and is the Emergency Management Coordinator for Waterford Township, New Jersey. He also serves on the township’s planning board and was previously Director of Public Safety.

“To me, he’s Superman,” Carin Giangiulio said. “It was insane, completely insane what the human body can endure and still survive.”

That now includes being given a heart with Hepatitis C and then wiping out the virus with the help of modern medicine.

“I would tell (other transplant candidates) to not fear it, especially if you’re here at Penn,” Giangiulio said. “I know there’s a lot of good hospitals across the country, but my loyalty kind of lies here for understandable reasons.”

Other related articles were published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

2016

People with blood type O have been reported to be protected from coronary heart disease, cancer, and have lower cholesterol levels.

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/01/11/people-with-blood-type-o-have-been-reported-to-be-protected-from-coronary-heart-disease-cancer-and-have-lower-cholesterol-levels/

2015

A Patient’s Perspective: On Open Heart Surgery from Diagnosis and Intervention to Recovery

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2015/05/10/a-patients-perspective-on-open-heart-surgery-from-diagnosis-and-intervention-to-recovery/

No evidence to change current transfusion practices for adults undergoing complex cardiac surgery: RECESS evaluated 1,098 cardiac surgery patients received red blood cell units stored for short or long periods

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2015/04/08/no-evidence-to-change-current-transfusion-practices-for-adults-undergoing-complex-cardiac-surgery-recess-evaluated-1098-cardiac-surgery-patients-received-red-blood-cell-units-stored-for-short-or-lon/

2013

ACC/AHA Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/11/05/accaha-guidelines-for-coronary-artery-bypass-graft-surgery/

On Devices and On Algorithms: Arrhythmia after Cardiac SurgeryPrediction and ECG Prediction of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Onset

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/05/07/on-devices-and-on-algorithms-arrhythmia-after-cardiac-surgery-prediction-and-ecg-prediction-of-paroxysmal-atrial-fibrillation-onset/

 

Editor’s note:

I wish to encourage the e-Reader of this Interview to consider reading and comparing the experiences of other Open Heart Surgery Patients, voicing their private-life episodes in the ER that are included in this recently published volume, The VOICES of Patients, Hospital CEOs, Health Care Providers, Caregivers and Families: Personal Experience with Critical Care and Invasive Medical Procedures.

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2017/11/21/the-voices-of-patients-hospital-ceos-health-care-providers-caregivers-and-families-personal-experience-with-critical-care-and-invasive-medical-procedures/

 

I also wish to encourage the e-Reader to consider, if interested, reviewing additional e-Books on Cardiovascular Diseases from the same Publisher, Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group, on Amazon.com.

  • Perspectives on Nitric Oxide in Disease Mechanisms, on Amazon since 6/2/12013

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DINFFYC

  • Cardiovascular, Volume Two: Cardiovascular Original Research: Cases in Methodology Design for Content Co-Curation, on Amazon since 11/30/2015

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B018Q5MCN8

  • Cardiovascular Diseases, Volume Three: Etiologies of Cardiovascular Diseases: Epigenetics, Genetics and Genomics, on Amazon since 11/29/2015

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B018PNHJ84

  • Cardiovascular Diseases, Volume Four: Regenerative and Translational Medicine: The Therapeutics Promise for Cardiovascular Diseases, on Amazon since 12/26/2015

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B019UM909A

Read Full Post »


Reporter: Gail S. Thornton

This article appeared on the web site of Harley Street Concierge, one of the U.K.’s leading independent providers of clinical, practical and emotion support for cancer patients. 

Cancer at Work: An Interview With Barbara Wilson

Whether you’re supporting an employee through cancer at work. Or you’re a cancer patient struggling to get the support you need. Either way, this Q and A with Barbara Wilson will help you out. Read on for a glimpse into Barbara’s personal experience with breast cancer. Find out where companies are falling short of supporting employees. Discover what you need to do if you’re feeling unsupported at work. And learn what’s unacceptable for Barbara in a modern and civilised society.

In a 2013 interview about cancer at work, you expressed amazement at “the lack of understanding there is about cancer. And what the impact is on individuals”. How would you say this has improved in the last 4 years? And what do you feel still needs to change?

There’s greater awareness and understanding about cancer at work. More organisations are aware of the difficulties people face. But many organisations don’t appreciate that recovery isn’t straightforward or quick. They also tend to rely on generic return to work policies. And these are inappropriate when it comes to supporting people recovering from cancer. A lot still depends on how far the local line manager is prepared to support an employee. And whether they’ll bend rules if need be about leave or sick pay.

You were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005 and given the all clear in 2010. What did you learn about yourself through treatment and recovery?

 

I learned that I wasn’t immortal or superhuman! And also that life is precious and so it’s important to make the best of it. That doesn’t actually mean counting off things on your bucket list. Or living each day as if it’s your last. It’s about appreciating what you have, family, friends and the sheer joy of being alive.

“Life is precious. It’s about appreciating what you have, family, friends and the sheer joy of being alive.”

It’s a common misperception that people in remission want more family time or to travel the world. What reasons do your clients share with you for wanting to get back to work?

Yes. Before I had cancer, I remember asking a terminally ill employee why she still wanted to work. And she worked until a fortnight before her death. The simple answer is that it’s about feeling normal. Using your brain. Being with friends and colleagues rather than on your own. And losing yourself in your work. There are also financial reasons. But typically – and I can say this based on my own experience – it’s about being ‘you’ again rather than a cancer patient.

“I remember asking a terminally ill employee why she still wanted to work. And she worked until a fortnight before her death. Typically – and I can say this based on my own experience – it’s about being ‘you’ again rather than a cancer patient.”

You share tips for employers and HR professionals in this article for Macmillan. And you set out how to support a colleague during and after cancer treatment. What would you say to an employee who isn’t feeling supported by their employer or colleagues in this way?

In my experience there are two main reasons why people often aren’t supported.

1. Bosses and colleagues don’t understand the full impact of cancer treatment. They won’t understand what fatigue is or chemo brain or peripheral neuropathy. So they often expect people to get ‘back to normal’ work after 6 to 8 weeks. But recovery can take many months. This isn’t helped by the person often looking fit and well.

2. People don’t like talking about cancer at work. They feel awkward. And as a result often decide to say nothing. We advise people to be open from the outset. To understand their right to reasonable adjustments. And their responsibility to update their employer about their recovery and support needs. Employees recovering from cancer often have to take the lead. They have to guide their colleagues about the specific help they need. You can’t expect others to do it for you. It sounds wrong but that’s how it is.

“Bosses and colleagues often expect people to get ‘back to normal’ work after 6 to 8 weeks. But recovery can take many months. “

More than 100,000 people had to wait more than 2 weeks to see a cancer specialist in the UK last year. 25,153 had to wait more than 62 days to start treatment. What’s your reaction to these statistics?

It’s shocking. The worry for patients and their families during this period is totally debilitating. And on top of this it means that the cancer is growing unchecked. Where the cancer is aggressive, the delay may threaten lives. And it will certainly add to the overall costs of care. We really have to address this. It’s just not acceptable in a modern and civilised society.

“The worry for patients and their families during this period is totally debilitating. We really have to address this.”

Finally, can you tell us more about Working With Cancer?

Working With Cancer is a social enterprise and was established in June 2014. We support people affected by cancer to lead fulfilling and rewarding working lives. That means helping people to successfully return to work or remain in work. Or sometimes it’s about helping people to find work – depending on their personal needs. We work with corporate, charities and other third sector organisations to support people throughout the UK.

We coach people diagnosed with cancer to re-establish their working lives. And we train employers to understand how to manage work and cancer. We’ll advise teams about how to support a colleague affected by cancer. And we help carers juggle work whilst supporting their loved ones. Working With Cancer also helps organisations to update or improve their policies.

Barbara Wilson - Cancer at Work

About Barbara Wilson

Barbara Wilson is a senior HR professional with almost 40 years’ experience.  Roles include Group Head of Strategic HR at Catlin Group Ltd. Deputy Head of HR at Schroders Investment Management. And Chief of Staff to the Group HR Director at Barclays. After a breast cancer diagnosis, Barbara launched Working With Cancer. It’s a Social Enterprise providing coaching, training and consultancy to employers, employees, carers and health professionals.

 

For more information about Working With Cancer, click here to visit the websiteFollow this link to connect with Barbara on Twitter. Email admin@workingwithcancer.co.uk. Or call 07508 232257 or 07919 147784.

 

SOURCE

https://harleystreetconcierge.com/cancer-at-work/

Other posts on the JP Morgan 2019 Healthcare Conference on this Open Access Journal include:

2018

Top 10 Cancer Research Priorities

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2018/12/24/top-10-cancer-research-priorities/

Innovation + Technology = Good Patient Experience

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2018/12/24/innovation-technology-good-patient-experience/

2017

Inspiring Book for ALL Cancer Survivors, ALL Cancer Patients and ALL Cardiac Patients – The VOICES of Patients, Hospitals CEOs, Health Care Providers, Caregivers and Families: Personal Experience with Critical Care and Invasive Medical Procedures

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2017/10/24/inspiring-book-for-all-cancer-survivors-all-cancer-patients-and-all-cardiac-patients-the-voices-of-patients-hospitals-ceos-health-care-providers-caregivers-and-families-personal-experience-with/

2016

Funding Opportunities for Cancer Research

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/12/08/funding-opportunities-for-cancer-research/

2012

The Incentive for “Imaging based cancer patient’ management”

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/08/27/the-incentive-for-imaging-based-cancer-patient-management/

Read Full Post »


Tweets by @pharma_BI and @AVIVA1950 for #PMConf  at The 13th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference, From Concept to the Clinic, November 14–16, 2017, Joseph B. Martin Conference Center, Harvard Medical School, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur Boston, MA 02115

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

 

All TWEETS from LPBI’s Twitter.com handles at #PMConf 

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

  1. Aviva Lev-Ari Retweeted Gary An

    nice comment

    Aviva Lev-Ari added,

  2. Narrative plan unsupported by facts

  3. Robert C. Green, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Genomes2People Research Program, Professor of Medicine (Genetics), Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Broad Institute and Harvard Medical School pharmacogenomics can harm if odds are so low adherence will be lower

  4. Michael Snyder, Ph.D., Stanford W. Ascherman Professor, Chair, Department of Genetics, Director, Center of GenomiPersonalized Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine Personal sequencing for multiple etiologies rich people are sequenced

  5. Tom Miller, M.S., Founder, Managing Partner, GreyBird Ventures LLC duty to call up therapies that will not work, balance addressed by PM – diagnostics in PM clinical utility from patient selection for the therapy the patient will respond to

  6. Sandro Galea, M.D., School of Public Health, Boston University US expense on Health care the highest in the World comes on the expense of housings, mental health, education – curative vs preventive care MDs are insentiviced to keep patients sick

  7. Robert C. Green, M.D., Broad Institute and HMS Platinum vs gold standard 59 genes will identify 80,000 will get the disease and 47,000 will never get the disease, is the technology the reason for investment vs Family history?

  8. Bryce Olson, Global Marketing Director, Health and Life Sciences Group, Intel Corporation Genome sequencing found his Pi3K Pathway – PIK3CA p.E54 – Anti Inhibitor for Pi3K = Precision Medicine

  9. Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA 21st Century – metastatic solid tumors – 900 patients: accommodated plan Lab developed Tests: new approach Efficiency, transparency

  10. innovation INFORMS at NIH Center of Excellence – data collection and analysis of multiple data types Biometric sensors collecting data on cancer patients collaboration with Academia, single arm vs randomized decentralized devices are collecting data

  11. FDA considers N of One, small samples, EGFR drug was approved in 2 1/2 years since Phase 1 of NDA New trial designs: reduce bias and alternative end points narrow criteria for participation, more personalized and more patient-centered innovation

  12. Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA Advances of technology of biomarkers, disease indication Accelerated approval by FDA a collaborative of speeding the process companion diagnosis assays

  13. Unmet need, commitment is there, innovation and connectivity drive access, collaboration not competition – helps Precision medicine in emerging nations. Access to PM anywhere in the world suggested Kristin Pothier, MS, Global Head, Life Sciences EY

  14. Stephen L. Eck, M.D., Ph.D., President, CEO, Aravive Biologics; Board Chairman, PMC Laxo – A molecular target to be found by diagnostics TEST — as a basis to develop a drug Pricing and value – dimensions of Value to society How PM is done today?

  15. Marc S. Williams, MD Geisinger Clinical Genomics vs Physician specialist (i.e.,hypercholestoralemia), both in same place – paper and EMR Outcomes – tracking patients over decades – systems in place to capture the data Virtual Cycle Clinical data

  16. Timothy Cannon, M.D., Inova Molecular Tumor Board, 5 hospital in VA, Precision Genomics Cancer Therapy Poor understanding of molecular results by MDs, Refractory Patients no Forum to discuss other options 220 patients presented beyond InovaOncologi

  17. Scott A. Beck, Mayo Clinic, MN, AZ PM, Genomics sequencing, BioEthics, IT, Translational Perspective in Epi-genomics, Discovery to Translation Applicattions Pharmacy- Formulary – EMR – Champions from Disease areas to practice environment Testing

  18. payment dominates delivery of care, future PM from Genomics cost to patients Transform acceptability of PM suggested Ronald A. Paulus, M.D., M.B.A., President, CEO, Mission Health, NC, ex-Geisinger, CIO

  19. Genomics based PM to be turned into Wellness Strategy – the path not yet knows said Jeffrey R. Balser, M.D., Ph.D., Dean, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; President, CEO, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN

  20. Millianlian Diabetics NOT on Medicare, Analytics: iPhone telling patient dishes to order since SYSTEM KNOWS BLOOD SUGER 24×7 – target care by Analytics Genomics paid by NIH PM Analytics is built at Vanderbilt University MC, Jeffrey R. Balser, CEO

  21. Survival of patient with mutation and targeted drug LIVE LONGER David B. Roth, M.D., Ph.D., Simon Flexner Professor Chair, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania

  22. Lotte Steuten, Ph.D., School of Pharmacy at University of Washington, Seattle aggregate big data , models as evidence, has value to clinical, the model under development NGS Profile of Patient vs current standard of care.

  23. David B. Roth, M.D., Ph.D., UPenn Director, Penn Center for Precision Medicine 5000 patients underwent genome sequencing Interpretation is the issue that is hard Health IT are still in silos: Pharmacy data, financial data, EMR

  24. Michael Pellini, M.D., M.B.A., Chairman, Board of Directors, Foundation Medicine; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition, we know there is value in PM we need to work together on the challenges — to prove the value in PM

  25. Andrea Stern Ferris, M.B.A., President, Chairman of the Board, LUNGevity Foundation – PATIENT to be included in the conversation patient after successful treatment have hope work pay taxes pay to health plans continue family life

  26. Molecular Era, NEJM, 2017, 377, 1813-1823, BRAF in Melanoma – 80% do not need additional therapy vs 20% benefitted in the Non-Molecular Era, data by Dane J. Dickson, CureOne (formerly MED-C); Oregon Health and Science University

  27. CURES – CAR-T are they cures??? A teen-ager’s Value-based Price: $475,000 x years lived suggests  Steven D. Pearson, M.D., M.Sc., Founder, President, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)

  28. Of 134 drugs in development – 42 have the potential to become Personalized medicine therapies, said Stephen J. Ubl, President, CEO, PhRMA

  29. Transplantation vs enhancement – resistance to senescence and pathogens to be achieved by gene editing suggests George M. Church, Ph.D., Professor of Genetics

  30. Regulatory oversight on engineering embrios is coming, metric of success in recruitment of patients said Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D., Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Chair, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York Univ

  31. CRISPR does not handle all mutation many require a different editing tool said George M. Church, Ph.D., Professor of Genetics, Health Sciences and Technology, Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology

  32. understand well enough  the gentic application where CRISPR will assist medicine: Retinal degeneration, two aspects one worked in Japan said Katrine Bosley, CEO, Editas Medicine

  33. Aviva Lev-Ari Retweeted Aviva Lev-Ari

    Amazing Power in hands of informed patients

    Aviva Lev-Ari added,

  34. Patients input and sophistication increased – IRB is not aware of the engagement of Patients and their challenging feedback say Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H, Dana Farber

  35. Physicians needs interfaces, dashboard information delivered to MDs, data sits unused, new tools are needed for the data display by relevance to the MDs – clinicians needs decision support in their office

  36. Standards: Toxicity criteria – library of 882 symptoms, Patient reported outcomes by Patients, Resist criteria applied to imaging data criteria for brain tumors said Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H., Chief Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber

  37. drafting document on Verify data integrity in clinical trials, detect discrepancies compromise the integrity of the data – audits by FDA said Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA

  38. pre-existing autoimmune disease – not indicated for them Immunotherapy even though patients wish to try said Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H., Chief, Division of Population Sciences, Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

  39. Drug approved for one indication, provide new data for supplemental indications said Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA

  40. Eric G. Klein, Pharm.D, Eli Lilly Aggregate burden of disease, existence of co-morbidities Genomics: WHY is explained – precise tools data vs intelligence – interoperability Past clinical trial, replicate studies retrospective data

  41. linkages vs computational techniques we do not have consistent data, data structured Vital sign or WBC count – we have data standardization is evolving said Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H., Chief, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

  42. use data sets prospective vs retrospective studies asked Amy Abernethy, M.D., Ph.D., Chief Medical Officer, Chief Scientific Officer, Flatiron Health; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition

  43. Clinical sense vs research context, FDA is more comfortable with other than oncology products beyond drugs, namely diagnostics, diagnostics company seeking partnership with many drug areas Thermo FIscher and Novartis partnership

  44. Cost of CT Scan vs an NGS Test – Genomic testing is much cheaper yet volume is still low said Jacob S. Van Naarden, Chief Business Officer, Loxo Oncology

  45. NGS – time results come back what the mutation mean? NOW results come in few days, data analysis assist the said Joydeep Goswami, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.S., President, Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing, Oncology, Thermo Fisher Scientifi

  46. 3D BioPrinting of Drugs and the innovation storm of agents — are both benefits, value based pricing, elasticities, is that price sufficient to support R&D, dynamic environment said Joshua Ofman, SVP, Global Value, Access, Amgen

  47. Awardee of Leadership in PM, Illumina, HC system not yet ready for Precision Medicine

  48. Amgen and Harvard Pilgrims interpretation of Values related to partnerships: Novartis

  49. at Illimina – Consumer Advocacy added to Technology breakthroughs in genome sequencing said Jay T. Flatley, M.S., Executive Chairman, Illumina

  50. National Genomic Service – Sequencing becoming STANDARD of Care, phynotypes, $10 million to be spent NIH said Jay T. Flatley, M.S., Executive Chairman, Illumina

  51. 13th Annual Leadership in Personalized Medicine Award AWARDEE | Jay T. Flatley, M.S., Executive Chairman, Illumina

  52. 13th Annual Leadership in PM Award to Jay T Flatlet, Illumina

Read Full Post »


Source Articles on Perception of Care: Delivery of Care – External Sources

Reporter and Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

Delivery of Care – External Sources – Intentionally are Left as References in Live Links.

  1. Track, trigger and teamwork: Communication of deterioration in acute medical and surgical wards Article
    Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 10-17
    Donohue, L.A.; Endacott, R.
    Cited by Scopus (19)
  2. Communication interaction in ICU-Patient and staff experiences and perceptions Article
    Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 167-180
    Magnus, V.S.; Turkington, L.
    Cited by Scopus (39)
  3. Nursing care in a high-technological environment: Experiences of critical care nurses Article
    Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 116-123
    Tunlind, A.; Granstrom, J.; Engstrom, A.
  4. Knowledge, attitudes and barriers towards prevention of pressure ulcers in intensive care units: A descriptive cross-sectional study Article
    Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 335-342
    Strand, T.; Lindgren, M.
  5. Rehabilitation during mechanical ventilation: Review of the recent literature Review article
    Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, Volume 31, Issue 3, Pages 125-132
    Ntoumenopoulos, G.
  6. Reducing risk for ventilator associated pneumonia through nursing sensitive interventions Article
    Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 261-265
    Micik, S.; Besic, N.; Johnson, N.; Han, M.; Hamlyn, S.; Ball, H.
  7. The lived experiences of adult intensive care patients who were conscious during mechanical ventilation: A phenomenological-hermeneutic study Article
    Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 6-15
    Karlsson, V.; Bergbom, I.; Forsberg, A.
  8. Families’experiences of their interactions with staff in an Australian intensive care unit (ICU): A qualitative study Article
    Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages 51-63
    Wong, P.; Liamputtong, P.; Koch, S.; Rawson, H.
  9. Experiences of critically ill patients in the ICU Article
    Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, Volume 24, Issue 5, Pages 300-313
    Hofhuis, J.G.M.; Spronk, P.E.; van Stel, H.F.; Schrijvers, A.J.P.; Rommes, J.H.; Bakker, J.
    Cited by Scopus (54)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »