No abstract

The objective was to decrease the time to antibiotic administration for patients arriving in the pediatric emergency department with fever and neutropenia. A multidisciplinary team was assembled and engaged in process analysis through interviews and data review. These findings were used to develop key drivers, and Pareto charts were utilized to prioritize interventions. Interventions were tested and implemented using rapid Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. Progress was monitored using process control charts. Interventions included leveraging a secure text-based messaging platform, creating a new antibiotic pathway, and educating staff and family. Between September 2016 and September 2017, the average time to antibiotics was decreased from 116 to 55 minutes in this population. This also was associated with a decrease in variation (individual moving range mean decreased from 43 minutes to 18 minutes). Careful process analysis, coupled with the work of a multidisciplinary team, produced significant improvements in efficiency of care for these vulnerable patients.

Background: Despite a potential for cure, a large proportion of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) succumb early to hemorrhagic and thrombotic complications. Prompt initiation of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) has been associated with improved outcomes. However, little is known about the patterns of care and clinical outcomes of patients with APL in the United States (US) outside of the controlled trial setting. Method s : We identified APL patients (pts) included in the Vizient Clinical Database/Resource Manager (CDB/RM™), which includes patient demographics, hospital characteristics, charge-level medication usage, procedures and mortality data from over 100 academic health centers and affiliated hospitals. Initial inpatient encounters of adult APL pts (≥18 years) during 2014-2015 (most recent years available) were identified by ICD-10 code (C92.40; C92.42) or ICD-9 codes for acute myeloid leukemia (AML; 250.00, 205.02) plus receipt of ATRA for ≥3 days as monotherapy, or in combination with arsenic trioxide (ATO) or an anthracycline. The 3-day minimum ATRA requirement is intended to exclude AML patients who may have therapy initiated while awaiting diagnostic confirmation. Pts were excluded if information on discharge disposition or medication administration were missing or if patients had an ICD-9/10 code consistent with relapsed AML/APL. Primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice. Pearson's Chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables in bivariate analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between patient, hospital, and treatment characteristics with the primary outcome. We lacked information on laboratory test results needed to assess the impact of treatment on clinical outcomes. Results: We identified 486 pts treated at 76 hospitals. Patient demographic, treatment and hospital characteristics are shown in Table 1. Median length of stay was 30 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 22-36 days). Pts received a median of 26 days of ATRA (IQR: 12-34 days). The majority of pts was treated with ATRA + ATO (240 pts; 49.4%) or ATRA + anthracycline (146 pts; 30.0%), which are the standard of care for lower- and higher-risk APL, respectively. Forty-two pts (9.3%) received ATRA monotherapy and 58 (11.9%) were treated with ATRA + ATO + anthracycline. Forty-eight pts (9.9%) required endotracheal intubation. Overall, 54 (11.1%) pts experienced our composite adverse outcome of in-hospital death or transfer to hospice (45 pts [9.3%] died in the hospital; 9 pts [1.9%] were discharged to hospice). Among 45 pts who died in the hospital, median time to death was 17 days (IQR: 5-24 days) with 31.1% of deaths occurring during the first 7 days of hospitalization. Half of the pts (n=18; 50%) who died in the ATRA monotherapy group died within 5 days of admission. In bivariate analyses, age ≥66 years (22.9% vs. 7.9%; p<0.001), endotracheal intubation (64.6% vs. 5.3%; p<0.001), and ATRA monotherapy (42.9% vs. 8.1%; p<0.001) were associated with an increased risk of poor outcome (i.e. inpatient death or discharge to hospice). Similar results were obtained from the multivariable logistic regression model (Table 2). Discussion: A substantial proportion (11%) of adults treated for APL in this large inpatient dataset died or were discharged to hospice. This likely underestimates the full mortality rate of APL, because our APL case definition excluded pts who received <3 days of ATRA therapy, which may have been due to early mortality. Age≥66 years, receipt of ATRA monotherapy or ATRA + anthracycline was associated with higher odds of adverse outcomes. The higher mortality with ATRA + anthracycline compared to ATRA + ATO is likely due to an inherently higher disease risk, but the database lacked laboratory results (e.g. white blood cell count) needed to confirm that hypothesis. Early complications related to coagulopathy or differentiation syndrome that precluded co-administration of ATO or anthracycline could be a potential explanation for the high early mortality rate in pts receiving ATRA monotherapy. Disclosures Wang: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; CTI biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Huntington:Genentech: Consultancy; DTRM: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Neparidze:Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Eidos Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Diagnostic committee member ; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board. Ma:BMS: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Gore:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Zeidan:Acceleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CCITLA: Other; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; MedImmune/Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Taiho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aprea: Research Funding; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Davidoff:Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Background Hypersensitivity reactions to etoposide have been reported and patients have been safely transitioned to etoposide phosphate for continued therapy. However, the safety and efficacy of substituting etoposide phosphate for etoposide has not been well established in pediatric orthopedic malignancies. The aim of this study is to determine whether etoposide phosphate can be substituted for etoposide in pediatric orthopedic malignancies. Methods A chart review of pediatric patients who developed hypersensitivity reactions to etoposide while being treated for orthopedic malignancies was performed at a large academic medical center. Three patients were identified, two with Ewing sarcoma and one with an osteosarcoma. All three patients experienced hypersensitivity reactions to their first doses of etoposide and were switched to etoposide phosphate for further therapy. Results After premedication, all three patients tolerated full doses of etoposide phosphate without a graded dose challenge or desensitization. Two of the patients were premedicated with diphenhydramine alone, while the third received diphenhydramine and dexamethasone. Conclusions Etoposide phosphate is a potentially safe alternative for pediatric patients with orthopedic malignancies who experience etoposide hypersensitivity. However, caution is needed as there are cases of etoposide phosphate hypersensitivity.

Acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is associated with a favorable long-term prognosis if appropriate treatment is initiated promptly. Outcomes in clinical trials and population-based registries vary; potential explanations include a delay in treatment and lower adherence to guideline-recommended therapy in real-world practice. We used the Vizient Clinical Data Base (CDB) to describe demographics, baseline clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns in newly diagnosed APL patients during the study period of April 2017 - March 2020. Baseline white blood cell count (WBC) was used to assign risk status and assess treatment concordance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Logistic regression models examined adjusted associations between patient, hospital, disease characteristics, and adverse outcomes (in-hospital death or discharge to hospice). Among 1,464 APL patients, 205 (14.0%) experienced an adverse outcome. A substantial subset (20.6%) of patients did not receive guideline-concordant regimens. Odds of adverse outcomes increased with failure to receive guideline-concordant treatment (OR: 2.31 [95% CI: 1.43 - 3.75]; p=0.001), high-risk disease (OR: 2.48 [1.53 - 4.00]; p<0.001) and increasing age (≥60 years: OR: 11.13 [95% CI: 4.55 - 27.22]; p<0.001). Higher hospital AML patient volume was associated with lower odds of adverse outcome (OR: 0.44 [0.20 - 0.99] for ≤ 50 vs. >200 AML patients/year; p=0.046). In conclusion, in this large database analysis, 14.0% of newly diagnosed APL patients died or were discharged to hospice. A substantial proportion of patients did not receive guideline-concordant therapy, potentially contributing to adverse outcomes.