The common refrain from experts early on was that masks were not needed unless you are sick. I believed this till Mar 29. Then the evidence became too strong that masks were needed for everyone. But the message was that it was only to protect others from you (source control).
2/
But the high rate of serious illness in healthcare workers, the lower mortality in mask wearing countries and COMMON SENSE meant masks must protect the wearer also (work as PPE). People are also more likely to wear a mask of it helps themselves not just others. 3/
The other important message was that while completely preventing infection is hard, masks may preventing serious infection by reducing viral dose. And the whole concept of viral dose and severity that @DrSidMukherjee wrote about in mid March in @NewYorker. Even cloth masks help.
It takes much longer for private citizens (who have a day job) to analyze data & events & come to a conclusion. By late March, many of us were literally screaming for masks ahead of CDC & WHO. The wobbling made the public doubt the unequivocal importance of masks. @jeremyphoward
Any now the messaging should be clear and unequivocal. -Masks protect others from you (source control).
-Masks protect you from others (PPE)
-Masks reduce viral dose and may make the disease milder, & function analogous to a vaccine
-Any mask is OK, except ones with valves
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
FDA approval doesn’t necessarily mean standard of care.
Thread.
1/
For example FDA approved Dara VMP for frontline therapy in myeloma in 2018.
Literally no one used the regimen in the US.
Literally no one felt the regimen was standard of care in the US.
Before or after approval!
Why?
FDA adjudicates a sponsors submission on whether a given drug/regimen has met the burden of proving safety and efficacy.
Standard of care in clinical practice is a different standard: judgment of risk/benefit of available alternatives, and assessment of trial design/end points.
Cure is a simple word. But there is confusion when it comes to cancer. What cure is in cancer, and what we should aspire for?
When can we say that a given type of cancer is curable?
Thread
1/
There is a difference between when we can say a particular cancer is a curable type versus whether individual patients with a given cancer can be considered potentially cured.
They are not the same.
2/
To call a cancer curable we must be able to treat the cancer for a finite duration, stop all therapy, and know that a certain % of patients will never relapse
Early stage solid tumors, Hodgkin lymphoma, DLBCL, ALL, AML are curable. Real cure. The definition of curable cancer
3/
The 4 big myeloma randomized trials to watch out for @ASCO #ASCO24
1. Isa-VRd vs Isa-Rd newly diagnosed
2.Isa-VRd vs VRd (IMROZ)
3.DREAMM8 Bela-Pd vs Pd
4.Ven Dex vs Pom Dex (Canova)
See thread for why they are important.
1) The Triplet vs Quad trials with will define role of quads in elderly patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. They also provide frontline phase III data with Isatuximab— and a choice between Dara and Isa. For some patients Isa will be more cost effective. @Myeloma_Doc #ASCO24
2) Belantamab will make a comeback.
Corneal toxicity is low with reduced frequency dosing. The drug works very well. And in many patients with refractory myeloma belantamab may be safer and easier to do than bispecifics. We need options. #ASCO24
2/ Even though CART (cilta-cel) is approved for first relapse we are NOT including it in our main algorithm. Reserved only for special circumstances in this population. We have a long track record with standard triplets, and we are concerned about CART side effects.
3/ The current approach for second or higher relapse continues to define 3 specific types of Triple Class refractory. This makes it easier for clinicians to consider options.
To my followers who wonder what MOC is, and why many doctors are tweeting about it. Thread.
1) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) is a redundant requirement thrust on US physicians by a private organization. We resent it.
2) MOC is causing frustration and burnout. Over the years, ABIM certification and MOC have become entrenched and institutions and insurers require it and will not accept any other alternative.
I am advocating on behalf of my colleagues in the US for change. To end MOC.
3) MOC requires us to pay fees imposed on us by a private organization and take multiple choice question tests irrelevant to our practice.