CHEST Physician

Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.

According to the Medscape “Right and Wrong in Medicine: Life, Death, and Wrenching Choices” report, how you handle the informed consent process can be the difference between a positive outcome and a negative one.

“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.

In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.

“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”

That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.

“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”

Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.

How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.

“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.

Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.

She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.

When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.

“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
 

Document, document, document!

To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.

“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”

It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.

In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).

“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
 

What happens when things go wrong?

If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.

“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”

Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.

Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.

“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”

To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.

“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”

For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.

Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.

“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”

In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.

“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.

According to the Medscape “Right and Wrong in Medicine: Life, Death, and Wrenching Choices” report, how you handle the informed consent process can be the difference between a positive outcome and a negative one.

“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.

In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.

“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”

That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.

“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”

Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.

How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.

“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.

Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.

She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.

When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.

“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
 

Document, document, document!

To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.

“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”

It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.

In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).

“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
 

What happens when things go wrong?

If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.

“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”

Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.

Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.

“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”

To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.

“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”

For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.

Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.

“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”

In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.

“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.

According to the Medscape “Right and Wrong in Medicine: Life, Death, and Wrenching Choices” report, how you handle the informed consent process can be the difference between a positive outcome and a negative one.

“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.

In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.

“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”

That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.

“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”

Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.

How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.

“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.

Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.

She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.

When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.

“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
 

Document, document, document!

To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.

“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”

It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.

In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).

“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
 

What happens when things go wrong?

If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.

“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”

Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.

Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.

“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”

To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.

“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”

For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.

Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.

“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”

In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.

“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a study published online, researchers used artificial intelligence to analyze more than 1.4 million electronic health record emails to physicians – and the results aren’t pretty.

Among the emails, 43% were from patients; the remainder were mostly from other physicians or clinicians, or automated. The content of the messages wasn’t associated with doctor burnout, as the researchers had hypothesized. And only about 5% of the messages had negative sentiment.

But the researchers were struck by the hostility of that sentiment, displayed in messages like these that surely would be distressing for physicians to read:

“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in he**. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”

“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”

About 5% of emails had an overall negative sentiment, with high-frequency words like “cancel,” “pain,” or “problem.” Among patient messages, 3% were negative and contained words and expletives suggesting hatred, hostility, or violence.

“F***” was the most common expletive used by patients.

Researchers provided examples of profanity-laced messages, including one patient who said, “I am so upset that I was told the blood work would include the gender of the baby. I have been waiting 5 [days] to find it, and it wasn’t even fu**ing tested!!!! What a disappointment in your office and the bullsh** I was told. I will be switching plans because this is sh**!”

Researchers also noted some high-frequency words associated with violence, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill.”

“This is concerning, especially given documentation of patient-inflicted violence against physicians. Health systems should be proactive in ensuring that the in-basket does not become a venue for physician abuse and cyberbullying,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Network Open.

“Posting reminders in EHR patient portals to use kind language when sending messages, applying filters for expletives or threatening words, and creating frameworks for identifying patients who frequently send negative messages are potential strategies for mitigating this risk.”

Using a form of artificial intelligence technology called natural language processing (NLP), researchers at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed the characteristics of more than 1.4 million emails received by the university’s physicians, 43% of them from patients. They specifically looked at the volume of messages, word count, and overall sentiment.

Whereas other studies have examined the growing burden of EHR messaging for doctors, this type of email sentiment analysis could help in creating solutions. Researchers say that one such solution could involve applying filters for expletives or threatening words. It also could help identify fixable health system issues that make patients so angry, the researchers say.

Among the emails from physicians to physicians, just over half reported burnout, which correlated to the following phrases: “I am beginning to burn out and have one or more symptoms of burnout” and “I feel completely burned out [and] am at the point where I may need to seek help.”

On average, physicians who reported burnout received a greater volume of patient messages. The odds of burnout were significantly higher among Hispanic/Latinx physicians and females. Physicians with more than 15 years of clinical practice had markedly lower burnout.

Despite physicians now spending more time on EHR in-basket tasks than they did before the pandemic, the study found no significant associations between message characteristics and burnout.

Data for the cross-sectional study were collected from multiple specialties from April to September 2020. Physicians then completed a survey and assessed their burnout on a 5-point scale. Of the 609 physician responses, approximately 49% of participants were women, 56% were White, and 64% worked in outpatient settings. About 70% of the doctors had been in practice for 15 years or less.

The sentiment score was based on word content as well as the use of negation, punctuation, degree modifiers, all caps, emoticons, emojis, and acronyms. Positive patient messages were more likely to convey gratitude and thanks, along with casual expressions, such as “fyi” and “lol.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a study published online, researchers used artificial intelligence to analyze more than 1.4 million electronic health record emails to physicians – and the results aren’t pretty.

Among the emails, 43% were from patients; the remainder were mostly from other physicians or clinicians, or automated. The content of the messages wasn’t associated with doctor burnout, as the researchers had hypothesized. And only about 5% of the messages had negative sentiment.

But the researchers were struck by the hostility of that sentiment, displayed in messages like these that surely would be distressing for physicians to read:

“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in he**. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”

“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”

About 5% of emails had an overall negative sentiment, with high-frequency words like “cancel,” “pain,” or “problem.” Among patient messages, 3% were negative and contained words and expletives suggesting hatred, hostility, or violence.

“F***” was the most common expletive used by patients.

Researchers provided examples of profanity-laced messages, including one patient who said, “I am so upset that I was told the blood work would include the gender of the baby. I have been waiting 5 [days] to find it, and it wasn’t even fu**ing tested!!!! What a disappointment in your office and the bullsh** I was told. I will be switching plans because this is sh**!”

Researchers also noted some high-frequency words associated with violence, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill.”

“This is concerning, especially given documentation of patient-inflicted violence against physicians. Health systems should be proactive in ensuring that the in-basket does not become a venue for physician abuse and cyberbullying,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Network Open.

“Posting reminders in EHR patient portals to use kind language when sending messages, applying filters for expletives or threatening words, and creating frameworks for identifying patients who frequently send negative messages are potential strategies for mitigating this risk.”

Using a form of artificial intelligence technology called natural language processing (NLP), researchers at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed the characteristics of more than 1.4 million emails received by the university’s physicians, 43% of them from patients. They specifically looked at the volume of messages, word count, and overall sentiment.

Whereas other studies have examined the growing burden of EHR messaging for doctors, this type of email sentiment analysis could help in creating solutions. Researchers say that one such solution could involve applying filters for expletives or threatening words. It also could help identify fixable health system issues that make patients so angry, the researchers say.

Among the emails from physicians to physicians, just over half reported burnout, which correlated to the following phrases: “I am beginning to burn out and have one or more symptoms of burnout” and “I feel completely burned out [and] am at the point where I may need to seek help.”

On average, physicians who reported burnout received a greater volume of patient messages. The odds of burnout were significantly higher among Hispanic/Latinx physicians and females. Physicians with more than 15 years of clinical practice had markedly lower burnout.

Despite physicians now spending more time on EHR in-basket tasks than they did before the pandemic, the study found no significant associations between message characteristics and burnout.

Data for the cross-sectional study were collected from multiple specialties from April to September 2020. Physicians then completed a survey and assessed their burnout on a 5-point scale. Of the 609 physician responses, approximately 49% of participants were women, 56% were White, and 64% worked in outpatient settings. About 70% of the doctors had been in practice for 15 years or less.

The sentiment score was based on word content as well as the use of negation, punctuation, degree modifiers, all caps, emoticons, emojis, and acronyms. Positive patient messages were more likely to convey gratitude and thanks, along with casual expressions, such as “fyi” and “lol.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a study published online, researchers used artificial intelligence to analyze more than 1.4 million electronic health record emails to physicians – and the results aren’t pretty.

Among the emails, 43% were from patients; the remainder were mostly from other physicians or clinicians, or automated. The content of the messages wasn’t associated with doctor burnout, as the researchers had hypothesized. And only about 5% of the messages had negative sentiment.

But the researchers were struck by the hostility of that sentiment, displayed in messages like these that surely would be distressing for physicians to read:

“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in he**. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”

“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”

About 5% of emails had an overall negative sentiment, with high-frequency words like “cancel,” “pain,” or “problem.” Among patient messages, 3% were negative and contained words and expletives suggesting hatred, hostility, or violence.

“F***” was the most common expletive used by patients.

Researchers provided examples of profanity-laced messages, including one patient who said, “I am so upset that I was told the blood work would include the gender of the baby. I have been waiting 5 [days] to find it, and it wasn’t even fu**ing tested!!!! What a disappointment in your office and the bullsh** I was told. I will be switching plans because this is sh**!”

Researchers also noted some high-frequency words associated with violence, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill.”

“This is concerning, especially given documentation of patient-inflicted violence against physicians. Health systems should be proactive in ensuring that the in-basket does not become a venue for physician abuse and cyberbullying,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Network Open.

“Posting reminders in EHR patient portals to use kind language when sending messages, applying filters for expletives or threatening words, and creating frameworks for identifying patients who frequently send negative messages are potential strategies for mitigating this risk.”

Using a form of artificial intelligence technology called natural language processing (NLP), researchers at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed the characteristics of more than 1.4 million emails received by the university’s physicians, 43% of them from patients. They specifically looked at the volume of messages, word count, and overall sentiment.

Whereas other studies have examined the growing burden of EHR messaging for doctors, this type of email sentiment analysis could help in creating solutions. Researchers say that one such solution could involve applying filters for expletives or threatening words. It also could help identify fixable health system issues that make patients so angry, the researchers say.

Among the emails from physicians to physicians, just over half reported burnout, which correlated to the following phrases: “I am beginning to burn out and have one or more symptoms of burnout” and “I feel completely burned out [and] am at the point where I may need to seek help.”

On average, physicians who reported burnout received a greater volume of patient messages. The odds of burnout were significantly higher among Hispanic/Latinx physicians and females. Physicians with more than 15 years of clinical practice had markedly lower burnout.

Despite physicians now spending more time on EHR in-basket tasks than they did before the pandemic, the study found no significant associations between message characteristics and burnout.

Data for the cross-sectional study were collected from multiple specialties from April to September 2020. Physicians then completed a survey and assessed their burnout on a 5-point scale. Of the 609 physician responses, approximately 49% of participants were women, 56% were White, and 64% worked in outpatient settings. About 70% of the doctors had been in practice for 15 years or less.

The sentiment score was based on word content as well as the use of negation, punctuation, degree modifiers, all caps, emoticons, emojis, and acronyms. Positive patient messages were more likely to convey gratitude and thanks, along with casual expressions, such as “fyi” and “lol.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – A single chest x-ray could predict a patient’s 10-year risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke, say researchers who presented the results of their deep-learning model at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Current American College of Cardiologists and American Heart Association guidelines recommend estimating 10-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) to determine whether a patient should receive statins to help prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Statins are recommended for patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% or higher, the authors noted.

The current ASCVD risk score is determined with nine factors: age, sex, race, systolic blood pressure, hypertension treatment, smoking, type 2 diabetes, and a lipid panel.
 

Not all data points available in EHR

But not all of those data points may be available through the electronic health record, “which makes novel and easier approaches for population-wide screening desirable,” said lead researcher Jakob Weiss, MD, a radiologist affiliated with the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and the AI in medicine program at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Chest x-ray images, on the other hand, are commonly available. The images carry rich information beyond diagnostic data but have not been used in this type of prediction model because AI models have been lacking, Dr. Weiss said.

The researchers trained a deep-learning model with single chest x-rays only.

They used 147,497 chest x-rays from 40,643 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Weiss acknowledged that the population used to train the model was heavily White and that should be a consideration in validating the model.

They compared their model’s ability to predict 10-year ASCVD risk with the standard ACC/AHA model.

“Based on a single chest radiograph image, deep learning can predict the risk of future cardiovascular events independent of cardiovascular risk factors and with similar performance to the established and guideline-recommended ASCVD risk score,” Dr. Weiss said.
 

Tested against independent group

They tested the model against an independent group of 11,430 outpatients (average age, 60 years; 42.9% male) who underwent a routine outpatient chest x-ray at Mass General Brigham and were potentially eligible to receive statins.

Of those 11,430 patients, 1,096 (9.6%) had a major adverse cardiac event over the median follow-up of 10.3 years.

There was a significant association of CXR-CVD risk and MACE among patients eligible to receive statins, the researchers found (hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-2.30; P < .001), which remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86; P < .001).

Some of the variables were missing in the standard model, but in a subgroup of 2,401 patients, all the variables were available.

They calculated ASCVD risk in that subgroup using the standard model and the CXR model and found that the performance was similar (c-statistic, 0.64 vs. 0.65; P = .48) to the ASCVD risk score (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20-2.09; P = .001).

Ritu R. Gill MD, MPH, associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that “the predictive algorithm is promising and potentially translatable and could enhance the annual medical checkup in a select population.

“The algorithm was developed using the PLCO cohort with radiographs, which are likely subjects in the lung cancer screening arm,” she said. “This cohort would be at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, as smoking is a known risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, and therefore the results are expected.

“The algorithm needs to be validated in an independent database with inclusion of subjects with younger age groups and adjusted for gender and racial diversity,” Gill said.

David Cho, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also was not part of the study, said in an interview that “this work is a great example of AI being able to detect clinically relevant outcomes with a widely used and low-cost screening test.

“The volume of data needed to train these models is already out there,” Dr. Cho said. “It just needs to be mined.”

He noted that this tool, if validated in randomized trials, could help determine risk among patients living in places where access to specialized cardiac care is limited.

Dr. Weiss and Dr. Cho disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gill has received research support from Cannon Inc and consultant fees from Imbio and WorldCare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – A single chest x-ray could predict a patient’s 10-year risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke, say researchers who presented the results of their deep-learning model at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Current American College of Cardiologists and American Heart Association guidelines recommend estimating 10-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) to determine whether a patient should receive statins to help prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Statins are recommended for patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% or higher, the authors noted.

The current ASCVD risk score is determined with nine factors: age, sex, race, systolic blood pressure, hypertension treatment, smoking, type 2 diabetes, and a lipid panel.
 

Not all data points available in EHR

But not all of those data points may be available through the electronic health record, “which makes novel and easier approaches for population-wide screening desirable,” said lead researcher Jakob Weiss, MD, a radiologist affiliated with the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and the AI in medicine program at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Chest x-ray images, on the other hand, are commonly available. The images carry rich information beyond diagnostic data but have not been used in this type of prediction model because AI models have been lacking, Dr. Weiss said.

The researchers trained a deep-learning model with single chest x-rays only.

They used 147,497 chest x-rays from 40,643 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Weiss acknowledged that the population used to train the model was heavily White and that should be a consideration in validating the model.

They compared their model’s ability to predict 10-year ASCVD risk with the standard ACC/AHA model.

“Based on a single chest radiograph image, deep learning can predict the risk of future cardiovascular events independent of cardiovascular risk factors and with similar performance to the established and guideline-recommended ASCVD risk score,” Dr. Weiss said.
 

Tested against independent group

They tested the model against an independent group of 11,430 outpatients (average age, 60 years; 42.9% male) who underwent a routine outpatient chest x-ray at Mass General Brigham and were potentially eligible to receive statins.

Of those 11,430 patients, 1,096 (9.6%) had a major adverse cardiac event over the median follow-up of 10.3 years.

There was a significant association of CXR-CVD risk and MACE among patients eligible to receive statins, the researchers found (hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-2.30; P < .001), which remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86; P < .001).

Some of the variables were missing in the standard model, but in a subgroup of 2,401 patients, all the variables were available.

They calculated ASCVD risk in that subgroup using the standard model and the CXR model and found that the performance was similar (c-statistic, 0.64 vs. 0.65; P = .48) to the ASCVD risk score (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20-2.09; P = .001).

Ritu R. Gill MD, MPH, associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that “the predictive algorithm is promising and potentially translatable and could enhance the annual medical checkup in a select population.

“The algorithm was developed using the PLCO cohort with radiographs, which are likely subjects in the lung cancer screening arm,” she said. “This cohort would be at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, as smoking is a known risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, and therefore the results are expected.

“The algorithm needs to be validated in an independent database with inclusion of subjects with younger age groups and adjusted for gender and racial diversity,” Gill said.

David Cho, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also was not part of the study, said in an interview that “this work is a great example of AI being able to detect clinically relevant outcomes with a widely used and low-cost screening test.

“The volume of data needed to train these models is already out there,” Dr. Cho said. “It just needs to be mined.”

He noted that this tool, if validated in randomized trials, could help determine risk among patients living in places where access to specialized cardiac care is limited.

Dr. Weiss and Dr. Cho disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gill has received research support from Cannon Inc and consultant fees from Imbio and WorldCare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – A single chest x-ray could predict a patient’s 10-year risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke, say researchers who presented the results of their deep-learning model at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Current American College of Cardiologists and American Heart Association guidelines recommend estimating 10-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) to determine whether a patient should receive statins to help prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Statins are recommended for patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% or higher, the authors noted.

The current ASCVD risk score is determined with nine factors: age, sex, race, systolic blood pressure, hypertension treatment, smoking, type 2 diabetes, and a lipid panel.
 

Not all data points available in EHR

But not all of those data points may be available through the electronic health record, “which makes novel and easier approaches for population-wide screening desirable,” said lead researcher Jakob Weiss, MD, a radiologist affiliated with the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and the AI in medicine program at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Chest x-ray images, on the other hand, are commonly available. The images carry rich information beyond diagnostic data but have not been used in this type of prediction model because AI models have been lacking, Dr. Weiss said.

The researchers trained a deep-learning model with single chest x-rays only.

They used 147,497 chest x-rays from 40,643 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Weiss acknowledged that the population used to train the model was heavily White and that should be a consideration in validating the model.

They compared their model’s ability to predict 10-year ASCVD risk with the standard ACC/AHA model.

“Based on a single chest radiograph image, deep learning can predict the risk of future cardiovascular events independent of cardiovascular risk factors and with similar performance to the established and guideline-recommended ASCVD risk score,” Dr. Weiss said.
 

Tested against independent group

They tested the model against an independent group of 11,430 outpatients (average age, 60 years; 42.9% male) who underwent a routine outpatient chest x-ray at Mass General Brigham and were potentially eligible to receive statins.

Of those 11,430 patients, 1,096 (9.6%) had a major adverse cardiac event over the median follow-up of 10.3 years.

There was a significant association of CXR-CVD risk and MACE among patients eligible to receive statins, the researchers found (hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-2.30; P < .001), which remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86; P < .001).

Some of the variables were missing in the standard model, but in a subgroup of 2,401 patients, all the variables were available.

They calculated ASCVD risk in that subgroup using the standard model and the CXR model and found that the performance was similar (c-statistic, 0.64 vs. 0.65; P = .48) to the ASCVD risk score (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20-2.09; P = .001).

Ritu R. Gill MD, MPH, associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that “the predictive algorithm is promising and potentially translatable and could enhance the annual medical checkup in a select population.

“The algorithm was developed using the PLCO cohort with radiographs, which are likely subjects in the lung cancer screening arm,” she said. “This cohort would be at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, as smoking is a known risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, and therefore the results are expected.

“The algorithm needs to be validated in an independent database with inclusion of subjects with younger age groups and adjusted for gender and racial diversity,” Gill said.

David Cho, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also was not part of the study, said in an interview that “this work is a great example of AI being able to detect clinically relevant outcomes with a widely used and low-cost screening test.

“The volume of data needed to train these models is already out there,” Dr. Cho said. “It just needs to be mined.”

He noted that this tool, if validated in randomized trials, could help determine risk among patients living in places where access to specialized cardiac care is limited.

Dr. Weiss and Dr. Cho disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gill has received research support from Cannon Inc and consultant fees from Imbio and WorldCare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Nearly two-thirds of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are eligible for targeted therapy are not receiving these drugs because of gaps in clinical practice all along the cancer care spectrum, reveals a new analysis of data from U.S. practices.

For some of these patients, it could mean missing the chance for long-term survival or even cure.

One lung cancer patient, Janet Freeman-Daily, recently tweeted that she entered a targeted therapy clinical trial 10 years ago and is still taking the same, now approved, oral drug, with “no evidence of disease.”

Patients who have lung cancer with mutations that can be targeted with drug therapies – but who do not receive them – are missing this opportunity.

The new study suggests that there are many such patients. The researchers analyzed data on more than 38,000 patients with actively managed advanced NSCLC. They found that about half did not receive biomarker test results for a variety of reasons. But even among the half who were successfully tested, 30% of these patients did not receive the appropriate targeted therapies.

Overall, around 64% of eligible patients with advanced NSCLC are not benefiting from the most appropriate therapies, the team concludes.

The research was published online in JCO Precision Oncology.
 

Gaps in clinical practice

The high rate of failure points to clinical practice gaps in “many areas” across the cancer care spectrum, lead author Daryl Pritchard, PhD, from the Personalized Medicine Coalition, Washington, told this news organization.

“There’s various steps along the way that affect clinicians, laboratories, payers, the health providers [and] even patients,” he said. He added that product manufacturers also “have a role.”

“So it’s not an individual group that’s causing the problem. It’s a systemic awareness and systemic need to improve the delivery process.”

Dr. Pritchard underlined that the “the main goal of this analysis is to put everybody on alert that we need to do something about it.

“We need to – and this is easy to say but hard to do – evolve health care from a traditional one-size-fits-all mentality to a value-based strategy where you’re saying we want the best treatments” for patients, he said.

This means developing optimized and standardized laboratory processes, as well as clinical guidelines that set out the standard of care and optimized and integrated clinical decision support.

“We need to work as a community to demonstrate the value of this care and improve education and awareness to providers and payers,” Dr. Pritchard said. “That will encourage value-based practice coverage and reimbursement policies, and then also incentivize utilization in validated cases.”

Julie R. Brahmer, MD, who directs the thoracic oncology program at Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved with the study, said she was not sure whether she would say she was “surprised or disheartened” by the findings.

The study was focused on advanced NSCLC patients treated in 2019. Dr. Brahmer wondered whether the COVID-19 pandemic “might actually have made things worse.”

It will be important to “drill down” into some of the reasons why 30% of patients for whom biomarker testing results were available did not receive the appropriate treatment, she said.

Aside from cost-related problems, one factor at play could be whether the patient saw an oncologist, she said, while another could be that they went “straight to hospice” and were “not healthy enough to be able to tolerate” their targeted therapy.

Greater use of liquid biopsies, which identify biomarkers in the blood, are one way to improve access to biomarker testing, she suggested. It would help if these liquid biopsies were “consistently paid for by the payer, particularly for patients with advanced disease,” she added. Currently, payers often want patients to first undergo a tissue biopsy, which involves lung aspiration and may not be possible for some patients.

“If a Medicare patient is in the hospital when they have their biopsy or surgery, and then they have to wait 14 days in order for mutation tests to be ordered, and then if you add another 2 weeks for that test to come back, or even longer … [These delays] are some of the reasons why patients didn’t end up receiving therapy,” she elaborated.

“Some of these patients just can’t last that long before starting treatment,” she said.

Sandip P. Patel, MD, an oncologist at the Precision Immunotherapy Clinic at the University of California, San Diego, in La Jolla, wondered whether the issue is lack of education among physicians or whether there are potential financial problems. “Is there a financial risk to patients, for example, that is not being captured?” he mused.

It could also be a question of urban vs. rural centers, language barriers in communicating to patients, or other social determinants of health, he added.

At his institution (UCSD), there are “multiple choices” of molecular tests, each with “little nuances that differ among the tests that folks sometimes will take a look at in term of picking the best.

“But the best test is the one that gets done, and here we’re seeing no testing at all” for many patients, he said.

“It’s really unfortunate because for a lot of these patients, not only are they not getting the latest therapy, but they’re often getting something else that’s expensive and toxic instead,” Dr. Patel said.

Referring to the relatively high proportion of patients who didn’t receive targeted therapy even after being tested, he said, “For me, this study leaves more questions and answers.

“We’ve seen a lot of work in this space, showing us the problem,” Dr. Patel said. “What I haven’t yet seen is a very discrete analysis of the cause of that problem upstream.”
 

Cornerstone of personalized medicine

In their article, Dr. Pritchard and colleagues note that more than 90 targeted therapies have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in eligible cancer patients. An estimated 55% of recent oncology trials involved the use of biomarkers.

Predictive biomarker testing to identify patients who may benefit from targeted therapies “is a cornerstone of personalized medicine in cancer care, allowing for more rapid diagnosis while informing treatment decisions that could lead to better patient outcomes and systemic efficiencies,” they emphasize.

However, providers “face several challenges” when integrating biomarker testing and targeted therapeutics into cancer care, and the use of biomarker testing varies widely across tumor types, biomarkers, and practice settings.

For their study, the team examined the use of targeted therapy in advanced NSCLC using data from the Diaceutics Data Repository, which includes commercial and Medicare claims, as well as laboratory data.

They focused on 38,068 patients with actively managed advanced NSCLC. Of those patients, 50.80% were women, and 64.6% were aged 71 years or older. The vast majority (84.50%) were non-Hispanic White patients.

The team examined the impact of seven clinical practice gaps on the timeline from ordering a biopsy to delivering targeted treatment. They then normalized the results to a standard patient population of 1,000.

In 6.6% of cases, an initial tissue or liquid biopsy was never performed, meaning that 66 of the 1,000 patients could not progress toward targeted therapy.

Among those who underwent a biopsy, for 4.0%, there was insufficient tissue on the initial biopsy, while for a further 0.97%, there was insufficient tissue on re-biopsy. Moreover, 9.6% could not undergo biopsy testing because of a lack of tumor tissue. Consequently, a further 136 of the 944 remaining patients were lost.

For the third clinical practice gap, the tumor cell content was overestimated in 1.7% of patients. As a result, their biopsy specimen could not be tested because it did not meet the threshold requirements. This resulted in the loss of a further 14 patients.

Moreover, for a further 17.5% of patients, biomarker testing was not ordered at all, owing to cost concerns, a lack of access to testing, a lack of awareness of testing options, and low confidence in the results, among other reasons. An additional 0.6% began treatment before any testing was ordered; together, that accounted for 142 patients being lost.

Even among patients who underwent biomarker testing, 14.5% had uninformative or inconclusive results, and 3.9% had false-negative results, meaning that a further 118 patients were lost.

In another 4.0% of cases, the results of biomarker testing did not arrive within the treatment decision window, owing to delays in reporting the results, and so for these patients, treatment began without the results being taken into consideration. A further 21 patients were lost.

The final clinical practice gap was not choosing the appropriate targeted treatment on the basis of test results. The researchers found that of 27,186 patients who underwent biomarker testing and received a timely result, 29.2% were not given the corresponding therapy. This resulted in the loss of a further 147 of the original 1,000 patients.

Overall, the team calculated that 64.4% of patients newly diagnosed with advanced NSCLC “are not benefiting from precision oncology care options appropriate for their diseases and will likely have suboptimal outcomes.”

The research was supported in part by the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a nonprofit 501c3 organization dedicated to the advancement of personalized medicine. Dr. Pritchard is an employee of the Personalized Medicine Coalition. A coauthor has relationships with Thermo Fisher Scientific, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Blueprint Medicines, and Oncocyte.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly two-thirds of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are eligible for targeted therapy are not receiving these drugs because of gaps in clinical practice all along the cancer care spectrum, reveals a new analysis of data from U.S. practices.

For some of these patients, it could mean missing the chance for long-term survival or even cure.

One lung cancer patient, Janet Freeman-Daily, recently tweeted that she entered a targeted therapy clinical trial 10 years ago and is still taking the same, now approved, oral drug, with “no evidence of disease.”

Patients who have lung cancer with mutations that can be targeted with drug therapies – but who do not receive them – are missing this opportunity.

The new study suggests that there are many such patients. The researchers analyzed data on more than 38,000 patients with actively managed advanced NSCLC. They found that about half did not receive biomarker test results for a variety of reasons. But even among the half who were successfully tested, 30% of these patients did not receive the appropriate targeted therapies.

Overall, around 64% of eligible patients with advanced NSCLC are not benefiting from the most appropriate therapies, the team concludes.

The research was published online in JCO Precision Oncology.
 

Gaps in clinical practice

The high rate of failure points to clinical practice gaps in “many areas” across the cancer care spectrum, lead author Daryl Pritchard, PhD, from the Personalized Medicine Coalition, Washington, told this news organization.

“There’s various steps along the way that affect clinicians, laboratories, payers, the health providers [and] even patients,” he said. He added that product manufacturers also “have a role.”

“So it’s not an individual group that’s causing the problem. It’s a systemic awareness and systemic need to improve the delivery process.”

Dr. Pritchard underlined that the “the main goal of this analysis is to put everybody on alert that we need to do something about it.

“We need to – and this is easy to say but hard to do – evolve health care from a traditional one-size-fits-all mentality to a value-based strategy where you’re saying we want the best treatments” for patients, he said.

This means developing optimized and standardized laboratory processes, as well as clinical guidelines that set out the standard of care and optimized and integrated clinical decision support.

“We need to work as a community to demonstrate the value of this care and improve education and awareness to providers and payers,” Dr. Pritchard said. “That will encourage value-based practice coverage and reimbursement policies, and then also incentivize utilization in validated cases.”

Julie R. Brahmer, MD, who directs the thoracic oncology program at Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved with the study, said she was not sure whether she would say she was “surprised or disheartened” by the findings.

The study was focused on advanced NSCLC patients treated in 2019. Dr. Brahmer wondered whether the COVID-19 pandemic “might actually have made things worse.”

It will be important to “drill down” into some of the reasons why 30% of patients for whom biomarker testing results were available did not receive the appropriate treatment, she said.

Aside from cost-related problems, one factor at play could be whether the patient saw an oncologist, she said, while another could be that they went “straight to hospice” and were “not healthy enough to be able to tolerate” their targeted therapy.

Greater use of liquid biopsies, which identify biomarkers in the blood, are one way to improve access to biomarker testing, she suggested. It would help if these liquid biopsies were “consistently paid for by the payer, particularly for patients with advanced disease,” she added. Currently, payers often want patients to first undergo a tissue biopsy, which involves lung aspiration and may not be possible for some patients.

“If a Medicare patient is in the hospital when they have their biopsy or surgery, and then they have to wait 14 days in order for mutation tests to be ordered, and then if you add another 2 weeks for that test to come back, or even longer … [These delays] are some of the reasons why patients didn’t end up receiving therapy,” she elaborated.

“Some of these patients just can’t last that long before starting treatment,” she said.

Sandip P. Patel, MD, an oncologist at the Precision Immunotherapy Clinic at the University of California, San Diego, in La Jolla, wondered whether the issue is lack of education among physicians or whether there are potential financial problems. “Is there a financial risk to patients, for example, that is not being captured?” he mused.

It could also be a question of urban vs. rural centers, language barriers in communicating to patients, or other social determinants of health, he added.

At his institution (UCSD), there are “multiple choices” of molecular tests, each with “little nuances that differ among the tests that folks sometimes will take a look at in term of picking the best.

“But the best test is the one that gets done, and here we’re seeing no testing at all” for many patients, he said.

“It’s really unfortunate because for a lot of these patients, not only are they not getting the latest therapy, but they’re often getting something else that’s expensive and toxic instead,” Dr. Patel said.

Referring to the relatively high proportion of patients who didn’t receive targeted therapy even after being tested, he said, “For me, this study leaves more questions and answers.

“We’ve seen a lot of work in this space, showing us the problem,” Dr. Patel said. “What I haven’t yet seen is a very discrete analysis of the cause of that problem upstream.”
 

Cornerstone of personalized medicine

In their article, Dr. Pritchard and colleagues note that more than 90 targeted therapies have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in eligible cancer patients. An estimated 55% of recent oncology trials involved the use of biomarkers.

Predictive biomarker testing to identify patients who may benefit from targeted therapies “is a cornerstone of personalized medicine in cancer care, allowing for more rapid diagnosis while informing treatment decisions that could lead to better patient outcomes and systemic efficiencies,” they emphasize.

However, providers “face several challenges” when integrating biomarker testing and targeted therapeutics into cancer care, and the use of biomarker testing varies widely across tumor types, biomarkers, and practice settings.

For their study, the team examined the use of targeted therapy in advanced NSCLC using data from the Diaceutics Data Repository, which includes commercial and Medicare claims, as well as laboratory data.

They focused on 38,068 patients with actively managed advanced NSCLC. Of those patients, 50.80% were women, and 64.6% were aged 71 years or older. The vast majority (84.50%) were non-Hispanic White patients.

The team examined the impact of seven clinical practice gaps on the timeline from ordering a biopsy to delivering targeted treatment. They then normalized the results to a standard patient population of 1,000.

In 6.6% of cases, an initial tissue or liquid biopsy was never performed, meaning that 66 of the 1,000 patients could not progress toward targeted therapy.

Among those who underwent a biopsy, for 4.0%, there was insufficient tissue on the initial biopsy, while for a further 0.97%, there was insufficient tissue on re-biopsy. Moreover, 9.6% could not undergo biopsy testing because of a lack of tumor tissue. Consequently, a further 136 of the 944 remaining patients were lost.

For the third clinical practice gap, the tumor cell content was overestimated in 1.7% of patients. As a result, their biopsy specimen could not be tested because it did not meet the threshold requirements. This resulted in the loss of a further 14 patients.

Moreover, for a further 17.5% of patients, biomarker testing was not ordered at all, owing to cost concerns, a lack of access to testing, a lack of awareness of testing options, and low confidence in the results, among other reasons. An additional 0.6% began treatment before any testing was ordered; together, that accounted for 142 patients being lost.

Even among patients who underwent biomarker testing, 14.5% had uninformative or inconclusive results, and 3.9% had false-negative results, meaning that a further 118 patients were lost.

In another 4.0% of cases, the results of biomarker testing did not arrive within the treatment decision window, owing to delays in reporting the results, and so for these patients, treatment began without the results being taken into consideration. A further 21 patients were lost.

The final clinical practice gap was not choosing the appropriate targeted treatment on the basis of test results. The researchers found that of 27,186 patients who underwent biomarker testing and received a timely result, 29.2% were not given the corresponding therapy. This resulted in the loss of a further 147 of the original 1,000 patients.

Overall, the team calculated that 64.4% of patients newly diagnosed with advanced NSCLC “are not benefiting from precision oncology care options appropriate for their diseases and will likely have suboptimal outcomes.”

The research was supported in part by the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a nonprofit 501c3 organization dedicated to the advancement of personalized medicine. Dr. Pritchard is an employee of the Personalized Medicine Coalition. A coauthor has relationships with Thermo Fisher Scientific, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Blueprint Medicines, and Oncocyte.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly two-thirds of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are eligible for targeted therapy are not receiving these drugs because of gaps in clinical practice all along the cancer care spectrum, reveals a new analysis of data from U.S. practices.

For some of these patients, it could mean missing the chance for long-term survival or even cure.

One lung cancer patient, Janet Freeman-Daily, recently tweeted that she entered a targeted therapy clinical trial 10 years ago and is still taking the same, now approved, oral drug, with “no evidence of disease.”

Patients who have lung cancer with mutations that can be targeted with drug therapies – but who do not receive them – are missing this opportunity.

The new study suggests that there are many such patients. The researchers analyzed data on more than 38,000 patients with actively managed advanced NSCLC. They found that about half did not receive biomarker test results for a variety of reasons. But even among the half who were successfully tested, 30% of these patients did not receive the appropriate targeted therapies.

Overall, around 64% of eligible patients with advanced NSCLC are not benefiting from the most appropriate therapies, the team concludes.

The research was published online in JCO Precision Oncology.
 

Gaps in clinical practice

The high rate of failure points to clinical practice gaps in “many areas” across the cancer care spectrum, lead author Daryl Pritchard, PhD, from the Personalized Medicine Coalition, Washington, told this news organization.

“There’s various steps along the way that affect clinicians, laboratories, payers, the health providers [and] even patients,” he said. He added that product manufacturers also “have a role.”

“So it’s not an individual group that’s causing the problem. It’s a systemic awareness and systemic need to improve the delivery process.”

Dr. Pritchard underlined that the “the main goal of this analysis is to put everybody on alert that we need to do something about it.

“We need to – and this is easy to say but hard to do – evolve health care from a traditional one-size-fits-all mentality to a value-based strategy where you’re saying we want the best treatments” for patients, he said.

This means developing optimized and standardized laboratory processes, as well as clinical guidelines that set out the standard of care and optimized and integrated clinical decision support.

“We need to work as a community to demonstrate the value of this care and improve education and awareness to providers and payers,” Dr. Pritchard said. “That will encourage value-based practice coverage and reimbursement policies, and then also incentivize utilization in validated cases.”

Julie R. Brahmer, MD, who directs the thoracic oncology program at Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved with the study, said she was not sure whether she would say she was “surprised or disheartened” by the findings.

The study was focused on advanced NSCLC patients treated in 2019. Dr. Brahmer wondered whether the COVID-19 pandemic “might actually have made things worse.”

It will be important to “drill down” into some of the reasons why 30% of patients for whom biomarker testing results were available did not receive the appropriate treatment, she said.

Aside from cost-related problems, one factor at play could be whether the patient saw an oncologist, she said, while another could be that they went “straight to hospice” and were “not healthy enough to be able to tolerate” their targeted therapy.

Greater use of liquid biopsies, which identify biomarkers in the blood, are one way to improve access to biomarker testing, she suggested. It would help if these liquid biopsies were “consistently paid for by the payer, particularly for patients with advanced disease,” she added. Currently, payers often want patients to first undergo a tissue biopsy, which involves lung aspiration and may not be possible for some patients.

“If a Medicare patient is in the hospital when they have their biopsy or surgery, and then they have to wait 14 days in order for mutation tests to be ordered, and then if you add another 2 weeks for that test to come back, or even longer … [These delays] are some of the reasons why patients didn’t end up receiving therapy,” she elaborated.

“Some of these patients just can’t last that long before starting treatment,” she said.

Sandip P. Patel, MD, an oncologist at the Precision Immunotherapy Clinic at the University of California, San Diego, in La Jolla, wondered whether the issue is lack of education among physicians or whether there are potential financial problems. “Is there a financial risk to patients, for example, that is not being captured?” he mused.

It could also be a question of urban vs. rural centers, language barriers in communicating to patients, or other social determinants of health, he added.

At his institution (UCSD), there are “multiple choices” of molecular tests, each with “little nuances that differ among the tests that folks sometimes will take a look at in term of picking the best.

“But the best test is the one that gets done, and here we’re seeing no testing at all” for many patients, he said.

“It’s really unfortunate because for a lot of these patients, not only are they not getting the latest therapy, but they’re often getting something else that’s expensive and toxic instead,” Dr. Patel said.

Referring to the relatively high proportion of patients who didn’t receive targeted therapy even after being tested, he said, “For me, this study leaves more questions and answers.

“We’ve seen a lot of work in this space, showing us the problem,” Dr. Patel said. “What I haven’t yet seen is a very discrete analysis of the cause of that problem upstream.”
 

Cornerstone of personalized medicine

In their article, Dr. Pritchard and colleagues note that more than 90 targeted therapies have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in eligible cancer patients. An estimated 55% of recent oncology trials involved the use of biomarkers.

Predictive biomarker testing to identify patients who may benefit from targeted therapies “is a cornerstone of personalized medicine in cancer care, allowing for more rapid diagnosis while informing treatment decisions that could lead to better patient outcomes and systemic efficiencies,” they emphasize.

However, providers “face several challenges” when integrating biomarker testing and targeted therapeutics into cancer care, and the use of biomarker testing varies widely across tumor types, biomarkers, and practice settings.

For their study, the team examined the use of targeted therapy in advanced NSCLC using data from the Diaceutics Data Repository, which includes commercial and Medicare claims, as well as laboratory data.

They focused on 38,068 patients with actively managed advanced NSCLC. Of those patients, 50.80% were women, and 64.6% were aged 71 years or older. The vast majority (84.50%) were non-Hispanic White patients.

The team examined the impact of seven clinical practice gaps on the timeline from ordering a biopsy to delivering targeted treatment. They then normalized the results to a standard patient population of 1,000.

In 6.6% of cases, an initial tissue or liquid biopsy was never performed, meaning that 66 of the 1,000 patients could not progress toward targeted therapy.

Among those who underwent a biopsy, for 4.0%, there was insufficient tissue on the initial biopsy, while for a further 0.97%, there was insufficient tissue on re-biopsy. Moreover, 9.6% could not undergo biopsy testing because of a lack of tumor tissue. Consequently, a further 136 of the 944 remaining patients were lost.

For the third clinical practice gap, the tumor cell content was overestimated in 1.7% of patients. As a result, their biopsy specimen could not be tested because it did not meet the threshold requirements. This resulted in the loss of a further 14 patients.

Moreover, for a further 17.5% of patients, biomarker testing was not ordered at all, owing to cost concerns, a lack of access to testing, a lack of awareness of testing options, and low confidence in the results, among other reasons. An additional 0.6% began treatment before any testing was ordered; together, that accounted for 142 patients being lost.

Even among patients who underwent biomarker testing, 14.5% had uninformative or inconclusive results, and 3.9% had false-negative results, meaning that a further 118 patients were lost.

In another 4.0% of cases, the results of biomarker testing did not arrive within the treatment decision window, owing to delays in reporting the results, and so for these patients, treatment began without the results being taken into consideration. A further 21 patients were lost.

The final clinical practice gap was not choosing the appropriate targeted treatment on the basis of test results. The researchers found that of 27,186 patients who underwent biomarker testing and received a timely result, 29.2% were not given the corresponding therapy. This resulted in the loss of a further 147 of the original 1,000 patients.

Overall, the team calculated that 64.4% of patients newly diagnosed with advanced NSCLC “are not benefiting from precision oncology care options appropriate for their diseases and will likely have suboptimal outcomes.”

The research was supported in part by the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a nonprofit 501c3 organization dedicated to the advancement of personalized medicine. Dr. Pritchard is an employee of the Personalized Medicine Coalition. A coauthor has relationships with Thermo Fisher Scientific, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Blueprint Medicines, and Oncocyte.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced it will not approve the investigational drug poziotinib (Spectrum Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of certain patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The clinical data the company submitted were deemed insufficient for approval, and additional data including a randomized clinical trial would be needed, the agency said.

The move is not a surprise, as the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted 9-4 against approval when it met to discuss the drug in September, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Poziotinib was developed for patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations, which occur in about 2% of patients with NSCLC.

Poziotinib is a potent oral pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in patients with these mutations. Clinical data from the ZENITH20 Trial reported last year showed an overall response rate of 43.8%, and the drug was described as showing “clinically meaningful efficacy for treatment-naive NSCLC HER2 exon 20 mutations with [daily] dosing.”

“We continue to believe that poziotinib could present a meaningful treatment option for patients with this rare form of lung cancer, for whom other therapies have failed,” commented Tom Riga, president and chief executive officer of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. 

However, following multiple interactions with the FDA, “we have made the strategic decision to immediately deprioritize the poziotinib program,” he said. The change is effective immediately, and the company is now in the process of reducing its R&D workforce by approximately 75%.
 

Drug development criticized

At the ODAC meeting, several panelists were openly critical of the approach Spectrum took in developing the drug. The FDA’s top cancer official, Richard Pazdur, MD, characterized Spectrum’s work as “poor drug development” and likened it to “building a house on quicksand.”

The FDA panel detailed several ways they felt that the poziotinib application fell short of the benchmarks needed for accelerated approval.

To win such a speedy clearance, a company needs to show that a drug provides a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments. The panel argued that, so far, poziotinib appears to be inferior to a product already available for HER2-mutant NSCLC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), which received accelerated approval in August.

The FDA staff contrasted a reported overall response rate for poziotinib, which was estimated at 28% (from data discussed at the meeting), with the overall response rate for trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is 58%.

Harpreet Singh, MD, a director in the FDA’s oncology division, asked the panel to consider what they would do as a physician treating a patient with this mutation, given the choices that are now available.

“That’s something we’re asking the committee to consider … to think about the context of what’s available to you in the clinic,” Dr. Singh said.

Dr. Singh said she expected that patients and physicians would prefer a drug such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, which has a more established record, regardless of the fact that treatment with poziotinib is more convenient because it is given as a tablet.

Dr. Singh and other staff also raised concerns about side effects of poziotinib, including diarrhea, as well as difficulty determining the right dose.

Katherine Scilla, MD, one of the nine ODAC panelists to vote “no,” echoed these views. Although Dr. Scilla, an oncologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, sympathized with the need for options for people with this rare form of lung cancer, she was not persuaded by the data on poziotinib that were presented to support accelerated approval.

“I’m not sure that this represents a meaningful therapeutic benefit over other agents,” she said at the time. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced it will not approve the investigational drug poziotinib (Spectrum Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of certain patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The clinical data the company submitted were deemed insufficient for approval, and additional data including a randomized clinical trial would be needed, the agency said.

The move is not a surprise, as the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted 9-4 against approval when it met to discuss the drug in September, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Poziotinib was developed for patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations, which occur in about 2% of patients with NSCLC.

Poziotinib is a potent oral pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in patients with these mutations. Clinical data from the ZENITH20 Trial reported last year showed an overall response rate of 43.8%, and the drug was described as showing “clinically meaningful efficacy for treatment-naive NSCLC HER2 exon 20 mutations with [daily] dosing.”

“We continue to believe that poziotinib could present a meaningful treatment option for patients with this rare form of lung cancer, for whom other therapies have failed,” commented Tom Riga, president and chief executive officer of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. 

However, following multiple interactions with the FDA, “we have made the strategic decision to immediately deprioritize the poziotinib program,” he said. The change is effective immediately, and the company is now in the process of reducing its R&D workforce by approximately 75%.
 

Drug development criticized

At the ODAC meeting, several panelists were openly critical of the approach Spectrum took in developing the drug. The FDA’s top cancer official, Richard Pazdur, MD, characterized Spectrum’s work as “poor drug development” and likened it to “building a house on quicksand.”

The FDA panel detailed several ways they felt that the poziotinib application fell short of the benchmarks needed for accelerated approval.

To win such a speedy clearance, a company needs to show that a drug provides a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments. The panel argued that, so far, poziotinib appears to be inferior to a product already available for HER2-mutant NSCLC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), which received accelerated approval in August.

The FDA staff contrasted a reported overall response rate for poziotinib, which was estimated at 28% (from data discussed at the meeting), with the overall response rate for trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is 58%.

Harpreet Singh, MD, a director in the FDA’s oncology division, asked the panel to consider what they would do as a physician treating a patient with this mutation, given the choices that are now available.

“That’s something we’re asking the committee to consider … to think about the context of what’s available to you in the clinic,” Dr. Singh said.

Dr. Singh said she expected that patients and physicians would prefer a drug such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, which has a more established record, regardless of the fact that treatment with poziotinib is more convenient because it is given as a tablet.

Dr. Singh and other staff also raised concerns about side effects of poziotinib, including diarrhea, as well as difficulty determining the right dose.

Katherine Scilla, MD, one of the nine ODAC panelists to vote “no,” echoed these views. Although Dr. Scilla, an oncologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, sympathized with the need for options for people with this rare form of lung cancer, she was not persuaded by the data on poziotinib that were presented to support accelerated approval.

“I’m not sure that this represents a meaningful therapeutic benefit over other agents,” she said at the time. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced it will not approve the investigational drug poziotinib (Spectrum Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of certain patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The clinical data the company submitted were deemed insufficient for approval, and additional data including a randomized clinical trial would be needed, the agency said.

The move is not a surprise, as the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted 9-4 against approval when it met to discuss the drug in September, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Poziotinib was developed for patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations, which occur in about 2% of patients with NSCLC.

Poziotinib is a potent oral pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in patients with these mutations. Clinical data from the ZENITH20 Trial reported last year showed an overall response rate of 43.8%, and the drug was described as showing “clinically meaningful efficacy for treatment-naive NSCLC HER2 exon 20 mutations with [daily] dosing.”

“We continue to believe that poziotinib could present a meaningful treatment option for patients with this rare form of lung cancer, for whom other therapies have failed,” commented Tom Riga, president and chief executive officer of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. 

However, following multiple interactions with the FDA, “we have made the strategic decision to immediately deprioritize the poziotinib program,” he said. The change is effective immediately, and the company is now in the process of reducing its R&D workforce by approximately 75%.
 

Drug development criticized

At the ODAC meeting, several panelists were openly critical of the approach Spectrum took in developing the drug. The FDA’s top cancer official, Richard Pazdur, MD, characterized Spectrum’s work as “poor drug development” and likened it to “building a house on quicksand.”

The FDA panel detailed several ways they felt that the poziotinib application fell short of the benchmarks needed for accelerated approval.

To win such a speedy clearance, a company needs to show that a drug provides a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments. The panel argued that, so far, poziotinib appears to be inferior to a product already available for HER2-mutant NSCLC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), which received accelerated approval in August.

The FDA staff contrasted a reported overall response rate for poziotinib, which was estimated at 28% (from data discussed at the meeting), with the overall response rate for trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is 58%.

Harpreet Singh, MD, a director in the FDA’s oncology division, asked the panel to consider what they would do as a physician treating a patient with this mutation, given the choices that are now available.

“That’s something we’re asking the committee to consider … to think about the context of what’s available to you in the clinic,” Dr. Singh said.

Dr. Singh said she expected that patients and physicians would prefer a drug such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, which has a more established record, regardless of the fact that treatment with poziotinib is more convenient because it is given as a tablet.

Dr. Singh and other staff also raised concerns about side effects of poziotinib, including diarrhea, as well as difficulty determining the right dose.

Katherine Scilla, MD, one of the nine ODAC panelists to vote “no,” echoed these views. Although Dr. Scilla, an oncologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, sympathized with the need for options for people with this rare form of lung cancer, she was not persuaded by the data on poziotinib that were presented to support accelerated approval.

“I’m not sure that this represents a meaningful therapeutic benefit over other agents,” she said at the time. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Discovering lung cancer early with annual low-dose computed tomography greatly improves long-term survival rates to 80%, findings from a 20-year international study indicate.

Claudia Henschke, MD, PhD, professor of radiology and director of the Early Lung and Cardiac Action Program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, presented research results at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

The researchers studied lung-cancer–specific survival (LCS) of 87,416 participants enrolled in an international, prospective study named the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. The American Lung Association states the average 5-year survival rate is 18.6%. Only 16% of the cancers are caught early and more than half of people with lung cancer die within a year of diagnosis.
 

Participants’ 20-year survival rate 80%

Results of this large international study showed the overall 20-year survival rate for the 1,285 screening participants diagnosed with early-stage cancer was 80% (95% confidence interval, 77%-83%). Among the 1,285 diagnosed, 83% had stage 1 cancer, Dr. Henschke said.

Lung cancer survival (LCS) was 100% for the 139 participants with nonsolid nodule consistency and for the 155 participants with part-solid consistency. LCS was 73% (95% CI, 69%-77%) for the 991 with solid consistency, and for clinical stage IA participants LCS was 86% (95% CI, 83%-89%), regardless of consistency.

For participants with pathologic stage IA lung cancer 10 mm or less in average diameter, the 20-year survival rate with identification and resection was 92% (95% CI, 87%-96%).

No lung cancer deaths were identified in the part-solid and nonsolid cancers, the researchers report.

These results show the 10-year findings from 2006 published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which also showed 80% survival rates with low-dose CT, have persisted, she said.

At the time of the 2006 paper, 95% of Americans diagnosed with lung cancer died from it, Dr. Henschke said.

Dr. Henschke notes that by the time symptoms appear, lung cancer is often advanced, so the best tool for detecting early-stage lung cancer is enrolling in an annual screening program.

When cancer is small enough and can be surgically removed, patients can be effectively cured long-term, she said.

“In the future, perhaps blood markers will allow us to detect it in the first half of the life cycle of lung cancer instead of CT at the beginning of the second half of the life cycle,” Dr. Henschke said.

“The study raises the power of prospective data collection in the context of clinical care as recommended by the Institute of Medicine long ago,” she said.
 

Findings “very promising”

Ernest Hawk, MD, MPH, head of the division of cancer prevention and population sciences at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer, Houston, told this news organization the findings look “very promising.” Dr. Hawk was not involved in the study.

“This was one of the earliest studies to evaluate low-dose CT scanning. Their report that the initial benefits seem to be holding up over a longer period of observation is great,” he said.

“This bolsters the data that lung cancer screening is beneficial over a longer period of observation,” he said, noting that most of the randomized controlled trials have been shorter.

Lung cancer screening is now recommended for high-risk individuals – those with at least a 20-pack-year history of tobacco use who are between 50 and 80 years old.

So far, screening is still limited to people at high risk, Dr. Hawk said, though there’s discussion about whether benefit would extend to people exposed to asbestos, for instance, or secondhand smoke.

“The biggest challenge right now is getting the screening to those who actually meet the criteria,” Dr. Hawk said.

Medscape reported earlier this month that less than 6% of high-risk smokers have the recommended annual lung cancer screening, according to a new report from the American Lung Association.

Dr. Henschke is on the Advisory Board for LungLifeAI and is on the board for the Early Diagnosis and Treatment Research Foundation. Dr. Hawk reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Discovering lung cancer early with annual low-dose computed tomography greatly improves long-term survival rates to 80%, findings from a 20-year international study indicate.

Claudia Henschke, MD, PhD, professor of radiology and director of the Early Lung and Cardiac Action Program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, presented research results at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

The researchers studied lung-cancer–specific survival (LCS) of 87,416 participants enrolled in an international, prospective study named the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. The American Lung Association states the average 5-year survival rate is 18.6%. Only 16% of the cancers are caught early and more than half of people with lung cancer die within a year of diagnosis.
 

Participants’ 20-year survival rate 80%

Results of this large international study showed the overall 20-year survival rate for the 1,285 screening participants diagnosed with early-stage cancer was 80% (95% confidence interval, 77%-83%). Among the 1,285 diagnosed, 83% had stage 1 cancer, Dr. Henschke said.

Lung cancer survival (LCS) was 100% for the 139 participants with nonsolid nodule consistency and for the 155 participants with part-solid consistency. LCS was 73% (95% CI, 69%-77%) for the 991 with solid consistency, and for clinical stage IA participants LCS was 86% (95% CI, 83%-89%), regardless of consistency.

For participants with pathologic stage IA lung cancer 10 mm or less in average diameter, the 20-year survival rate with identification and resection was 92% (95% CI, 87%-96%).

No lung cancer deaths were identified in the part-solid and nonsolid cancers, the researchers report.

These results show the 10-year findings from 2006 published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which also showed 80% survival rates with low-dose CT, have persisted, she said.

At the time of the 2006 paper, 95% of Americans diagnosed with lung cancer died from it, Dr. Henschke said.

Dr. Henschke notes that by the time symptoms appear, lung cancer is often advanced, so the best tool for detecting early-stage lung cancer is enrolling in an annual screening program.

When cancer is small enough and can be surgically removed, patients can be effectively cured long-term, she said.

“In the future, perhaps blood markers will allow us to detect it in the first half of the life cycle of lung cancer instead of CT at the beginning of the second half of the life cycle,” Dr. Henschke said.

“The study raises the power of prospective data collection in the context of clinical care as recommended by the Institute of Medicine long ago,” she said.
 

Findings “very promising”

Ernest Hawk, MD, MPH, head of the division of cancer prevention and population sciences at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer, Houston, told this news organization the findings look “very promising.” Dr. Hawk was not involved in the study.

“This was one of the earliest studies to evaluate low-dose CT scanning. Their report that the initial benefits seem to be holding up over a longer period of observation is great,” he said.

“This bolsters the data that lung cancer screening is beneficial over a longer period of observation,” he said, noting that most of the randomized controlled trials have been shorter.

Lung cancer screening is now recommended for high-risk individuals – those with at least a 20-pack-year history of tobacco use who are between 50 and 80 years old.

So far, screening is still limited to people at high risk, Dr. Hawk said, though there’s discussion about whether benefit would extend to people exposed to asbestos, for instance, or secondhand smoke.

“The biggest challenge right now is getting the screening to those who actually meet the criteria,” Dr. Hawk said.

Medscape reported earlier this month that less than 6% of high-risk smokers have the recommended annual lung cancer screening, according to a new report from the American Lung Association.

Dr. Henschke is on the Advisory Board for LungLifeAI and is on the board for the Early Diagnosis and Treatment Research Foundation. Dr. Hawk reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Discovering lung cancer early with annual low-dose computed tomography greatly improves long-term survival rates to 80%, findings from a 20-year international study indicate.

Claudia Henschke, MD, PhD, professor of radiology and director of the Early Lung and Cardiac Action Program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, presented research results at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

The researchers studied lung-cancer–specific survival (LCS) of 87,416 participants enrolled in an international, prospective study named the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. The American Lung Association states the average 5-year survival rate is 18.6%. Only 16% of the cancers are caught early and more than half of people with lung cancer die within a year of diagnosis.
 

Participants’ 20-year survival rate 80%

Results of this large international study showed the overall 20-year survival rate for the 1,285 screening participants diagnosed with early-stage cancer was 80% (95% confidence interval, 77%-83%). Among the 1,285 diagnosed, 83% had stage 1 cancer, Dr. Henschke said.

Lung cancer survival (LCS) was 100% for the 139 participants with nonsolid nodule consistency and for the 155 participants with part-solid consistency. LCS was 73% (95% CI, 69%-77%) for the 991 with solid consistency, and for clinical stage IA participants LCS was 86% (95% CI, 83%-89%), regardless of consistency.

For participants with pathologic stage IA lung cancer 10 mm or less in average diameter, the 20-year survival rate with identification and resection was 92% (95% CI, 87%-96%).

No lung cancer deaths were identified in the part-solid and nonsolid cancers, the researchers report.

These results show the 10-year findings from 2006 published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which also showed 80% survival rates with low-dose CT, have persisted, she said.

At the time of the 2006 paper, 95% of Americans diagnosed with lung cancer died from it, Dr. Henschke said.

Dr. Henschke notes that by the time symptoms appear, lung cancer is often advanced, so the best tool for detecting early-stage lung cancer is enrolling in an annual screening program.

When cancer is small enough and can be surgically removed, patients can be effectively cured long-term, she said.

“In the future, perhaps blood markers will allow us to detect it in the first half of the life cycle of lung cancer instead of CT at the beginning of the second half of the life cycle,” Dr. Henschke said.

“The study raises the power of prospective data collection in the context of clinical care as recommended by the Institute of Medicine long ago,” she said.
 

Findings “very promising”

Ernest Hawk, MD, MPH, head of the division of cancer prevention and population sciences at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer, Houston, told this news organization the findings look “very promising.” Dr. Hawk was not involved in the study.

“This was one of the earliest studies to evaluate low-dose CT scanning. Their report that the initial benefits seem to be holding up over a longer period of observation is great,” he said.

“This bolsters the data that lung cancer screening is beneficial over a longer period of observation,” he said, noting that most of the randomized controlled trials have been shorter.

Lung cancer screening is now recommended for high-risk individuals – those with at least a 20-pack-year history of tobacco use who are between 50 and 80 years old.

So far, screening is still limited to people at high risk, Dr. Hawk said, though there’s discussion about whether benefit would extend to people exposed to asbestos, for instance, or secondhand smoke.

“The biggest challenge right now is getting the screening to those who actually meet the criteria,” Dr. Hawk said.

Medscape reported earlier this month that less than 6% of high-risk smokers have the recommended annual lung cancer screening, according to a new report from the American Lung Association.

Dr. Henschke is on the Advisory Board for LungLifeAI and is on the board for the Early Diagnosis and Treatment Research Foundation. Dr. Hawk reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Boil ‘em, mash ‘em, include ‘em in a balanced diet

It’s kind of funny that, even though potatoes are vegetables and vegetables are generally considered to be healthy foods, not many people think of potatoes as being particularly good for you. And that’s hardly surprising since we usually either consume them in the form of French fries or potato chips, neither of which are known for their healthiness.

PxHere

In fact, some previous research shows that potatoes are a food to avoid, particularly for people with insulin resistance. However, a new study from England goes against the grain and asserts that the potato is perfectly fine for insulin-resistant individuals and filled with valuable nutrients and health benefits. Which is great news for the state of Idaho and the potato organization funding the research. Of course there’s a potato organization.

For the study, a group of obese, overweight, or insulin-resistant individuals received a diet of either beans, peas, and meat or fish or white potatoes with meat or fish for 8 weeks; both diets were heavy in fruits and vegetables and both diets replaced about 40% of typical meat consumption with either beans and peas or potatoes. By the end of the study, those on the potato diet experienced health benefits equivalent to those on the bean and pea diet, including losing roughly equivalent amounts of weight and similarly reducing the body’s insulin response.

The researchers noted that, because people tend to eat the same amount of food no matter what, replacing something like meat with dense, low-calorie potatoes meant study participants could eat normally yet consume much fewer calories. So you could make a delicious, healthy stew without the brace of conies and the nice fish, which would make Smeagol very happy.
 

You won’t have ‘monkeypox’ to kick around anymore

It’s true. No more monkeypox. It’s gone. It’s history. Adios. The World Health Organization said that the disease formerly known as monkeypox will now be called mpox. What? You didn’t think it had been cured, did you? You did? Really? Silly readers.

NIAID

“Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of 1 year. This serves to mitigate the concerns raised by experts about confusion caused by a name change in the midst of a global outbreak,” WHO said in a statement announcing the change.

The stigma attached to the name was the main problem. New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan had sent a letter to WHO earlier this year, according to CNN, saying that there was “growing concern for the potentially devastating and stigmatizing effects that the messaging around the ‘monkeypox’ virus can have on … vulnerable communities.”

We here at LOTME applaud the fight against stigmas of any sort, but we sensed there was more to this name change business, so our dedicated team of investigative journalists went into action. Sure enough, while rooting through WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s garbage, we found a list of the names that had been rejected in favor of mpox:

• K-pop (already taken)
• Keeping up with the Kardashi-pox
• Trumpox
• Pox the magic dragon
• Monkey plague (didn’t really solve the problem)
• Hockey pox
• Mission mpoxible
• Jurassic Pox
• The pox that refreshes
• Debbie

Feet catch what the ears miss

The spectrum of frequencies that can be heard by human ears varies from person to person. Then there’s the matter of personal taste in music and volume level. But what really gets people moving? A new study shows that it’s more about the frequency of the sound than the volume.

PxHere

For the study, participants at a concert by electronic music duo Orphx at LIVELab – a research performance center on the McMaster University campus in Hamilton, Ont., that was specifically designed to study music and dance – filled out questionnaires before and after the show. They also wore motion-capture headbands to detect their movement throughout the concert. During the show the researchers turned very-low-frequency (VLF) sounds (8-37 Hz) on and off every 2.5 minutes. Movement speed was calculated during on and off periods.

Although the effects of subliminal messaging aren’t new, past studies have shown that participants were mostly aware of the messaging. In this study, the researchers found that the subjects’ movements increased by 11.8% when the VLF sounds were on, but without their awareness. The researchers and the participants attributed movement to the bass, as lower pitches tend to elicit stronger neural responses and thus movement, compared with higher pitches.

“Our whole sense of the beat is mediated by the vestibular system but nobody’s really, I think, effectively confirmed that,” Jonathan Cannon, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and behavior at McMaster who not involved in the study, told Live Science.

Not to say this study didn’t have its limitations, such as the effect of the surrounding crowd or vibrations of the floor influencing the need to dance. But it definitely makes you wonder about what’s actually playing in your favorite song.
 

Uncle Leonid wants you

Do you like to travel? Are you a bit of a thrill seeker? Do you have any extra socks? If you’re a physician who answered yes to those three questions, then we’ve got an opportunity for you.

Bicanski/Pixnio

Leonid Slutsky, leader of Russia’s populist Liberal Democratic Party and chairman of the foreign relations committee in the lower house of Russia’s parliament – yes, that Leonid Slutsky – recently made a bit of a recruiting pitch, although that’s not how ABC News described it.

Mr. Slutsky, a strong supporter of his country’s war against Ukraine, recently told the mothers of Russian soldiers “that the whole world is watching us. We are the largest state and when we do not have socks, shorts, doctors, intelligence, communications, or simply care for our children, questions arise that will be very difficult to answer.”

It’s probably not what he meant, but the lack of intelligence is pretty clear.

Boil ‘em, mash ‘em, include ‘em in a balanced diet

It’s kind of funny that, even though potatoes are vegetables and vegetables are generally considered to be healthy foods, not many people think of potatoes as being particularly good for you. And that’s hardly surprising since we usually either consume them in the form of French fries or potato chips, neither of which are known for their healthiness.

PxHere

In fact, some previous research shows that potatoes are a food to avoid, particularly for people with insulin resistance. However, a new study from England goes against the grain and asserts that the potato is perfectly fine for insulin-resistant individuals and filled with valuable nutrients and health benefits. Which is great news for the state of Idaho and the potato organization funding the research. Of course there’s a potato organization.

For the study, a group of obese, overweight, or insulin-resistant individuals received a diet of either beans, peas, and meat or fish or white potatoes with meat or fish for 8 weeks; both diets were heavy in fruits and vegetables and both diets replaced about 40% of typical meat consumption with either beans and peas or potatoes. By the end of the study, those on the potato diet experienced health benefits equivalent to those on the bean and pea diet, including losing roughly equivalent amounts of weight and similarly reducing the body’s insulin response.

The researchers noted that, because people tend to eat the same amount of food no matter what, replacing something like meat with dense, low-calorie potatoes meant study participants could eat normally yet consume much fewer calories. So you could make a delicious, healthy stew without the brace of conies and the nice fish, which would make Smeagol very happy.
 

You won’t have ‘monkeypox’ to kick around anymore

It’s true. No more monkeypox. It’s gone. It’s history. Adios. The World Health Organization said that the disease formerly known as monkeypox will now be called mpox. What? You didn’t think it had been cured, did you? You did? Really? Silly readers.

NIAID

“Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of 1 year. This serves to mitigate the concerns raised by experts about confusion caused by a name change in the midst of a global outbreak,” WHO said in a statement announcing the change.

The stigma attached to the name was the main problem. New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan had sent a letter to WHO earlier this year, according to CNN, saying that there was “growing concern for the potentially devastating and stigmatizing effects that the messaging around the ‘monkeypox’ virus can have on … vulnerable communities.”

We here at LOTME applaud the fight against stigmas of any sort, but we sensed there was more to this name change business, so our dedicated team of investigative journalists went into action. Sure enough, while rooting through WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s garbage, we found a list of the names that had been rejected in favor of mpox:

• K-pop (already taken)
• Keeping up with the Kardashi-pox
• Trumpox
• Pox the magic dragon
• Monkey plague (didn’t really solve the problem)
• Hockey pox
• Mission mpoxible
• Jurassic Pox
• The pox that refreshes
• Debbie

Feet catch what the ears miss

The spectrum of frequencies that can be heard by human ears varies from person to person. Then there’s the matter of personal taste in music and volume level. But what really gets people moving? A new study shows that it’s more about the frequency of the sound than the volume.

PxHere

For the study, participants at a concert by electronic music duo Orphx at LIVELab – a research performance center on the McMaster University campus in Hamilton, Ont., that was specifically designed to study music and dance – filled out questionnaires before and after the show. They also wore motion-capture headbands to detect their movement throughout the concert. During the show the researchers turned very-low-frequency (VLF) sounds (8-37 Hz) on and off every 2.5 minutes. Movement speed was calculated during on and off periods.

Although the effects of subliminal messaging aren’t new, past studies have shown that participants were mostly aware of the messaging. In this study, the researchers found that the subjects’ movements increased by 11.8% when the VLF sounds were on, but without their awareness. The researchers and the participants attributed movement to the bass, as lower pitches tend to elicit stronger neural responses and thus movement, compared with higher pitches.

“Our whole sense of the beat is mediated by the vestibular system but nobody’s really, I think, effectively confirmed that,” Jonathan Cannon, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and behavior at McMaster who not involved in the study, told Live Science.

Not to say this study didn’t have its limitations, such as the effect of the surrounding crowd or vibrations of the floor influencing the need to dance. But it definitely makes you wonder about what’s actually playing in your favorite song.
 

Uncle Leonid wants you

Do you like to travel? Are you a bit of a thrill seeker? Do you have any extra socks? If you’re a physician who answered yes to those three questions, then we’ve got an opportunity for you.

Bicanski/Pixnio

Leonid Slutsky, leader of Russia’s populist Liberal Democratic Party and chairman of the foreign relations committee in the lower house of Russia’s parliament – yes, that Leonid Slutsky – recently made a bit of a recruiting pitch, although that’s not how ABC News described it.

Mr. Slutsky, a strong supporter of his country’s war against Ukraine, recently told the mothers of Russian soldiers “that the whole world is watching us. We are the largest state and when we do not have socks, shorts, doctors, intelligence, communications, or simply care for our children, questions arise that will be very difficult to answer.”

It’s probably not what he meant, but the lack of intelligence is pretty clear.

Boil ‘em, mash ‘em, include ‘em in a balanced diet

It’s kind of funny that, even though potatoes are vegetables and vegetables are generally considered to be healthy foods, not many people think of potatoes as being particularly good for you. And that’s hardly surprising since we usually either consume them in the form of French fries or potato chips, neither of which are known for their healthiness.

PxHere

In fact, some previous research shows that potatoes are a food to avoid, particularly for people with insulin resistance. However, a new study from England goes against the grain and asserts that the potato is perfectly fine for insulin-resistant individuals and filled with valuable nutrients and health benefits. Which is great news for the state of Idaho and the potato organization funding the research. Of course there’s a potato organization.

For the study, a group of obese, overweight, or insulin-resistant individuals received a diet of either beans, peas, and meat or fish or white potatoes with meat or fish for 8 weeks; both diets were heavy in fruits and vegetables and both diets replaced about 40% of typical meat consumption with either beans and peas or potatoes. By the end of the study, those on the potato diet experienced health benefits equivalent to those on the bean and pea diet, including losing roughly equivalent amounts of weight and similarly reducing the body’s insulin response.

The researchers noted that, because people tend to eat the same amount of food no matter what, replacing something like meat with dense, low-calorie potatoes meant study participants could eat normally yet consume much fewer calories. So you could make a delicious, healthy stew without the brace of conies and the nice fish, which would make Smeagol very happy.
 

You won’t have ‘monkeypox’ to kick around anymore

It’s true. No more monkeypox. It’s gone. It’s history. Adios. The World Health Organization said that the disease formerly known as monkeypox will now be called mpox. What? You didn’t think it had been cured, did you? You did? Really? Silly readers.

NIAID

“Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of 1 year. This serves to mitigate the concerns raised by experts about confusion caused by a name change in the midst of a global outbreak,” WHO said in a statement announcing the change.

The stigma attached to the name was the main problem. New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan had sent a letter to WHO earlier this year, according to CNN, saying that there was “growing concern for the potentially devastating and stigmatizing effects that the messaging around the ‘monkeypox’ virus can have on … vulnerable communities.”

We here at LOTME applaud the fight against stigmas of any sort, but we sensed there was more to this name change business, so our dedicated team of investigative journalists went into action. Sure enough, while rooting through WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s garbage, we found a list of the names that had been rejected in favor of mpox:

• K-pop (already taken)
• Keeping up with the Kardashi-pox
• Trumpox
• Pox the magic dragon
• Monkey plague (didn’t really solve the problem)
• Hockey pox
• Mission mpoxible
• Jurassic Pox
• The pox that refreshes
• Debbie

Feet catch what the ears miss

The spectrum of frequencies that can be heard by human ears varies from person to person. Then there’s the matter of personal taste in music and volume level. But what really gets people moving? A new study shows that it’s more about the frequency of the sound than the volume.

PxHere

For the study, participants at a concert by electronic music duo Orphx at LIVELab – a research performance center on the McMaster University campus in Hamilton, Ont., that was specifically designed to study music and dance – filled out questionnaires before and after the show. They also wore motion-capture headbands to detect their movement throughout the concert. During the show the researchers turned very-low-frequency (VLF) sounds (8-37 Hz) on and off every 2.5 minutes. Movement speed was calculated during on and off periods.

Although the effects of subliminal messaging aren’t new, past studies have shown that participants were mostly aware of the messaging. In this study, the researchers found that the subjects’ movements increased by 11.8% when the VLF sounds were on, but without their awareness. The researchers and the participants attributed movement to the bass, as lower pitches tend to elicit stronger neural responses and thus movement, compared with higher pitches.

“Our whole sense of the beat is mediated by the vestibular system but nobody’s really, I think, effectively confirmed that,” Jonathan Cannon, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and behavior at McMaster who not involved in the study, told Live Science.

Not to say this study didn’t have its limitations, such as the effect of the surrounding crowd or vibrations of the floor influencing the need to dance. But it definitely makes you wonder about what’s actually playing in your favorite song.
 

Uncle Leonid wants you

Do you like to travel? Are you a bit of a thrill seeker? Do you have any extra socks? If you’re a physician who answered yes to those three questions, then we’ve got an opportunity for you.

Bicanski/Pixnio

Leonid Slutsky, leader of Russia’s populist Liberal Democratic Party and chairman of the foreign relations committee in the lower house of Russia’s parliament – yes, that Leonid Slutsky – recently made a bit of a recruiting pitch, although that’s not how ABC News described it.

Mr. Slutsky, a strong supporter of his country’s war against Ukraine, recently told the mothers of Russian soldiers “that the whole world is watching us. We are the largest state and when we do not have socks, shorts, doctors, intelligence, communications, or simply care for our children, questions arise that will be very difficult to answer.”

It’s probably not what he meant, but the lack of intelligence is pretty clear.

“The right drug at the right time with the right dose for the right bug for the right duration.” That, said professor Kristina Crothers, MD, is the general guidance for optimizing antibiotic use (while awaiting an infectious disease consult). In her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, “Choosing newer antibiotics for nosocomial pneumonia,” Dr. Crothers asked the question: “Beyond the guidelines: When should novel antimicrobials be used?”

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are the most common nosocomial infections at 22%, and are the leading cause of death attributable to hospital-acquired infections. They increase mortality by 20%-50%, with an economic burden of about $40,000 per patient. The incidence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) organism infections varies widely by locality, but several factors increase the likelihood: prior broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure within the past 90 days; longer hospitalization; indwelling vascular devices; tracheostomy; and ventilator dependence. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists as “Serious Threat” the HAP/VAP MDR organisms methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSA) with difficult-to-treat-resistance, and beta-lactamase producing Enterobacterales (ESBL). In the category of “Urgent Threat” the CDC lists: carbapenamase-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) (carbapenamase producing or non–carbapenemase producing), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter (CRAB), according to Dr. Crothers who is at the University of Washington Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle.

Newer antibiotics for HAP/VAP that are still beyond the guidelines include telavancin and tedizolid as gram-positive agents, and as gram-negative ones: ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, cefiderocol, imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam, she added.
 

Tedizolid, Dr. Crothers stated, is a novel oxazolidinone, and is an alternative to vancomycin and linezolid for gram-positive HAP/VAP. In the VITAL noninferiority study versus linezolid with 726 patients, it was noninferior to linezolid for 28-day all-cause mortality (28% vs. 26%), but did not achieve noninferiority for investigator-assessed clinical cure (56% vs. 64%).

Televancin, a semisynthetic derivative of vancomycin, in the ATTAIN studies vs. vancomycin had overall similar cure rates. It is FDA-approved for S. aureus HAP/VAP but not other bacterial causes. It should be reserved for those who cannot receive vancomycin or linezolid, with normal renal function, according to Dr. Crothers. Excluded from first-line treatment of gram-positive HAP/VAP are daptomycin, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, and tigecycline.

Ceftazidime-avibactam, a third-generation cephalosporin-plus novel beta-lactamase inhibitor has wide activity (Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter cloacae, Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, Proteus mirabilis, PSA and Haemophilus influenzae. It is also active against some extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs), ampC beta-lactamases (AmpCs), and K. pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)–producing Enterobacterales, but not with metallo-beta-lactamases). Ceftazidime-avibactam is also indicated for HAP/VAP, and has a toxicity profile including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

In the REPROVE trial of ceftazidime-avibactam vs. meropenem for 7-14 days with 527 clinically evaluable patients (37% K. pneumoniae, 30% P. aeruginosa, and 33%-35% VAP), the clinical cure at 21-25 days post randomization was 69% vs. 73%, respectively, with similar adverse events.
 

Ceftolozane-tazobactam, a novel fifth-generation cephalosporin plus a beta-lactamase inhibitor has activity against PSA including extensively drug-resistant PSA, AmpC, and ESBL-E, but it has limited activity against Acinetobacter and Stenotrophomonas. It is indicated for HAP/VAP, has reduced efficacy with creatine clearance of 50 mL/min or less, increases transaminases and renal impairment, and causes diarrhea. In ASPECT-NP (n = 726) ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for 8-14 days (HAP/VAP), showed a 28 day-mortality of 24% vs. 25%, respectively, with test of cure at 54% vs. 53% at 7-14 days post therapy. Adverse events were similar between groups.

Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor plus carbapenem, is indicated for HAP/VAP and has activity against ESBL, CRE: KPC-producing Enterobacterales, PSA including AmpC. It can cause seizures (requires caution with central nervous system disorders and renal impairment). It increases transaminases, anemia, diarrhea, and reduces potassium and sodium. In RESTORE-IMI 2 (n = 537 with HAP/VAP) it was noninferior for 28-day all-cause mortality vs. piperacillin and tazobactam (16% vs. 21%), with similar adverse events.

Cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, is indicated for HAP/VAP. It has a wide spectrum of activity: ESBL, CRE, CR PSA, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Acinetobacter baumanii, Streptococcus.) It increases transaminases, diarrhea, and atrial fibrillation, and it reduces potassium and magnesium. In APEKS-NP versus linezolid plus cefiderocol or extended meropenem infusion (HAP/VAP n = 292; gram-negative pneumonia = 251; 60% invasive mechanical ventilation) it was noninferior for 14-day all-cause mortality (12.4% vs. 11.6%) with similar adverse events. In CREDIBLE-CR vs. best available therapy for carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infections, clinical cure rates were similar (50% vs. 53% in 59 HAP/VAP patients at 7 days), but with more deaths in the cefiderocol arm. Adverse events were > 90% in both groups and 34% vs. 19% died, mostly with Acinetobacter.

Meropenem-vaborbactam, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor plus carbapenem, is approved and indicated for HAP/VAP in Europe. It has activity against MDR, Enterobacterales including CRE. Its toxicities include headache, phlebitis/infusion-site reactions and diarrhea. In TANGO-2 versus best available treatment for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (n = 77, 47 with confirmed CRE), clinical cure was increased and mortality decreased compared with best available therapy. Treatment- and renal-related adverse events were lower for meropenem-vaborbactam.

In closing, Dr. Crothers cited advice from the paper by Tamma et al. (“Rethinking how Antibiotics are Prescribed” JAMA. 2018) about the need to review findings after therapy has been initiated to confirm the pneumonia diagnosis: Novel agents should be kept in reserve in the absence of MDR risk factors for MRSA and gram-negative bacilli; therapy should be deescalated after 48-72 hours if MDR organisms are not detected; and therapy should be directed to the specific organism detected. Most HAP and VAP in adults can be treated for 7 days, she added.

“Know indications for new therapeutic agents approved for nosocomial pneumonia,” she concluded.

Dr. Crothers reported having no disclosures.

“The right drug at the right time with the right dose for the right bug for the right duration.” That, said professor Kristina Crothers, MD, is the general guidance for optimizing antibiotic use (while awaiting an infectious disease consult). In her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, “Choosing newer antibiotics for nosocomial pneumonia,” Dr. Crothers asked the question: “Beyond the guidelines: When should novel antimicrobials be used?”

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are the most common nosocomial infections at 22%, and are the leading cause of death attributable to hospital-acquired infections. They increase mortality by 20%-50%, with an economic burden of about $40,000 per patient. The incidence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) organism infections varies widely by locality, but several factors increase the likelihood: prior broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure within the past 90 days; longer hospitalization; indwelling vascular devices; tracheostomy; and ventilator dependence. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists as “Serious Threat” the HAP/VAP MDR organisms methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSA) with difficult-to-treat-resistance, and beta-lactamase producing Enterobacterales (ESBL). In the category of “Urgent Threat” the CDC lists: carbapenamase-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) (carbapenamase producing or non–carbapenemase producing), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter (CRAB), according to Dr. Crothers who is at the University of Washington Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle.

Newer antibiotics for HAP/VAP that are still beyond the guidelines include telavancin and tedizolid as gram-positive agents, and as gram-negative ones: ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, cefiderocol, imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam, she added.
 

Tedizolid, Dr. Crothers stated, is a novel oxazolidinone, and is an alternative to vancomycin and linezolid for gram-positive HAP/VAP. In the VITAL noninferiority study versus linezolid with 726 patients, it was noninferior to linezolid for 28-day all-cause mortality (28% vs. 26%), but did not achieve noninferiority for investigator-assessed clinical cure (56% vs. 64%).

Televancin, a semisynthetic derivative of vancomycin, in the ATTAIN studies vs. vancomycin had overall similar cure rates. It is FDA-approved for S. aureus HAP/VAP but not other bacterial causes. It should be reserved for those who cannot receive vancomycin or linezolid, with normal renal function, according to Dr. Crothers. Excluded from first-line treatment of gram-positive HAP/VAP are daptomycin, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, and tigecycline.

Ceftazidime-avibactam, a third-generation cephalosporin-plus novel beta-lactamase inhibitor has wide activity (Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter cloacae, Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, Proteus mirabilis, PSA and Haemophilus influenzae. It is also active against some extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs), ampC beta-lactamases (AmpCs), and K. pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)–producing Enterobacterales, but not with metallo-beta-lactamases). Ceftazidime-avibactam is also indicated for HAP/VAP, and has a toxicity profile including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

In the REPROVE trial of ceftazidime-avibactam vs. meropenem for 7-14 days with 527 clinically evaluable patients (37% K. pneumoniae, 30% P. aeruginosa, and 33%-35% VAP), the clinical cure at 21-25 days post randomization was 69% vs. 73%, respectively, with similar adverse events.
 

Ceftolozane-tazobactam, a novel fifth-generation cephalosporin plus a beta-lactamase inhibitor has activity against PSA including extensively drug-resistant PSA, AmpC, and ESBL-E, but it has limited activity against Acinetobacter and Stenotrophomonas. It is indicated for HAP/VAP, has reduced efficacy with creatine clearance of 50 mL/min or less, increases transaminases and renal impairment, and causes diarrhea. In ASPECT-NP (n = 726) ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for 8-14 days (HAP/VAP), showed a 28 day-mortality of 24% vs. 25%, respectively, with test of cure at 54% vs. 53% at 7-14 days post therapy. Adverse events were similar between groups.

Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor plus carbapenem, is indicated for HAP/VAP and has activity against ESBL, CRE: KPC-producing Enterobacterales, PSA including AmpC. It can cause seizures (requires caution with central nervous system disorders and renal impairment). It increases transaminases, anemia, diarrhea, and reduces potassium and sodium. In RESTORE-IMI 2 (n = 537 with HAP/VAP) it was noninferior for 28-day all-cause mortality vs. piperacillin and tazobactam (16% vs. 21%), with similar adverse events.

Cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, is indicated for HAP/VAP. It has a wide spectrum of activity: ESBL, CRE, CR PSA, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Acinetobacter baumanii, Streptococcus.) It increases transaminases, diarrhea, and atrial fibrillation, and it reduces potassium and magnesium. In APEKS-NP versus linezolid plus cefiderocol or extended meropenem infusion (HAP/VAP n = 292; gram-negative pneumonia = 251; 60% invasive mechanical ventilation) it was noninferior for 14-day all-cause mortality (12.4% vs. 11.6%) with similar adverse events. In CREDIBLE-CR vs. best available therapy for carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infections, clinical cure rates were similar (50% vs. 53% in 59 HAP/VAP patients at 7 days), but with more deaths in the cefiderocol arm. Adverse events were > 90% in both groups and 34% vs. 19% died, mostly with Acinetobacter.

Meropenem-vaborbactam, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor plus carbapenem, is approved and indicated for HAP/VAP in Europe. It has activity against MDR, Enterobacterales including CRE. Its toxicities include headache, phlebitis/infusion-site reactions and diarrhea. In TANGO-2 versus best available treatment for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (n = 77, 47 with confirmed CRE), clinical cure was increased and mortality decreased compared with best available therapy. Treatment- and renal-related adverse events were lower for meropenem-vaborbactam.

In closing, Dr. Crothers cited advice from the paper by Tamma et al. (“Rethinking how Antibiotics are Prescribed” JAMA. 2018) about the need to review findings after therapy has been initiated to confirm the pneumonia diagnosis: Novel agents should be kept in reserve in the absence of MDR risk factors for MRSA and gram-negative bacilli; therapy should be deescalated after 48-72 hours if MDR organisms are not detected; and therapy should be directed to the specific organism detected. Most HAP and VAP in adults can be treated for 7 days, she added.

“Know indications for new therapeutic agents approved for nosocomial pneumonia,” she concluded.

Dr. Crothers reported having no disclosures.

“The right drug at the right time with the right dose for the right bug for the right duration.” That, said professor Kristina Crothers, MD, is the general guidance for optimizing antibiotic use (while awaiting an infectious disease consult). In her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, “Choosing newer antibiotics for nosocomial pneumonia,” Dr. Crothers asked the question: “Beyond the guidelines: When should novel antimicrobials be used?”

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are the most common nosocomial infections at 22%, and are the leading cause of death attributable to hospital-acquired infections. They increase mortality by 20%-50%, with an economic burden of about $40,000 per patient. The incidence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) organism infections varies widely by locality, but several factors increase the likelihood: prior broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure within the past 90 days; longer hospitalization; indwelling vascular devices; tracheostomy; and ventilator dependence. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists as “Serious Threat” the HAP/VAP MDR organisms methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSA) with difficult-to-treat-resistance, and beta-lactamase producing Enterobacterales (ESBL). In the category of “Urgent Threat” the CDC lists: carbapenamase-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) (carbapenamase producing or non–carbapenemase producing), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter (CRAB), according to Dr. Crothers who is at the University of Washington Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle.

Newer antibiotics for HAP/VAP that are still beyond the guidelines include telavancin and tedizolid as gram-positive agents, and as gram-negative ones: ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, cefiderocol, imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam, she added.
 

Tedizolid, Dr. Crothers stated, is a novel oxazolidinone, and is an alternative to vancomycin and linezolid for gram-positive HAP/VAP. In the VITAL noninferiority study versus linezolid with 726 patients, it was noninferior to linezolid for 28-day all-cause mortality (28% vs. 26%), but did not achieve noninferiority for investigator-assessed clinical cure (56% vs. 64%).

Televancin, a semisynthetic derivative of vancomycin, in the ATTAIN studies vs. vancomycin had overall similar cure rates. It is FDA-approved for S. aureus HAP/VAP but not other bacterial causes. It should be reserved for those who cannot receive vancomycin or linezolid, with normal renal function, according to Dr. Crothers. Excluded from first-line treatment of gram-positive HAP/VAP are daptomycin, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, and tigecycline.

Ceftazidime-avibactam, a third-generation cephalosporin-plus novel beta-lactamase inhibitor has wide activity (Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter cloacae, Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, Proteus mirabilis, PSA and Haemophilus influenzae. It is also active against some extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs), ampC beta-lactamases (AmpCs), and K. pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)–producing Enterobacterales, but not with metallo-beta-lactamases). Ceftazidime-avibactam is also indicated for HAP/VAP, and has a toxicity profile including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

In the REPROVE trial of ceftazidime-avibactam vs. meropenem for 7-14 days with 527 clinically evaluable patients (37% K. pneumoniae, 30% P. aeruginosa, and 33%-35% VAP), the clinical cure at 21-25 days post randomization was 69% vs. 73%, respectively, with similar adverse events.
 

Ceftolozane-tazobactam, a novel fifth-generation cephalosporin plus a beta-lactamase inhibitor has activity against PSA including extensively drug-resistant PSA, AmpC, and ESBL-E, but it has limited activity against Acinetobacter and Stenotrophomonas. It is indicated for HAP/VAP, has reduced efficacy with creatine clearance of 50 mL/min or less, increases transaminases and renal impairment, and causes diarrhea. In ASPECT-NP (n = 726) ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for 8-14 days (HAP/VAP), showed a 28 day-mortality of 24% vs. 25%, respectively, with test of cure at 54% vs. 53% at 7-14 days post therapy. Adverse events were similar between groups.

Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor plus carbapenem, is indicated for HAP/VAP and has activity against ESBL, CRE: KPC-producing Enterobacterales, PSA including AmpC. It can cause seizures (requires caution with central nervous system disorders and renal impairment). It increases transaminases, anemia, diarrhea, and reduces potassium and sodium. In RESTORE-IMI 2 (n = 537 with HAP/VAP) it was noninferior for 28-day all-cause mortality vs. piperacillin and tazobactam (16% vs. 21%), with similar adverse events.

Cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, is indicated for HAP/VAP. It has a wide spectrum of activity: ESBL, CRE, CR PSA, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Acinetobacter baumanii, Streptococcus.) It increases transaminases, diarrhea, and atrial fibrillation, and it reduces potassium and magnesium. In APEKS-NP versus linezolid plus cefiderocol or extended meropenem infusion (HAP/VAP n = 292; gram-negative pneumonia = 251; 60% invasive mechanical ventilation) it was noninferior for 14-day all-cause mortality (12.4% vs. 11.6%) with similar adverse events. In CREDIBLE-CR vs. best available therapy for carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infections, clinical cure rates were similar (50% vs. 53% in 59 HAP/VAP patients at 7 days), but with more deaths in the cefiderocol arm. Adverse events were > 90% in both groups and 34% vs. 19% died, mostly with Acinetobacter.

Meropenem-vaborbactam, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor plus carbapenem, is approved and indicated for HAP/VAP in Europe. It has activity against MDR, Enterobacterales including CRE. Its toxicities include headache, phlebitis/infusion-site reactions and diarrhea. In TANGO-2 versus best available treatment for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (n = 77, 47 with confirmed CRE), clinical cure was increased and mortality decreased compared with best available therapy. Treatment- and renal-related adverse events were lower for meropenem-vaborbactam.

In closing, Dr. Crothers cited advice from the paper by Tamma et al. (“Rethinking how Antibiotics are Prescribed” JAMA. 2018) about the need to review findings after therapy has been initiated to confirm the pneumonia diagnosis: Novel agents should be kept in reserve in the absence of MDR risk factors for MRSA and gram-negative bacilli; therapy should be deescalated after 48-72 hours if MDR organisms are not detected; and therapy should be directed to the specific organism detected. Most HAP and VAP in adults can be treated for 7 days, she added.

“Know indications for new therapeutic agents approved for nosocomial pneumonia,” she concluded.

Dr. Crothers reported having no disclosures.

A striking characteristic of COVID-19 is that the severity of clinical outcomes is remarkably variable. Establishing a prognosis for individuals infected with COVID-19 remains a challenge.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the heterogeneity of individuals who progress toward severe disease or death, along with the fact that individuals directly exposed to the virus do not necessarily become sick, supports the hypothesis that genetic risk or protective factors are at play.

In an interview with this news organization, Mayana Zatz, PhD, head professor of genetics and coordinator of the Human Genome and Stem Cell Study Center at the University of São Paulo, explained: “The first case that caught my eye was the case of my neighbors, a couple. He presented COVID-19 symptoms, but his wife, who took care of him, had absolutely no symptoms. I thought that it was strange, but we received 3,000 emails from people saying, ‘This happened to me, too.’”

Reports in the media about seven pairs of monozygotic (MZ) twins who died from COVID-19 within days of one another in Brazil also stood out, said the researcher.

Twin studies are important for investigating the contribution of genetics vs. that of the environment in the susceptibility or resistance to infectious diseases, as well as their pathology. Dr. Zatz’s team analyzed the case of a 31-year-old Brazilian MZ twin brother pair who presented simultaneously with severe COVID-19 and the need for oxygen support, despite their age and good health conditions. Curiously, they were admitted and intubated on the same day, but neither of the twins knew about the other’s situation; they found out only when they were extubated.

The study was carried out at the USP with the collaboration of the State University of São Paulo. The authors mapped the genetic profile (by sequencing the genome responsible for coding proteins, or whole-exome sequencing) and the immune cell profile to evaluate innate and adaptive immunity.

The MZ twin brothers shared the same two rare genetic mutations, which may be associated with their increased risk of developing severe COVID-19. However, since these variants were not studied at the protein or functional level, their pathogenicity has yet to be determined. The twins also had [human leukocyte antigen (HLA)] alleles associated with severe COVID-19, which are important candidates for the mechanisms of innate and adaptive immunity and susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and manifestation.

But one particular oddity stood out to the researchers: One of the brothers required longer hospitalization, and only he reported symptoms of long COVID.

In the authors’ eyes, even though the patients shared genetic mutations potentially associated with the risk of developing severe COVID-19, the differences in clinical progression emphasize that, beyond genetic risk factors, continuous exposure to pathogens over a lifetime and other environmental factors mean that each individual’s immune response is unique, even in twins.

“There is no doubt that genetics contribute to the severity of COVID-19, and environmental factors sometimes give us the opportunity to study the disease, too. Such [is the case with] MZ twins who have genetic similarities, even with changes that take place over a lifetime,” José Eduardo Krieger, MD, PhD, professor of molecular medicine at the University of São Paulo Medical School (FMUSP), told this news organization. “Examining MZ twins is a strategy that may help, but, with n = 2, luck really needs to be on your side to get straight to the problem. You need to combine [these findings] with other studies to solve this conundrum,” said Dr. Krieger, who did not take part in the research.
 

Large cohorts

Genomic and computer resources allow for the study of large sets of data from thousands of individuals. In each of those sets of data, the signal offered by thousands of markers distributed throughout the genome can be studied. This is the possibility offered by various genomic studies of large cohorts of patients with different clinical manifestations.

“Researchers examine thousands of genetic variants throughout the genome from a large sample of individuals and have the chance, for example, to identify genetic variants that are more prevalent in patients who have presented with severe disease than in those who presented with milder disease,” said Dr. Krieger. “These associations highlight a chromosome region in which one or more genes explain, at least in part, the differences observed.”

Genomewide association studies have identified some genetic variants that indicate severity of COVID-19, with potential impact on the virus entering the cell, the immune response, or the development of cytokine storms.

One of these studies, COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative (COVID-19 HGI), is an international, open-science collaboration for sharing scientific methods and resources with research groups across the world, with the goal of robustly mapping the host genetic determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the severity of the resulting COVID-19 disease. At the start of 2021, the COVID-19 HGI combined genetic data from 49,562 cases and 2 million controls from 46 studies in 19 countries. A total of 853 samples from the BRACOVID study were included in the meta-analysis. The endeavor enabled the identification of 13 genomewide significant loci that are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe manifestations of COVID-19.

The BRACOVID study, in which Dr. Krieger participates, aims to identify host genetic factors that determine the severity of COVID-19. It is currently the largest project of its kind in Latin America. An article provides the analysis of the first 5,233 participants in the BRACOVID study, who were recruited in São Paulo. Of these participants, 3,533 had been infected with COVID-19 and hospitalized at either the Heart Institute or the Central Institute of the FMUSP General Hospital. The remaining 1,700 made up the control group, which included health care professionals and members of the general population. The controls were recruited through serology assays or PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers discovered a region of chromosome 1 that could play a role in modulating immune response and that could lead to an increase in the likelihood of hospitalization across a wide range of COVID-19 risk factors. This region of chromosome 1 was observed only in Brazilians with a strong European ancestry; however, this finding had not been mentioned in previous studies, suggesting that it could harbor a risk allele specific to the Brazilian population.

The study also confirmed most, but not all, of the regions recorded in the literature, which may be significant in identifying factors determining severity that are specific to a given population.

Including information from the BRACOVID study, other studies have enhanced the knowledge on affected organs. Combined data from 14,000 patients from nine countries evaluated a region of a single chromosome and found that carriers of a certain allele had a higher probability of experiencing various COVID-19 complications, such as severe respiratory failure, venous thromboembolism, and liver damage. The risk was even higher for individuals aged 60 years and over.
 

Discordant couples

Smaller sample sizes of underrepresented populations also provide relevant data for genomic studies. Dr. Zatz’s team carried out genomic studies on smaller groups, comparing serodiscordant couples (where one was infected and symptomatic while the partner remained asymptomatic and seronegative despite sharing the same bedroom during the infection). Their research found genetic variants related to immune response that were associated with susceptibility to infection and progression to severe COVID-19. 

The team also went on to study a group of patients older than 90 years who recovered from COVID-19 with mild symptoms or who remained asymptomatic following a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. They compared these patients with a sample of elderly patients from the same city (São Paulo), sampled before the current pandemic. The researchers identified a genetic variant related to mucin production. “In individuals with mild COVID-19, the degradation of these mucins would be more efficient,” said Dr. Zatz. It is possible for this variant to interfere not only with the production of mucus, but also in its composition, as there is an exchange of amino acids in the protein.

“We continued the study by comparing the extremes, i.e., those in their 90s with mild COVID-19 and younger patients with severe COVID-19, including several who died,” said Dr. Zatz.
 

More personalized medicine

The specialists agreed that a genetic test to predict COVID-19 severity is still a long way away. The genetic component is too little understood to enable the evaluation of individual risk. It has been possible to identify several important areas but, as Dr. Krieger pointed out, a variant identified in a certain chromosome interval may not be just one gene. There may be various candidate genes, or there may be a regulatory sequence for a distant gene. Furthermore, there are regions with genes that make sense as moderators of COVID-19 severity, because they regulate an inflammatory or immunologic reaction, but evidence is still lacking.

Reaching the molecular mechanism would, in future, allow a medicine to be chosen for a given patient, as already happens with other diseases. It also could enable the discovery of new medicines following as-yet-unexplored lines of research. Dr. Zatz also considers the possibility of genetic therapy.

Even with the knowledge of human genetics, one part of the equation is missing: viral genetics. “Many of the individuals who were resistant to the Delta variant were later affected by Omicron,” she pointed out.
 

Significance of Brazil

“We have an infinite amount of genomic data worldwide, but the vast majority originates from White Americans of European origin,” said Dr. Krieger. Moreover, genomic associations of COVID-19 severity discovered in the Chinese population were not significant in the European population. Besides underscoring the importance of collaborating with international studies, this situation supports scientists’ interest in carrying out genetic studies within Brazil, he added.

“In the genomic study of the Brazilian population, we found 2 million variants that were not present in the European populations,” said Dr. Zatz.

Dr. Krieger mentioned a technical advantage that Brazil has. “Having been colonized by different ethnic groups and mixed many generations ago, Brazil has a population with a unique genetic structure; the recombinations are different. When preparing the samples, the regions break differently.” This factor could help to separate, in a candidate region, the gene that is significant from those that might not be.

In general, severe COVID-19 would be a complex phenomenon involving several genes and interactions with environmental factors. The Brazilian studies tried to find a factor that was unique to Brazil, but the significance of the differences remained unclear. “We found some signs that were specific to our population,” concluded Dr. Krieger. “But the reason that more people in Brazil died as a result of COVID-19 was not genetic,” he added.

Dr. Zatz and Dr. Krieger reported no conflicts of interest. This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A striking characteristic of COVID-19 is that the severity of clinical outcomes is remarkably variable. Establishing a prognosis for individuals infected with COVID-19 remains a challenge.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the heterogeneity of individuals who progress toward severe disease or death, along with the fact that individuals directly exposed to the virus do not necessarily become sick, supports the hypothesis that genetic risk or protective factors are at play.

In an interview with this news organization, Mayana Zatz, PhD, head professor of genetics and coordinator of the Human Genome and Stem Cell Study Center at the University of São Paulo, explained: “The first case that caught my eye was the case of my neighbors, a couple. He presented COVID-19 symptoms, but his wife, who took care of him, had absolutely no symptoms. I thought that it was strange, but we received 3,000 emails from people saying, ‘This happened to me, too.’”

Reports in the media about seven pairs of monozygotic (MZ) twins who died from COVID-19 within days of one another in Brazil also stood out, said the researcher.

Twin studies are important for investigating the contribution of genetics vs. that of the environment in the susceptibility or resistance to infectious diseases, as well as their pathology. Dr. Zatz’s team analyzed the case of a 31-year-old Brazilian MZ twin brother pair who presented simultaneously with severe COVID-19 and the need for oxygen support, despite their age and good health conditions. Curiously, they were admitted and intubated on the same day, but neither of the twins knew about the other’s situation; they found out only when they were extubated.

The study was carried out at the USP with the collaboration of the State University of São Paulo. The authors mapped the genetic profile (by sequencing the genome responsible for coding proteins, or whole-exome sequencing) and the immune cell profile to evaluate innate and adaptive immunity.

The MZ twin brothers shared the same two rare genetic mutations, which may be associated with their increased risk of developing severe COVID-19. However, since these variants were not studied at the protein or functional level, their pathogenicity has yet to be determined. The twins also had [human leukocyte antigen (HLA)] alleles associated with severe COVID-19, which are important candidates for the mechanisms of innate and adaptive immunity and susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and manifestation.

But one particular oddity stood out to the researchers: One of the brothers required longer hospitalization, and only he reported symptoms of long COVID.

In the authors’ eyes, even though the patients shared genetic mutations potentially associated with the risk of developing severe COVID-19, the differences in clinical progression emphasize that, beyond genetic risk factors, continuous exposure to pathogens over a lifetime and other environmental factors mean that each individual’s immune response is unique, even in twins.

“There is no doubt that genetics contribute to the severity of COVID-19, and environmental factors sometimes give us the opportunity to study the disease, too. Such [is the case with] MZ twins who have genetic similarities, even with changes that take place over a lifetime,” José Eduardo Krieger, MD, PhD, professor of molecular medicine at the University of São Paulo Medical School (FMUSP), told this news organization. “Examining MZ twins is a strategy that may help, but, with n = 2, luck really needs to be on your side to get straight to the problem. You need to combine [these findings] with other studies to solve this conundrum,” said Dr. Krieger, who did not take part in the research.
 

Large cohorts

Genomic and computer resources allow for the study of large sets of data from thousands of individuals. In each of those sets of data, the signal offered by thousands of markers distributed throughout the genome can be studied. This is the possibility offered by various genomic studies of large cohorts of patients with different clinical manifestations.

“Researchers examine thousands of genetic variants throughout the genome from a large sample of individuals and have the chance, for example, to identify genetic variants that are more prevalent in patients who have presented with severe disease than in those who presented with milder disease,” said Dr. Krieger. “These associations highlight a chromosome region in which one or more genes explain, at least in part, the differences observed.”

Genomewide association studies have identified some genetic variants that indicate severity of COVID-19, with potential impact on the virus entering the cell, the immune response, or the development of cytokine storms.

One of these studies, COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative (COVID-19 HGI), is an international, open-science collaboration for sharing scientific methods and resources with research groups across the world, with the goal of robustly mapping the host genetic determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the severity of the resulting COVID-19 disease. At the start of 2021, the COVID-19 HGI combined genetic data from 49,562 cases and 2 million controls from 46 studies in 19 countries. A total of 853 samples from the BRACOVID study were included in the meta-analysis. The endeavor enabled the identification of 13 genomewide significant loci that are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe manifestations of COVID-19.

The BRACOVID study, in which Dr. Krieger participates, aims to identify host genetic factors that determine the severity of COVID-19. It is currently the largest project of its kind in Latin America. An article provides the analysis of the first 5,233 participants in the BRACOVID study, who were recruited in São Paulo. Of these participants, 3,533 had been infected with COVID-19 and hospitalized at either the Heart Institute or the Central Institute of the FMUSP General Hospital. The remaining 1,700 made up the control group, which included health care professionals and members of the general population. The controls were recruited through serology assays or PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers discovered a region of chromosome 1 that could play a role in modulating immune response and that could lead to an increase in the likelihood of hospitalization across a wide range of COVID-19 risk factors. This region of chromosome 1 was observed only in Brazilians with a strong European ancestry; however, this finding had not been mentioned in previous studies, suggesting that it could harbor a risk allele specific to the Brazilian population.

The study also confirmed most, but not all, of the regions recorded in the literature, which may be significant in identifying factors determining severity that are specific to a given population.

Including information from the BRACOVID study, other studies have enhanced the knowledge on affected organs. Combined data from 14,000 patients from nine countries evaluated a region of a single chromosome and found that carriers of a certain allele had a higher probability of experiencing various COVID-19 complications, such as severe respiratory failure, venous thromboembolism, and liver damage. The risk was even higher for individuals aged 60 years and over.
 

Discordant couples

Smaller sample sizes of underrepresented populations also provide relevant data for genomic studies. Dr. Zatz’s team carried out genomic studies on smaller groups, comparing serodiscordant couples (where one was infected and symptomatic while the partner remained asymptomatic and seronegative despite sharing the same bedroom during the infection). Their research found genetic variants related to immune response that were associated with susceptibility to infection and progression to severe COVID-19. 

The team also went on to study a group of patients older than 90 years who recovered from COVID-19 with mild symptoms or who remained asymptomatic following a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. They compared these patients with a sample of elderly patients from the same city (São Paulo), sampled before the current pandemic. The researchers identified a genetic variant related to mucin production. “In individuals with mild COVID-19, the degradation of these mucins would be more efficient,” said Dr. Zatz. It is possible for this variant to interfere not only with the production of mucus, but also in its composition, as there is an exchange of amino acids in the protein.

“We continued the study by comparing the extremes, i.e., those in their 90s with mild COVID-19 and younger patients with severe COVID-19, including several who died,” said Dr. Zatz.
 

More personalized medicine

The specialists agreed that a genetic test to predict COVID-19 severity is still a long way away. The genetic component is too little understood to enable the evaluation of individual risk. It has been possible to identify several important areas but, as Dr. Krieger pointed out, a variant identified in a certain chromosome interval may not be just one gene. There may be various candidate genes, or there may be a regulatory sequence for a distant gene. Furthermore, there are regions with genes that make sense as moderators of COVID-19 severity, because they regulate an inflammatory or immunologic reaction, but evidence is still lacking.

Reaching the molecular mechanism would, in future, allow a medicine to be chosen for a given patient, as already happens with other diseases. It also could enable the discovery of new medicines following as-yet-unexplored lines of research. Dr. Zatz also considers the possibility of genetic therapy.

Even with the knowledge of human genetics, one part of the equation is missing: viral genetics. “Many of the individuals who were resistant to the Delta variant were later affected by Omicron,” she pointed out.
 

Significance of Brazil

“We have an infinite amount of genomic data worldwide, but the vast majority originates from White Americans of European origin,” said Dr. Krieger. Moreover, genomic associations of COVID-19 severity discovered in the Chinese population were not significant in the European population. Besides underscoring the importance of collaborating with international studies, this situation supports scientists’ interest in carrying out genetic studies within Brazil, he added.

“In the genomic study of the Brazilian population, we found 2 million variants that were not present in the European populations,” said Dr. Zatz.

Dr. Krieger mentioned a technical advantage that Brazil has. “Having been colonized by different ethnic groups and mixed many generations ago, Brazil has a population with a unique genetic structure; the recombinations are different. When preparing the samples, the regions break differently.” This factor could help to separate, in a candidate region, the gene that is significant from those that might not be.

In general, severe COVID-19 would be a complex phenomenon involving several genes and interactions with environmental factors. The Brazilian studies tried to find a factor that was unique to Brazil, but the significance of the differences remained unclear. “We found some signs that were specific to our population,” concluded Dr. Krieger. “But the reason that more people in Brazil died as a result of COVID-19 was not genetic,” he added.

Dr. Zatz and Dr. Krieger reported no conflicts of interest. This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A striking characteristic of COVID-19 is that the severity of clinical outcomes is remarkably variable. Establishing a prognosis for individuals infected with COVID-19 remains a challenge.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the heterogeneity of individuals who progress toward severe disease or death, along with the fact that individuals directly exposed to the virus do not necessarily become sick, supports the hypothesis that genetic risk or protective factors are at play.

In an interview with this news organization, Mayana Zatz, PhD, head professor of genetics and coordinator of the Human Genome and Stem Cell Study Center at the University of São Paulo, explained: “The first case that caught my eye was the case of my neighbors, a couple. He presented COVID-19 symptoms, but his wife, who took care of him, had absolutely no symptoms. I thought that it was strange, but we received 3,000 emails from people saying, ‘This happened to me, too.’”

Reports in the media about seven pairs of monozygotic (MZ) twins who died from COVID-19 within days of one another in Brazil also stood out, said the researcher.

Twin studies are important for investigating the contribution of genetics vs. that of the environment in the susceptibility or resistance to infectious diseases, as well as their pathology. Dr. Zatz’s team analyzed the case of a 31-year-old Brazilian MZ twin brother pair who presented simultaneously with severe COVID-19 and the need for oxygen support, despite their age and good health conditions. Curiously, they were admitted and intubated on the same day, but neither of the twins knew about the other’s situation; they found out only when they were extubated.

The study was carried out at the USP with the collaboration of the State University of São Paulo. The authors mapped the genetic profile (by sequencing the genome responsible for coding proteins, or whole-exome sequencing) and the immune cell profile to evaluate innate and adaptive immunity.

The MZ twin brothers shared the same two rare genetic mutations, which may be associated with their increased risk of developing severe COVID-19. However, since these variants were not studied at the protein or functional level, their pathogenicity has yet to be determined. The twins also had [human leukocyte antigen (HLA)] alleles associated with severe COVID-19, which are important candidates for the mechanisms of innate and adaptive immunity and susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and manifestation.

But one particular oddity stood out to the researchers: One of the brothers required longer hospitalization, and only he reported symptoms of long COVID.

In the authors’ eyes, even though the patients shared genetic mutations potentially associated with the risk of developing severe COVID-19, the differences in clinical progression emphasize that, beyond genetic risk factors, continuous exposure to pathogens over a lifetime and other environmental factors mean that each individual’s immune response is unique, even in twins.

“There is no doubt that genetics contribute to the severity of COVID-19, and environmental factors sometimes give us the opportunity to study the disease, too. Such [is the case with] MZ twins who have genetic similarities, even with changes that take place over a lifetime,” José Eduardo Krieger, MD, PhD, professor of molecular medicine at the University of São Paulo Medical School (FMUSP), told this news organization. “Examining MZ twins is a strategy that may help, but, with n = 2, luck really needs to be on your side to get straight to the problem. You need to combine [these findings] with other studies to solve this conundrum,” said Dr. Krieger, who did not take part in the research.
 

Large cohorts

Genomic and computer resources allow for the study of large sets of data from thousands of individuals. In each of those sets of data, the signal offered by thousands of markers distributed throughout the genome can be studied. This is the possibility offered by various genomic studies of large cohorts of patients with different clinical manifestations.

“Researchers examine thousands of genetic variants throughout the genome from a large sample of individuals and have the chance, for example, to identify genetic variants that are more prevalent in patients who have presented with severe disease than in those who presented with milder disease,” said Dr. Krieger. “These associations highlight a chromosome region in which one or more genes explain, at least in part, the differences observed.”

Genomewide association studies have identified some genetic variants that indicate severity of COVID-19, with potential impact on the virus entering the cell, the immune response, or the development of cytokine storms.

One of these studies, COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative (COVID-19 HGI), is an international, open-science collaboration for sharing scientific methods and resources with research groups across the world, with the goal of robustly mapping the host genetic determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the severity of the resulting COVID-19 disease. At the start of 2021, the COVID-19 HGI combined genetic data from 49,562 cases and 2 million controls from 46 studies in 19 countries. A total of 853 samples from the BRACOVID study were included in the meta-analysis. The endeavor enabled the identification of 13 genomewide significant loci that are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe manifestations of COVID-19.

The BRACOVID study, in which Dr. Krieger participates, aims to identify host genetic factors that determine the severity of COVID-19. It is currently the largest project of its kind in Latin America. An article provides the analysis of the first 5,233 participants in the BRACOVID study, who were recruited in São Paulo. Of these participants, 3,533 had been infected with COVID-19 and hospitalized at either the Heart Institute or the Central Institute of the FMUSP General Hospital. The remaining 1,700 made up the control group, which included health care professionals and members of the general population. The controls were recruited through serology assays or PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers discovered a region of chromosome 1 that could play a role in modulating immune response and that could lead to an increase in the likelihood of hospitalization across a wide range of COVID-19 risk factors. This region of chromosome 1 was observed only in Brazilians with a strong European ancestry; however, this finding had not been mentioned in previous studies, suggesting that it could harbor a risk allele specific to the Brazilian population.

The study also confirmed most, but not all, of the regions recorded in the literature, which may be significant in identifying factors determining severity that are specific to a given population.

Including information from the BRACOVID study, other studies have enhanced the knowledge on affected organs. Combined data from 14,000 patients from nine countries evaluated a region of a single chromosome and found that carriers of a certain allele had a higher probability of experiencing various COVID-19 complications, such as severe respiratory failure, venous thromboembolism, and liver damage. The risk was even higher for individuals aged 60 years and over.
 

Discordant couples

Smaller sample sizes of underrepresented populations also provide relevant data for genomic studies. Dr. Zatz’s team carried out genomic studies on smaller groups, comparing serodiscordant couples (where one was infected and symptomatic while the partner remained asymptomatic and seronegative despite sharing the same bedroom during the infection). Their research found genetic variants related to immune response that were associated with susceptibility to infection and progression to severe COVID-19. 

The team also went on to study a group of patients older than 90 years who recovered from COVID-19 with mild symptoms or who remained asymptomatic following a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. They compared these patients with a sample of elderly patients from the same city (São Paulo), sampled before the current pandemic. The researchers identified a genetic variant related to mucin production. “In individuals with mild COVID-19, the degradation of these mucins would be more efficient,” said Dr. Zatz. It is possible for this variant to interfere not only with the production of mucus, but also in its composition, as there is an exchange of amino acids in the protein.

“We continued the study by comparing the extremes, i.e., those in their 90s with mild COVID-19 and younger patients with severe COVID-19, including several who died,” said Dr. Zatz.
 

More personalized medicine

The specialists agreed that a genetic test to predict COVID-19 severity is still a long way away. The genetic component is too little understood to enable the evaluation of individual risk. It has been possible to identify several important areas but, as Dr. Krieger pointed out, a variant identified in a certain chromosome interval may not be just one gene. There may be various candidate genes, or there may be a regulatory sequence for a distant gene. Furthermore, there are regions with genes that make sense as moderators of COVID-19 severity, because they regulate an inflammatory or immunologic reaction, but evidence is still lacking.

Reaching the molecular mechanism would, in future, allow a medicine to be chosen for a given patient, as already happens with other diseases. It also could enable the discovery of new medicines following as-yet-unexplored lines of research. Dr. Zatz also considers the possibility of genetic therapy.

Even with the knowledge of human genetics, one part of the equation is missing: viral genetics. “Many of the individuals who were resistant to the Delta variant were later affected by Omicron,” she pointed out.
 

Significance of Brazil

“We have an infinite amount of genomic data worldwide, but the vast majority originates from White Americans of European origin,” said Dr. Krieger. Moreover, genomic associations of COVID-19 severity discovered in the Chinese population were not significant in the European population. Besides underscoring the importance of collaborating with international studies, this situation supports scientists’ interest in carrying out genetic studies within Brazil, he added.

“In the genomic study of the Brazilian population, we found 2 million variants that were not present in the European populations,” said Dr. Zatz.

Dr. Krieger mentioned a technical advantage that Brazil has. “Having been colonized by different ethnic groups and mixed many generations ago, Brazil has a population with a unique genetic structure; the recombinations are different. When preparing the samples, the regions break differently.” This factor could help to separate, in a candidate region, the gene that is significant from those that might not be.

In general, severe COVID-19 would be a complex phenomenon involving several genes and interactions with environmental factors. The Brazilian studies tried to find a factor that was unique to Brazil, but the significance of the differences remained unclear. “We found some signs that were specific to our population,” concluded Dr. Krieger. “But the reason that more people in Brazil died as a result of COVID-19 was not genetic,” he added.

Dr. Zatz and Dr. Krieger reported no conflicts of interest. This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.