key: cord-335140-njg0ln33 authors: Freeman, Ciara L; Mikhael, Joseph title: Covid‐19 and Myeloma: what are the implications for now and in the future? date: 2020-05-19 journal: Br J Haematol DOI: 10.1111/bjh.16815 sha: doc_id: 335140 cord_uid: njg0ln33 The pandemic has affected every aspect of myeloma care. Immediate focus is minimizing risk of contracting COVID‐19 and the sequelae of infection. However, what does the future hold for our patients? What lessons will be taken forward to tackle myeloma in the fiscally constrained future? If we embrace the challenges that will emerge in the post‐pandemic environment, the treatment delivered to patients could be more cost effective and better tailored than before. Healthcare delivery post‐COVID will not return to how it was, and now is the time to invest in novel strategies to deliver the best possible outcomes for patients. At the time of writing, the outbreak of the highly infectious novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID- 19) has swept across all 5 continents, with over 4 million confirmed cases globally (May 9, 2020) (1) . This pandemic has led to significant changes in the way physicians interact with all our patients -and how our patients interact with us. In the short term, the focus has been on liberating much-needed capacity in our facilities as well as minimizing risk to patients and other essential care providers by eliminating all non-critical in-person interactions. In addition, we are choosing alternative management wherever possible to reduce individual patient susceptibility. Elective procedures, anything deemed non-essential and even clinical trials are, for the most part, on hold. Patients with underlying plasma cell dyscrasias are understandably anxious, concerned about progression of their disease during this time of crisis but equally not wishing to undergo immunosuppressive therapy while the pandemic continues unchecked. Our immediate response is critical to reassure and optimise each patient to the best of our ability. We also need to consider that the way we deliver care to myeloma patients may forever be changed as a result of the outbreak of COVID-19. This global crisis could force the myeloma Accepted Article community to scrutinise our practices and ask whether every test, every treatment and every patient interaction is truly delivering value to our vulnerable population, both in the immediate-term and also in the future. This can, and should serve as an opportunity to do better, delivering more value for patients in the face of global economic recession. Immediate changes to myeloma care in response to COVID-19 The basics -limit, isolate and protect There are now many resources that document the key steps necessary to protect cancer patients, and centres in affected countries have largely adopted these approaches (2, 3) . In brief -patient visits that can be postponed or conducted via telemedicine (see below) should be changed. Wherever possible, geographical separation of low versus high risk patients should be aggressively pursued as per the infectious control guidance found on the WHO and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) websites (4, 5). All patients should be screened prior to attending (ideally by telephone the day before) the chemotherapy unit or outpatient settings, and again (in person) at designated, restricted entry points. Patients felt to be at risk can then be identified early and appropriate referral either to a dedicated area for further assessment or to an acute care/COVID-19 assessment centre can be One of the first and easiest changes in practice for many was to switch in-person visits to telemedicine (6) . For myeloma patients, who are frequently elderly, may have co-morbidities, variable frailty or mobility issues this is probably one of the most welcome strategies that has been employed -and perhaps will be one of the most positive changes to emerge from this pandemic (7) (8) (9) . It goes without saying that some patients will continue to require a direct clinical assessment and examination. However, limiting interaction to this group of patients only will liberate clinical space, allow better distancing and reduce the number of patients This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved attending outpatient centres. There is reassurance out there that telemedicine has been shown to be at least equivalent to in-person care and is associated with high levels of patient satisfaction (10) . The urgency of the situation created by the pandemic has forced the regulatory bodies and those responsible for re-imbursement to finally address existing barriers to the delivery of telemedicine that will likely benefit myeloma patients for years to come (11) . Patients with myeloma are already an at-risk group for infectious complications, in particular viral infections and pneumonia (12) . Minimising immunosuppressive therapy wherever possible has become a key strategy in the face of COVID-19. There will remain a number of critically unwell, or high-risk patients for whom this strategy cannot be employed. Myeloma can be very aggressive and if patients have very active disease limiting their ideal care is not advisable. However, for those that can, many are considering the early reduction or elimination of corticosteroids once patient's disease appears to have stabilized (13, 14) . A shift in focus in favour of dose reductions (especially in the maintenance setting) to minimize neutropenia (15), more liberal use of GCSF support and drug "holidays" may be carefully considered for some if deemed appropriate. Careful discussion with each patient is required to establish the risk vs benefit of treatment modifications in the light of the ongoing pandemic. Potential adaptations in appropriately selected patients the face of this crisis could include:  Temporary substitution of ixazomib for bortezomib, especially in patients with good disease control on combination therapy or maintenance (16, 17)  Moving more quickly to monthly administration of daratumumab once tumor burden has been reduced (18)  For many, once-weekly dosing of bortezomib and carfilzomib has already become standard of care, and if not, we would advocate in favour of reducing the schedule to This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved this at minimum (19) (20) (21) In select patients with responsive, controlled disease with low tumour burden, temporarily decreasing the frequency of administration to every second week could be a potential option (22) Delay or cancellation of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been recommended wherever possible given its significant and prolonged immunosuppression in the current landscape (23, 24). For those patients in whom proceeding with ASCT has been deemed absolutely necessary, increased vigilance will be required in the short-and longerterm, given the increased susceptibility to viral infection that will persist beyond the initial post-transplant period (25) (26) (27) . Until herd immunity is established, the threat of COVID-19 infection for this at-risk population will very likely persist beyond the immediate crisis and may change our recommendations for surveillance and prevention in the post-transplant period indefinitely (28) (29) (30) . Switching to subcutaneous rather than intravenous preparations (e.g. bortezomib, daratumumab, denosumab) can reduce time spent "in chair" and associated exposure risk for those patients needing to remain on parenteral treatment (31) (32) (33) . Reports of patient selfadministration of subcutaneous agents at home suggest this could be feasible in appropriately trained and educated patients (34) (35) (36) (37) . Courier services can be utilised to deliver medications or "drive through" collection of treatment facilitated. In addition, reasonable modifications to supportive care such as reducing the frequency of zoledronic acid to every 3 months rather than every 4 weeks can further reduce the risk of in-person interactions without significantly impacting outcome (38) . The very real risk of hospitalisation posed by COVID-19 has increasingly motivated both patients and treating physicians to actively engage in conversations regarding advance directives, goals of care and end-of-life planning -and to document these clearly (39, 40) . This open communication is crucial to ensure the development of a treatment plan for each patient that is medically appropriate and concordant with the patient's wishes (41). Despite the fact that at the time of writing there are over 3000 published articles on COVID, the data on the true risk posed by this virus to myeloma patients remains immature. Early reports there are suggest that patients with underlying malignancy are at increased risk of both serious morbidity and death (42, 43). Given the existing pre-disposition of myeloma patients to infection generally, in particular viral respiratory infections, it seems reasonable to conclude in the short-term that their risk of serious complications is increased. However, there are early suggestions that certain agents used in the treatment of myeloma could be useful against COVID-19, including selinexor and ixazomib (44) (45) (46) . Angiotensinconverting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a co-receptor for COVID-19, but it remains unclear whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or receptor blockers, which are commonly coprescribed for myeloma patients, could either aggravate or ameliorate the disease (47) (48) (49) . In addition, if a vaccine is ultimately developed, it will need to be ascertained if myeloma patients can mount effective responses or if additional booster doses are needed to confer sufficient protection (50, 51) . Will anti-viral prophylaxis (once available) be required for certain at-risk groups? Only time, and the emergence of more data, will tell. It is hard to conceive that things will return completely to how they were in the wake of the immediate crisis. One myeloma physician has suggested things will now be considered in terms of whether they were "BC" (Before COVID-19) or "AC" (After COVID-19) (52). One major benefit to myeloma patients arising from this pandemic will be the ongoing expansion of virtual healthcare. It has significant advantages for both patients and healthcare systems -it is convenient, liberates resources on site (frees up in-person clinic space), but more This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved importantly saves patients the cost and inconvenience of travel (10) . Shared virtual care with comprehensive myeloma centres could become an option for patients regardless of their geographical location -with potential benefits including improved survival (53). Virtual visits and treatment could also increase access to clinical trials for those living at a distance from investigative centres (10) . Which patients can be considered best served by telemedicine will vary, but could include those under surveillance, stable on maintenance therapy or every other cycle for those on prolonged treatment regimens. Whether a patient can be followed up "virtually" will always be a judgement call, but for those well-served by this approach the technology (and reimbursement) can, and should, support its use. A global recession in the wake of COVID-19 seems undeniable and will undoubtedly have a significant impact on healthcare spending regardless of the underlying revenue source and infrastructure (54) . In an analysis of European countries, fiscal pressure resulting from increased unemployment prompted significant reductions in public spending on health (55) . At the time of writing, estimates suggest that in the United States alone, unemployment resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic could reach levels of to 52.8 million, more than three times worse than the peak of the Great Recession (56) . In the aftermath of that recession there was a significant decrease in the number of employer-sponsored and privately-insured patients seen by physicians (57) . With fewer privately-insured patients, governments will be increasingly facing the bill for antimyeloma drug costs. Commonly employed triplet regimens have a price tag that can range from $60,000 -$590,000 (USD) per annum (58) . Given that myeloma accounts for only 1% of all malignancies, patients are treated for long periods of time and it remains an incurable entity, it would seem inevitable that the cost of treatment will become a fundamental issueregardless of payer, patient or government. The cost of medicines has been highlighted by the WHO as a leading source of inefficiency in health systems. Savings could be substantial This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved if how myeloma drugs are developed, regulated and priced can be better addressed (55, (58) (59) (60) . In this post-COVID, resource constrained, global health economy, we will increasingly need to focus our attention on optimising outcomes and providing the greatest value possible for each and every patient. How might this be achieved in myeloma? There are many potential strategies that could be employed. Some possibilities include:  Conducting appropriately designed trials that identify those who can safely stop therapy (e.g. NCT04221178)  Using genomic information a priori to predict treatment benefit (61, 62)  Establishing drug sensitivity of plasma cells upfront with the aim of selecting more cost-effective regimens (63) (64) (65)  Integrating a team-based approach to care, with increased utilisation of allied health professionals, pharmacists and nurse-practitioners (66) (67) (68)  Minimizing waste with "LEAN" approaches to myeloma care -process simplification, streamlining drug treatment, standardised and uniform protocols for therapy and surveillance (69, 70)  Reforming the way anti-myeloma medicines are valued and paid for -advocating for better access and fairness for our patients around the globe (58, (71) (72) (73) (74) (75) The importance of these (or any) approaches to improve the value delivered to myeloma patients cannot be emphasized enough. In the grim reality that could emerge from this pandemic, resources will be tighter than ever before for patient and payers alike and rationing care could become an even more commonplace reality. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved The need to triumph over adversity COVID-19 has challenged the global population in ways we could not possibly have imagined. In the short term, our focus as myeloma treaters is on minimising risk and keeping our patients, wherever possible, out of harm's way. In the longer term, we will need to rise to the challenges posed by the post-pandemic environment. We will need to find leaner and smarter ways to deliver the best care possible to our patients. We will need to advocate with a united voice for better value therapy and use innovative technology and science to the best of their advantage. What started with adversity can, with the right mindset, evolve into great opportunity. COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering Managing Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Agility and Collaboration Toward a Common Goal A Practical Approach to the Management of Cancer Patients During the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: An International Collaborative Group Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings: Centres for Disease Control and Prevention 2F2019-ncov%2Finfection-control%2Fcontrol-recommendations.html Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Infection prevention and control: WHO.int; 2020 [Available from: Accepted Article This article is protected by copyright Virtually Perfect? Telemedicine for Covid-19 How I treat fragile myeloma patients A simplified frailty scale predicts outcomes in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated in the FIRST (MM-020) trial Myeloma in Elderly Patients: When Less Is More and More Is More Telemedicine in Cancer Care Covid-19 and Health Care's Digital Revolution Multiple myeloma and infections: a population-based study on 9253 multiple myeloma patients Risks, severity and timing of infections in patients with multiple myeloma: a longitudinal cohort study in the era of immunomodulatory drug therapy Accepted Article This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved 15 How to Manage Neutropenia in Multiple Myeloma Four phase 3 studies of the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib for multiple myeloma in the newly-diagnosed, relapsed/refractory, and maintenance settings: TOURMALINE-MM1, -MM2, -MM3, and -MM4 Pharmacokinetics of Daratumumab Following Intravenous Infusion in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma After Prior Proteasome Inhibitor and Immunomodulatory Drug Treatment Once-weekly versus twice-weekly carfilzomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a pooled analysis of two phase 1/2 studies. Haematologica. 2019:haematol Once-versus twice-weekly carfilzomib in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma by select patient characteristics: phase 3 A.R.R.O.W. study subgroup analysis INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR COVID-19 MANAGEMENT IN HEMATOPOIETIC CELL TRANSPLANT AND CELLULAR THERAPY PATIENTS Accepted Article This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved Version 1.2: ASTCT; 2020 Management of respiratory viral infections in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients Coronavirus 229E-Related Pneumonia in Immunocompromised Patients Respiratory Virus Infections of the Stem Cell Transplant Recipient and the Hematologic Malignancy Patient Herd immunity: Understanding COVID-19 How I vaccinate blood and marrow transplant recipients Respiratory virus infections after stem cell transplantation: a prospective study from the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Treating Multiple Myeloma Patients With Oral Therapies Subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (COLUMBA): a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Haematology Accepted Article This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved 33 Denosumab versus zoledronic acid in bone disease treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study Home administration of bortezomib in multiple myeloma is cost-effective and is preferred by patients compared with hospital administration: results of a prospective single-center study Bortezomib selfinjection is time-saving, cost-neutral and well received by patients with myeloma or AL amyloidosis: Results from the "SUBLIME" study Subcutaneous Administration of Biotherapeutics: An Overview of Current Challenges and Opportunities Home Administration of Subcutaneous Rituximab Is Safe and Associated with Significant Cost Saving: A Single Center Experience Effect of Longer-Interval vs Standard Dosing of Zoledronic Acid on Skeletal Events in Patients With Bone Metastases The impact of disease-related symptoms and palliative care concerns on health-related quality of life in multiple myeloma: a multi-centre study Timeliness of Endof-Life Discussions for Blood Cancers Is Early Palliative Care Feasible in Patients With Multiple Myeloma? Accepted Article This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved 42 Cancer patients in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a nationwide analysis in China COVID-19 and Cancer: Lessons From a Pooled Meta-Analysis CoV-2-Human Protein-Protein Interaction Map Reveals Drug Targets and Potential Drug-Repurposing AI finds potential COVID-19 drugs that can be used on humans immediately Karyopharm to Evaluate Low Dose Selinexor as a Potential Treatment for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin Antihypertensive drugs and risk of COVID-19? -Authors' reply. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine COVID-19 and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Vaccination in Multiple Myeloma: Review of Current Literature Efficacy of single versus boost vaccination against influenza virus in patients with multiple myeloma Association Between Treatment Facility Volume and Mortality of Patients With Multiple Myeloma Economic impacts of Wuhan 2019-nCoV on China and the world Economic crisis, health systems and health in Europe: impact and implications for policy On the Economy Blog: The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank How the Recession is Affecting Health Care The American Academy of Family Physicians Value and Cost of Myeloma Therapy Government becomes Big Pharma. POLITICO. 2020. 60. Bach PB Predicting treatment benefit in multiple myeloma through simulation of alternative treatment effects A gene expression signature distinguishes innate response and resistance to proteasome inhibitors in multiple myeloma An Ex Vivo Platform for the Prediction of Clinical Response in Multiple Myeloma Accepted Article This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved 64 Identification of precision treatment strategies for relapsed/ refractory multiple myeloma by functional drug sensitivity testing Determining therapeutic susceptibility in multiple myeloma by single-cell mass accumulation Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants in Acute and Critical Care Impact of an integrated oral chemotherapy program on patient adherence Collaborative Physician-Pharmacist-Managed Multiple Myeloma Clinic Improves Guideline Adherence and Prevents Treatment Delays Lean oncology: a new model for oncologists Technology integration performance assessment using lean principles in health care No cure, no cost Financial toxicity in insured patients with multiple myeloma: a cross-sectional pilot study. The Lancet Haematology Realigning Incentives for Developing and Pricing New Anticancer Treatments Controlling the cost of innovative cancer therapeutics Accepted Article This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved 75 A global comparison of the cost of patented cancer drugs in relation to global differences in wealth Ciara L Freeman performed the literature search, data collection and wrote the manuscript Joseph Mikhael reviewed and wrote the manuscript. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Freeman: Honoraria from Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Amgen, Celgene and Abbvie, and research funding from Roche and Teva