CHEST Physician

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

While most commercially insured patients with asthma have good disease control, some patients may not, according to a recent review of U.S. administrative claims data.

The results of the retrospective analysis, presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year, showed some patients with asthma had two or more refills for prescribed systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or short-acting beta agonists (SABA) within a period of 12 months.

“Frequent prescription of systemic corticosteroids and short-acting beta agonists is often indicative of poor asthma disease control,” Randall Brown, MD, MPH, pulmonologist and senior director of Global Respiratory Medical Affairs at Teva Pharmaceuticals in West Chester, Penn., said in a presentation at the meeting. “Understanding the extent of systemic steroid and SABA prescriptions among patients with asthma and the distribution of those prescriptions across disease severity can be useful in determining the degree of disease control.”

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines consider factors such as symptom control and risk of exacerbation when determining asthma severity, but uncontrolled asthma can still be difficult to assess. Dr. Brown and colleagues set out to determine the prevalence of uncontrolled asthma for patients in the IBM/Watson MarketScan U.S. claims database as well as the rate of uncontrolled asthma by GINA classification. In total, 597,955 patients who had an asthma diagnosis between 12 months before or up to 3 months after the index data of filling a SABA prescription were included for analysis. Patients were at least 12 years old with commercial insurance for at least 12 months, and had no other respiratory diseases other than asthma during the 12 months prior to the index date and during the study period.

The researchers then measured each patient’s 2018 GINA classification of asthma severity based on the number of SCS and SABA prescription claims made between January and December 2017. Overall, 54.3% patients were GINA Step 1, 14.6% were Step 2, 10.2% were Step 3, 19.8% were Step 4, and 1.1% were Step 5.

Dr. Brown and colleagues found that, regardless of GINA disease severity, 18.8% of patients filled two or more SCS prescriptions in 1 year, 27.4% filled three or more SABA prescriptions in 1 year, and 38.7% filled two or more SCS and/or three or more SABA prescriptions in 1 year. “[A] large proportion of these patients did not meet the GINA goal of disease control,” Dr. Brown said.

The researchers found 13% of patients with uncontrolled asthma categorized as GINA Step 1, 20% of patients categorized as GINA Step 2, 19% of patients who were GINA Step 3, 31% of patients who were GINA Step 4, and 54% of patients categorized as GINA Step 5 filled two or more two or more SCS prescriptions per year.

The proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma who filled three or more SABA prescriptions per year included 19% in GINA Step 1, 29% in GINA Step 2, 35% in GINA Step 3, 44% in GINA Step 4, and 57% in GINA Step 5 groups. For patients who filled both two or more SCS and/or three or more SABA prescriptions per year, the proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma by GINA category was 29% in GINA Step 1, 42% in GINA Step 2, 46% in GINA Step 3, 58% in GINA Step 4, and 76% of patients in GINA Step 5.

While “poor control was seen across all of the GINA disease severity classifications, the greatest proportion of uncontrolled disease was seen at the highest disease severity, which was also true when we used a stricter definition of uncontrolled disease,” Dr. Brown said. When the researchers applied stricter criteria for patients categorized as GINA Step 5, 39% of patients filled three or more SCS, 41% filled four or more SABA, and 60% filled three or more SCS and/or four or more SABA prescriptions over 12 months.

Dr. Brown said that the analysis “highlights the need for improved asthma management strategies within each of the asthma GINA classification steps.”

“While this population that was studied may be reflective of the wider insured U.S. population, the proportions of uncontrolled asthma may be even greater in non–commercially insured patients within the United States,” he said. “Updates to GINA guidelines incorporate recent consensus [and] recent scientific information and therapies, but many patients in the U.S. are not meeting the GINA goal of disease control. Newer paradigms for systemic corticosteroid-free asthma control as a target of disease ‘remission’ are becoming more commonplace. Such changes and goals may lead to improved asthma management strategies and advancement in treatment.”

This study was funded in part by Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, which also provided funding for medical writing assistance from Ashfield MedComms. The authors report being employees of Teva Pharmaceuticals.

While most commercially insured patients with asthma have good disease control, some patients may not, according to a recent review of U.S. administrative claims data.

The results of the retrospective analysis, presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year, showed some patients with asthma had two or more refills for prescribed systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or short-acting beta agonists (SABA) within a period of 12 months.

“Frequent prescription of systemic corticosteroids and short-acting beta agonists is often indicative of poor asthma disease control,” Randall Brown, MD, MPH, pulmonologist and senior director of Global Respiratory Medical Affairs at Teva Pharmaceuticals in West Chester, Penn., said in a presentation at the meeting. “Understanding the extent of systemic steroid and SABA prescriptions among patients with asthma and the distribution of those prescriptions across disease severity can be useful in determining the degree of disease control.”

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines consider factors such as symptom control and risk of exacerbation when determining asthma severity, but uncontrolled asthma can still be difficult to assess. Dr. Brown and colleagues set out to determine the prevalence of uncontrolled asthma for patients in the IBM/Watson MarketScan U.S. claims database as well as the rate of uncontrolled asthma by GINA classification. In total, 597,955 patients who had an asthma diagnosis between 12 months before or up to 3 months after the index data of filling a SABA prescription were included for analysis. Patients were at least 12 years old with commercial insurance for at least 12 months, and had no other respiratory diseases other than asthma during the 12 months prior to the index date and during the study period.

The researchers then measured each patient’s 2018 GINA classification of asthma severity based on the number of SCS and SABA prescription claims made between January and December 2017. Overall, 54.3% patients were GINA Step 1, 14.6% were Step 2, 10.2% were Step 3, 19.8% were Step 4, and 1.1% were Step 5.

Dr. Brown and colleagues found that, regardless of GINA disease severity, 18.8% of patients filled two or more SCS prescriptions in 1 year, 27.4% filled three or more SABA prescriptions in 1 year, and 38.7% filled two or more SCS and/or three or more SABA prescriptions in 1 year. “[A] large proportion of these patients did not meet the GINA goal of disease control,” Dr. Brown said.

The researchers found 13% of patients with uncontrolled asthma categorized as GINA Step 1, 20% of patients categorized as GINA Step 2, 19% of patients who were GINA Step 3, 31% of patients who were GINA Step 4, and 54% of patients categorized as GINA Step 5 filled two or more two or more SCS prescriptions per year.

The proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma who filled three or more SABA prescriptions per year included 19% in GINA Step 1, 29% in GINA Step 2, 35% in GINA Step 3, 44% in GINA Step 4, and 57% in GINA Step 5 groups. For patients who filled both two or more SCS and/or three or more SABA prescriptions per year, the proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma by GINA category was 29% in GINA Step 1, 42% in GINA Step 2, 46% in GINA Step 3, 58% in GINA Step 4, and 76% of patients in GINA Step 5.

While “poor control was seen across all of the GINA disease severity classifications, the greatest proportion of uncontrolled disease was seen at the highest disease severity, which was also true when we used a stricter definition of uncontrolled disease,” Dr. Brown said. When the researchers applied stricter criteria for patients categorized as GINA Step 5, 39% of patients filled three or more SCS, 41% filled four or more SABA, and 60% filled three or more SCS and/or four or more SABA prescriptions over 12 months.

Dr. Brown said that the analysis “highlights the need for improved asthma management strategies within each of the asthma GINA classification steps.”

“While this population that was studied may be reflective of the wider insured U.S. population, the proportions of uncontrolled asthma may be even greater in non–commercially insured patients within the United States,” he said. “Updates to GINA guidelines incorporate recent consensus [and] recent scientific information and therapies, but many patients in the U.S. are not meeting the GINA goal of disease control. Newer paradigms for systemic corticosteroid-free asthma control as a target of disease ‘remission’ are becoming more commonplace. Such changes and goals may lead to improved asthma management strategies and advancement in treatment.”

This study was funded in part by Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, which also provided funding for medical writing assistance from Ashfield MedComms. The authors report being employees of Teva Pharmaceuticals.

While most commercially insured patients with asthma have good disease control, some patients may not, according to a recent review of U.S. administrative claims data.

The results of the retrospective analysis, presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year, showed some patients with asthma had two or more refills for prescribed systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or short-acting beta agonists (SABA) within a period of 12 months.

“Frequent prescription of systemic corticosteroids and short-acting beta agonists is often indicative of poor asthma disease control,” Randall Brown, MD, MPH, pulmonologist and senior director of Global Respiratory Medical Affairs at Teva Pharmaceuticals in West Chester, Penn., said in a presentation at the meeting. “Understanding the extent of systemic steroid and SABA prescriptions among patients with asthma and the distribution of those prescriptions across disease severity can be useful in determining the degree of disease control.”

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines consider factors such as symptom control and risk of exacerbation when determining asthma severity, but uncontrolled asthma can still be difficult to assess. Dr. Brown and colleagues set out to determine the prevalence of uncontrolled asthma for patients in the IBM/Watson MarketScan U.S. claims database as well as the rate of uncontrolled asthma by GINA classification. In total, 597,955 patients who had an asthma diagnosis between 12 months before or up to 3 months after the index data of filling a SABA prescription were included for analysis. Patients were at least 12 years old with commercial insurance for at least 12 months, and had no other respiratory diseases other than asthma during the 12 months prior to the index date and during the study period.

The researchers then measured each patient’s 2018 GINA classification of asthma severity based on the number of SCS and SABA prescription claims made between January and December 2017. Overall, 54.3% patients were GINA Step 1, 14.6% were Step 2, 10.2% were Step 3, 19.8% were Step 4, and 1.1% were Step 5.

Dr. Brown and colleagues found that, regardless of GINA disease severity, 18.8% of patients filled two or more SCS prescriptions in 1 year, 27.4% filled three or more SABA prescriptions in 1 year, and 38.7% filled two or more SCS and/or three or more SABA prescriptions in 1 year. “[A] large proportion of these patients did not meet the GINA goal of disease control,” Dr. Brown said.

The researchers found 13% of patients with uncontrolled asthma categorized as GINA Step 1, 20% of patients categorized as GINA Step 2, 19% of patients who were GINA Step 3, 31% of patients who were GINA Step 4, and 54% of patients categorized as GINA Step 5 filled two or more two or more SCS prescriptions per year.

The proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma who filled three or more SABA prescriptions per year included 19% in GINA Step 1, 29% in GINA Step 2, 35% in GINA Step 3, 44% in GINA Step 4, and 57% in GINA Step 5 groups. For patients who filled both two or more SCS and/or three or more SABA prescriptions per year, the proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma by GINA category was 29% in GINA Step 1, 42% in GINA Step 2, 46% in GINA Step 3, 58% in GINA Step 4, and 76% of patients in GINA Step 5.

While “poor control was seen across all of the GINA disease severity classifications, the greatest proportion of uncontrolled disease was seen at the highest disease severity, which was also true when we used a stricter definition of uncontrolled disease,” Dr. Brown said. When the researchers applied stricter criteria for patients categorized as GINA Step 5, 39% of patients filled three or more SCS, 41% filled four or more SABA, and 60% filled three or more SCS and/or four or more SABA prescriptions over 12 months.

Dr. Brown said that the analysis “highlights the need for improved asthma management strategies within each of the asthma GINA classification steps.”

“While this population that was studied may be reflective of the wider insured U.S. population, the proportions of uncontrolled asthma may be even greater in non–commercially insured patients within the United States,” he said. “Updates to GINA guidelines incorporate recent consensus [and] recent scientific information and therapies, but many patients in the U.S. are not meeting the GINA goal of disease control. Newer paradigms for systemic corticosteroid-free asthma control as a target of disease ‘remission’ are becoming more commonplace. Such changes and goals may lead to improved asthma management strategies and advancement in treatment.”

This study was funded in part by Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, which also provided funding for medical writing assistance from Ashfield MedComms. The authors report being employees of Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Wearing a mask to protect against transmission of COVID-19 does not decrease oxygen saturation, according to a new study.

Oxygen saturation did not decline in more than 200 mask-wearing individuals attending an asthma and allergy clinic, regardless of the type of mask they were wearing and how long they had been wearing the mask.

The study was presented in a late breaking poster session by Marisa Hodges, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“In patients with or without asthma, wearing a mask does not decrease your oxygen level,” coauthor Alan P. Baptist, MD, MPH, director of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Asthma Program, said in an interview.

“Some of my asthma patients had called me requesting an exemption from wearing a mask because they feared that their oxygen intake may be affected, and that got me thinking,” said Malika Gupta, MD, assistant professor, division of allergy and immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s lead investigator.

“We say masks are safe, but I couldn’t find any data to support that statement, and we wanted to provide them with evidence, so they could feel comfortable about wearing their masks,” Dr. Gupta added.

The study collected 223 surveys from adult and pediatric patients presenting to the University of Michigan Medicine Allergy Clinic between Sept. 10 and Oct. 23, 2020.

The patients were asked whether they had a diagnosis of asthma, their degree of perceived control if they did have asthma, the type of mask they were wearing, and how long they had been wearing it.

Investigators obtained resting pulse oximetry readings to measure oxygen saturation (SpO₂) from all study participants.

Forty percent of the participants were male, 46% reported having asthma, and 27% were age 19 years or younger.

Overall, the mean SpO₂ was 98% (range, 93%-100%) in both asthma and nonasthma groups.

The study also looked at SpO₂ with 3 different types of masks: fabric, surgical, and N95.

The mean SpO₂ for a fabric mask was 98% (119 patients), for a surgical mask it was also 98% (83 patients), and for the N95 mask it was 99% (3 patients).

Similar results were found with duration of mask use, with the mean SpO₂ 98% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or less and 99% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or longer.

People with asthma who reported they were well controlled showed similar mean SpO₂ levels (98%) compared with those who reported they were not well controlled (96.5%)

“No effect on oxygen saturation was noted in any patients, whether they had asthma or not, whether it was well controlled or not, and this was also true regardless of what masks they wore and how long they wore the masks for. So our data reinforce that wearing a mask, whether it be a surgical mask, cloth mask, or N95, is completely safe,” Dr. Baptist said.

“We know wearing a mask is an essential step we can all take to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and we hope these data will give peace of mind to individuals who fear that wearing a mask will adversely affect their oxygen levels,” Dr. Gupta added.

Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., agreed with the investigators’ conclusions.

“The authors found no differences in oxygen saturations between asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients, nor was there a difference based upon mask use or type,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

“These findings provide reassurance that patients, including those with stable asthma, do not experience impaired oxygenation while wearing a mask.”

Dr. Hodges, Dr. Baptist, and Dr. Bacharier have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was updated 3/11/21.

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

Wearing a mask to protect against transmission of COVID-19 does not decrease oxygen saturation, according to a new study.

Oxygen saturation did not decline in more than 200 mask-wearing individuals attending an asthma and allergy clinic, regardless of the type of mask they were wearing and how long they had been wearing the mask.

The study was presented in a late breaking poster session by Marisa Hodges, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“In patients with or without asthma, wearing a mask does not decrease your oxygen level,” coauthor Alan P. Baptist, MD, MPH, director of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Asthma Program, said in an interview.

“Some of my asthma patients had called me requesting an exemption from wearing a mask because they feared that their oxygen intake may be affected, and that got me thinking,” said Malika Gupta, MD, assistant professor, division of allergy and immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s lead investigator.

“We say masks are safe, but I couldn’t find any data to support that statement, and we wanted to provide them with evidence, so they could feel comfortable about wearing their masks,” Dr. Gupta added.

The study collected 223 surveys from adult and pediatric patients presenting to the University of Michigan Medicine Allergy Clinic between Sept. 10 and Oct. 23, 2020.

The patients were asked whether they had a diagnosis of asthma, their degree of perceived control if they did have asthma, the type of mask they were wearing, and how long they had been wearing it.

Investigators obtained resting pulse oximetry readings to measure oxygen saturation (SpO₂) from all study participants.

Forty percent of the participants were male, 46% reported having asthma, and 27% were age 19 years or younger.

Overall, the mean SpO₂ was 98% (range, 93%-100%) in both asthma and nonasthma groups.

The study also looked at SpO₂ with 3 different types of masks: fabric, surgical, and N95.

The mean SpO₂ for a fabric mask was 98% (119 patients), for a surgical mask it was also 98% (83 patients), and for the N95 mask it was 99% (3 patients).

Similar results were found with duration of mask use, with the mean SpO₂ 98% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or less and 99% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or longer.

People with asthma who reported they were well controlled showed similar mean SpO₂ levels (98%) compared with those who reported they were not well controlled (96.5%)

“No effect on oxygen saturation was noted in any patients, whether they had asthma or not, whether it was well controlled or not, and this was also true regardless of what masks they wore and how long they wore the masks for. So our data reinforce that wearing a mask, whether it be a surgical mask, cloth mask, or N95, is completely safe,” Dr. Baptist said.

“We know wearing a mask is an essential step we can all take to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and we hope these data will give peace of mind to individuals who fear that wearing a mask will adversely affect their oxygen levels,” Dr. Gupta added.

Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., agreed with the investigators’ conclusions.

“The authors found no differences in oxygen saturations between asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients, nor was there a difference based upon mask use or type,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

“These findings provide reassurance that patients, including those with stable asthma, do not experience impaired oxygenation while wearing a mask.”

Dr. Hodges, Dr. Baptist, and Dr. Bacharier have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was updated 3/11/21.

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

Wearing a mask to protect against transmission of COVID-19 does not decrease oxygen saturation, according to a new study.

Oxygen saturation did not decline in more than 200 mask-wearing individuals attending an asthma and allergy clinic, regardless of the type of mask they were wearing and how long they had been wearing the mask.

The study was presented in a late breaking poster session by Marisa Hodges, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“In patients with or without asthma, wearing a mask does not decrease your oxygen level,” coauthor Alan P. Baptist, MD, MPH, director of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Asthma Program, said in an interview.

“Some of my asthma patients had called me requesting an exemption from wearing a mask because they feared that their oxygen intake may be affected, and that got me thinking,” said Malika Gupta, MD, assistant professor, division of allergy and immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s lead investigator.

“We say masks are safe, but I couldn’t find any data to support that statement, and we wanted to provide them with evidence, so they could feel comfortable about wearing their masks,” Dr. Gupta added.

The study collected 223 surveys from adult and pediatric patients presenting to the University of Michigan Medicine Allergy Clinic between Sept. 10 and Oct. 23, 2020.

The patients were asked whether they had a diagnosis of asthma, their degree of perceived control if they did have asthma, the type of mask they were wearing, and how long they had been wearing it.

Investigators obtained resting pulse oximetry readings to measure oxygen saturation (SpO₂) from all study participants.

Forty percent of the participants were male, 46% reported having asthma, and 27% were age 19 years or younger.

Overall, the mean SpO₂ was 98% (range, 93%-100%) in both asthma and nonasthma groups.

The study also looked at SpO₂ with 3 different types of masks: fabric, surgical, and N95.

The mean SpO₂ for a fabric mask was 98% (119 patients), for a surgical mask it was also 98% (83 patients), and for the N95 mask it was 99% (3 patients).

Similar results were found with duration of mask use, with the mean SpO₂ 98% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or less and 99% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or longer.

People with asthma who reported they were well controlled showed similar mean SpO₂ levels (98%) compared with those who reported they were not well controlled (96.5%)

“No effect on oxygen saturation was noted in any patients, whether they had asthma or not, whether it was well controlled or not, and this was also true regardless of what masks they wore and how long they wore the masks for. So our data reinforce that wearing a mask, whether it be a surgical mask, cloth mask, or N95, is completely safe,” Dr. Baptist said.

“We know wearing a mask is an essential step we can all take to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and we hope these data will give peace of mind to individuals who fear that wearing a mask will adversely affect their oxygen levels,” Dr. Gupta added.

Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., agreed with the investigators’ conclusions.

“The authors found no differences in oxygen saturations between asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients, nor was there a difference based upon mask use or type,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

“These findings provide reassurance that patients, including those with stable asthma, do not experience impaired oxygenation while wearing a mask.”

Dr. Hodges, Dr. Baptist, and Dr. Bacharier have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was updated 3/11/21.

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

And then there were three. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb. 27 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine from Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for people 18 and older after reviewing its safety and efficacy data.

More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.

Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.

“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”

“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.

One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.

The more the merrier

The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.

“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”

Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.

On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.

One and done?

Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.

“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”

This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”

Looking beyond the numbers

The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.

“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”

“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.

More work to do

“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.

“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”

Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.

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

And then there were three. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb. 27 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine from Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for people 18 and older after reviewing its safety and efficacy data.

More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.

Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.

“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”

“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.

One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.

The more the merrier

The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.

“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”

Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.

On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.

One and done?

Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.

“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”

This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”

Looking beyond the numbers

The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.

“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”

“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.

More work to do

“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.

“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”

Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.

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

And then there were three. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb. 27 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine from Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for people 18 and older after reviewing its safety and efficacy data.

More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.

Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.

“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”

“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.

One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.

The more the merrier

The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.

“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”

Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.

On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.

One and done?

Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.

“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”

This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”

Looking beyond the numbers

The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.

“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”

“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.

More work to do

“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.

“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”

Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.

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

An FDA advisory panel lent their support Feb. 26 to a rapid clearance for Janssen/Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).

But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.

The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.

But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.

“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.

Anaphylaxis case

FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and  20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.

“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.

Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.

This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.

However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.

Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.

The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.

The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.

The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.

“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.

“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”

No second-class vaccines

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.

The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.

“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.

Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.

During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.

“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”

She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.

“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.

Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.

At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.

Weakened standards?

Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.

They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.

“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.

“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.

Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.

The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”

“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.

“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.



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

An FDA advisory panel lent their support Feb. 26 to a rapid clearance for Janssen/Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).

But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.

The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.

But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.

“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.

Anaphylaxis case

FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and  20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.

“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.

Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.

This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.

However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.

Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.

The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.

The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.

The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.

“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.

“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”

No second-class vaccines

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.

The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.

“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.

Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.

During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.

“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”

She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.

“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.

Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.

At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.

Weakened standards?

Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.

They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.

“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.

“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.

Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.

The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”

“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.

“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.



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

An FDA advisory panel lent their support Feb. 26 to a rapid clearance for Janssen/Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).

But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.

The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.

But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.

“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.

Anaphylaxis case

FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and  20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.

“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.

Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.

This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.

However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.

Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.

The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.

The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.

The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.

“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.

“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”

No second-class vaccines

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.

The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.

“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.

Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.

During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.

“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”

She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.

“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.

Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.

At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.

Weakened standards?

Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.

They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.

“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.

“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.

Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.

The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”

“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.

“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.



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

New onset atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/AFL) is uncommon in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and occurs at a rate similar to that seen in patients hospitalized with influenza.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among 3,970 patients treated during the early months of the pandemic, new onset AF/AFL was seen in 4%, matching the 4% incidence found in a historic cohort of patients hospitalized with influenza.

On the other hand, mortality was similarly high in both groups of patients studied with AF/AFL, showing a 77% increased risk of death in COVID-19 and a 78% increased risk in influenza, a team from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York reported.

“We saw new onset Afib and flutter in a minority of patients and it was associated with much higher mortality, but the point is that this increase is basically the same as what you see in influenza, which we feel is an indication that this is more of a generalized response to the inflammatory milieu of such a severe viral illness, as opposed to something specific to COVID,” Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, said in the report, published online Feb. 25 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

“Here we see, with a similar respiratory virus used as controls, that the results are exactly what I would have expected to see, which is that where there is a lot of inflammation, we see Afib,” said John Mandrola, MD, of Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., who was not involved with the study.

“We need more studies like this one because we know SARS-CoV-2 is a bad virus that may have important effects on the heart, but all the of research done so far has been problematic because it didn’t include controls.”
 

Atrial arrhythmias in COVID and flu

Dr. Reddy and coinvestigators performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during Feb. 4-April 22, 2020, to one of five hospitals within the Mount Sinai Health System.

Their comparator arm included 1,420 patients with confirmed influenza A or B hospitalized between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2020. For both cohorts, automated electronic record abstraction was used and all patient data were de-identified prior to analysis. In the COVID-19 cohort, a manual review of 1,110 charts was also performed.

Compared with those who did not develop AF/AFL, COVID-19 patients with newly detected AF/AFL and COVID-19 were older (74 vs. 66 years; P < .01) and had higher levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6, and higher troponin and D-dimer levels (all P < .01).

Overall, including those with a history of atrial arrhythmias, 10% of patients with hospitalized COVID-19 (13% in the manual review) and 12% of those with influenza had AF/AFL detected during their hospitalization.

Mortality at 30 days was higher in COVID-19 patients with AF/AFL compared to those without (46% vs. 26%; P < .01), as were the rates of intubation (27% vs. 15%; relative risk, 1.8; P < .01), and stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%, RR, 2.7; P = .05).

Despite having more comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the influenza cohort overall, compared to the COVID-19 cohort (9% vs. 29%; P < .01), reflecting the higher case fatality rate in COVID-19, Dr. Reddy, director of cardiac arrhythmia services at Mount Sinai Hospital, said in an interview.

But as with COVID-19, those influenza patients who had in-hospital AF/AFL were more likely to require intubation (14% vs. 7%; P = .004) or die (16% vs. 10%; P = .003).

“The data are not perfect and there are always limitations when doing an observational study using historic controls, but my guess would be that if we looked at other databases and other populations hospitalized for severe illness, we’d likely see something similar because when the body is inflamed, you’re more likely to see Afib,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Dr. Reddy concurred, noting that they considered comparing other populations to COVID-19 patients, including those with “just generalized severe illness,” but in the end felt there were many similarities between influenza and COVID-19, even though mortality in the latter is higher.

“It would be interesting for people to look at other illnesses and see if they find the same thing,” he said.

Dr. Reddy reported having no disclosures relevant to COVID-19. Dr. Mandrola is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. He reported having no relevant disclosures. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

New onset atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/AFL) is uncommon in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and occurs at a rate similar to that seen in patients hospitalized with influenza.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among 3,970 patients treated during the early months of the pandemic, new onset AF/AFL was seen in 4%, matching the 4% incidence found in a historic cohort of patients hospitalized with influenza.

On the other hand, mortality was similarly high in both groups of patients studied with AF/AFL, showing a 77% increased risk of death in COVID-19 and a 78% increased risk in influenza, a team from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York reported.

“We saw new onset Afib and flutter in a minority of patients and it was associated with much higher mortality, but the point is that this increase is basically the same as what you see in influenza, which we feel is an indication that this is more of a generalized response to the inflammatory milieu of such a severe viral illness, as opposed to something specific to COVID,” Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, said in the report, published online Feb. 25 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

“Here we see, with a similar respiratory virus used as controls, that the results are exactly what I would have expected to see, which is that where there is a lot of inflammation, we see Afib,” said John Mandrola, MD, of Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., who was not involved with the study.

“We need more studies like this one because we know SARS-CoV-2 is a bad virus that may have important effects on the heart, but all the of research done so far has been problematic because it didn’t include controls.”
 

Atrial arrhythmias in COVID and flu

Dr. Reddy and coinvestigators performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during Feb. 4-April 22, 2020, to one of five hospitals within the Mount Sinai Health System.

Their comparator arm included 1,420 patients with confirmed influenza A or B hospitalized between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2020. For both cohorts, automated electronic record abstraction was used and all patient data were de-identified prior to analysis. In the COVID-19 cohort, a manual review of 1,110 charts was also performed.

Compared with those who did not develop AF/AFL, COVID-19 patients with newly detected AF/AFL and COVID-19 were older (74 vs. 66 years; P < .01) and had higher levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6, and higher troponin and D-dimer levels (all P < .01).

Overall, including those with a history of atrial arrhythmias, 10% of patients with hospitalized COVID-19 (13% in the manual review) and 12% of those with influenza had AF/AFL detected during their hospitalization.

Mortality at 30 days was higher in COVID-19 patients with AF/AFL compared to those without (46% vs. 26%; P < .01), as were the rates of intubation (27% vs. 15%; relative risk, 1.8; P < .01), and stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%, RR, 2.7; P = .05).

Despite having more comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the influenza cohort overall, compared to the COVID-19 cohort (9% vs. 29%; P < .01), reflecting the higher case fatality rate in COVID-19, Dr. Reddy, director of cardiac arrhythmia services at Mount Sinai Hospital, said in an interview.

But as with COVID-19, those influenza patients who had in-hospital AF/AFL were more likely to require intubation (14% vs. 7%; P = .004) or die (16% vs. 10%; P = .003).

“The data are not perfect and there are always limitations when doing an observational study using historic controls, but my guess would be that if we looked at other databases and other populations hospitalized for severe illness, we’d likely see something similar because when the body is inflamed, you’re more likely to see Afib,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Dr. Reddy concurred, noting that they considered comparing other populations to COVID-19 patients, including those with “just generalized severe illness,” but in the end felt there were many similarities between influenza and COVID-19, even though mortality in the latter is higher.

“It would be interesting for people to look at other illnesses and see if they find the same thing,” he said.

Dr. Reddy reported having no disclosures relevant to COVID-19. Dr. Mandrola is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. He reported having no relevant disclosures. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

New onset atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/AFL) is uncommon in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and occurs at a rate similar to that seen in patients hospitalized with influenza.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among 3,970 patients treated during the early months of the pandemic, new onset AF/AFL was seen in 4%, matching the 4% incidence found in a historic cohort of patients hospitalized with influenza.

On the other hand, mortality was similarly high in both groups of patients studied with AF/AFL, showing a 77% increased risk of death in COVID-19 and a 78% increased risk in influenza, a team from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York reported.

“We saw new onset Afib and flutter in a minority of patients and it was associated with much higher mortality, but the point is that this increase is basically the same as what you see in influenza, which we feel is an indication that this is more of a generalized response to the inflammatory milieu of such a severe viral illness, as opposed to something specific to COVID,” Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, said in the report, published online Feb. 25 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

“Here we see, with a similar respiratory virus used as controls, that the results are exactly what I would have expected to see, which is that where there is a lot of inflammation, we see Afib,” said John Mandrola, MD, of Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., who was not involved with the study.

“We need more studies like this one because we know SARS-CoV-2 is a bad virus that may have important effects on the heart, but all the of research done so far has been problematic because it didn’t include controls.”
 

Atrial arrhythmias in COVID and flu

Dr. Reddy and coinvestigators performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during Feb. 4-April 22, 2020, to one of five hospitals within the Mount Sinai Health System.

Their comparator arm included 1,420 patients with confirmed influenza A or B hospitalized between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2020. For both cohorts, automated electronic record abstraction was used and all patient data were de-identified prior to analysis. In the COVID-19 cohort, a manual review of 1,110 charts was also performed.

Compared with those who did not develop AF/AFL, COVID-19 patients with newly detected AF/AFL and COVID-19 were older (74 vs. 66 years; P < .01) and had higher levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6, and higher troponin and D-dimer levels (all P < .01).

Overall, including those with a history of atrial arrhythmias, 10% of patients with hospitalized COVID-19 (13% in the manual review) and 12% of those with influenza had AF/AFL detected during their hospitalization.

Mortality at 30 days was higher in COVID-19 patients with AF/AFL compared to those without (46% vs. 26%; P < .01), as were the rates of intubation (27% vs. 15%; relative risk, 1.8; P < .01), and stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%, RR, 2.7; P = .05).

Despite having more comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the influenza cohort overall, compared to the COVID-19 cohort (9% vs. 29%; P < .01), reflecting the higher case fatality rate in COVID-19, Dr. Reddy, director of cardiac arrhythmia services at Mount Sinai Hospital, said in an interview.

But as with COVID-19, those influenza patients who had in-hospital AF/AFL were more likely to require intubation (14% vs. 7%; P = .004) or die (16% vs. 10%; P = .003).

“The data are not perfect and there are always limitations when doing an observational study using historic controls, but my guess would be that if we looked at other databases and other populations hospitalized for severe illness, we’d likely see something similar because when the body is inflamed, you’re more likely to see Afib,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Dr. Reddy concurred, noting that they considered comparing other populations to COVID-19 patients, including those with “just generalized severe illness,” but in the end felt there were many similarities between influenza and COVID-19, even though mortality in the latter is higher.

“It would be interesting for people to look at other illnesses and see if they find the same thing,” he said.

Dr. Reddy reported having no disclosures relevant to COVID-19. Dr. Mandrola is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. He reported having no relevant disclosures. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

Two research teams have identified a new coronavirus variant in New York City and across the Northeast that could evade natural immune responses and some monoclonal antibody treatments, according to CNN.

Jae Young Ju/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The variant, called B.1.526, has appeared in diverse neighborhoods in New York City and is “scattered in the Northeast,” the researchers said.

“We observed a steady increase in the detection rate from late December to mid-February, with an alarming rise to 12.7% in the past two weeks,” researchers from Columbia University Medical Center wrote in a report, which was published as a preprint Feb. 25. 

On Feb. 22, the team released another preprint about the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants first identified in the United Kingdom and South Africa, respectively, which also mentions the B.1.526 variant in the U.S. Neither report has been peer reviewed.

Viruses mutate often, and several coronavirus variants have been identified and followed during the pandemic. Not all mutations are significant or are necessarily more contagious or dangerous. Researchers have been tracking the B.1.526 variant in the U.S. to find out if there are significant mutations that could be a cause for concern.

In the most recent preprints, the variant appears to have the same mutation found in B.1.351, called E484K, which may allow the virus to evade vaccines and the body’s natural immune response. The E484K mutation has shown up in at least 59 lines of the coronavirus, the research team said. That means the virus is evolving independently across the country and world, which could give the virus an advantage.

“A concern is that it might be beginning to overtake other strains, just like the U.K. and South African variants,” David Ho, MD, the lead study author and director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia, told CNN.

“However, we don’t have enough data to firm up this point now,” he said.

In a separate preprint posted Feb. 23, a research team at the California Institute of Technology developed a software tool that noticed the rise of B.1.526 in the New York region. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.

“It appears that the frequency of lineage B.1.526 has increased rapidly in New York,” they wrote.

Both teams also reported on another variant, called B.1.427/B.1.429, which appears to be increasing in California. The variant could be more contagious and cause more severe disease, they said, but the research is still in the early stages.

Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, have tested virus samples from recent outbreaks in California and also found that the variant is becoming more common. The variant didn’t appear in samples from September but was in half of the samples by late January. It has a different pattern of mutations than other variants, and one called L452R may affect the spike protein on the virus and allow it attach to cells more easily.

“Our data shows that this is likely the key mutation that makes this variant more infectious,” Charles Chiu, MD, associate director of the clinical microbiology lab at UCSF, told CNN.

The team also noticed that patients with a B.1.427/B.1.429 infection had more severe COVID-19 cases and needed more oxygen, CNN reported. The team plans to post a preprint once public health officials in San Francisco review the report.

Right now, the CDC provides public data for three variants: B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1, which was first identified in Brazil. The U.S. has reported 1,881 B.1.1.7 cases across 45 states, 46 B.1.351 cases in 14 states, and five P.1 cases in four states, according to a CDC tally as of Feb. 23.

At the moment, lab officials aren’t able to tell patients or doctors whether someone has been infected by a variant, according to Kaiser Health News. High-level labs conduct genomic sequencing on samples and aren’t able to communicate information back to individual people.

But the Association of Public Health Laboratories and public health officials in several states are pushing for federal authorization of a test that could sequence the full genome and notify doctors. The test could be available in coming weeks, the news outlet reported.

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

Two research teams have identified a new coronavirus variant in New York City and across the Northeast that could evade natural immune responses and some monoclonal antibody treatments, according to CNN.

Jae Young Ju/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The variant, called B.1.526, has appeared in diverse neighborhoods in New York City and is “scattered in the Northeast,” the researchers said.

“We observed a steady increase in the detection rate from late December to mid-February, with an alarming rise to 12.7% in the past two weeks,” researchers from Columbia University Medical Center wrote in a report, which was published as a preprint Feb. 25. 

On Feb. 22, the team released another preprint about the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants first identified in the United Kingdom and South Africa, respectively, which also mentions the B.1.526 variant in the U.S. Neither report has been peer reviewed.

Viruses mutate often, and several coronavirus variants have been identified and followed during the pandemic. Not all mutations are significant or are necessarily more contagious or dangerous. Researchers have been tracking the B.1.526 variant in the U.S. to find out if there are significant mutations that could be a cause for concern.

In the most recent preprints, the variant appears to have the same mutation found in B.1.351, called E484K, which may allow the virus to evade vaccines and the body’s natural immune response. The E484K mutation has shown up in at least 59 lines of the coronavirus, the research team said. That means the virus is evolving independently across the country and world, which could give the virus an advantage.

“A concern is that it might be beginning to overtake other strains, just like the U.K. and South African variants,” David Ho, MD, the lead study author and director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia, told CNN.

“However, we don’t have enough data to firm up this point now,” he said.

In a separate preprint posted Feb. 23, a research team at the California Institute of Technology developed a software tool that noticed the rise of B.1.526 in the New York region. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.

“It appears that the frequency of lineage B.1.526 has increased rapidly in New York,” they wrote.

Both teams also reported on another variant, called B.1.427/B.1.429, which appears to be increasing in California. The variant could be more contagious and cause more severe disease, they said, but the research is still in the early stages.

Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, have tested virus samples from recent outbreaks in California and also found that the variant is becoming more common. The variant didn’t appear in samples from September but was in half of the samples by late January. It has a different pattern of mutations than other variants, and one called L452R may affect the spike protein on the virus and allow it attach to cells more easily.

“Our data shows that this is likely the key mutation that makes this variant more infectious,” Charles Chiu, MD, associate director of the clinical microbiology lab at UCSF, told CNN.

The team also noticed that patients with a B.1.427/B.1.429 infection had more severe COVID-19 cases and needed more oxygen, CNN reported. The team plans to post a preprint once public health officials in San Francisco review the report.

Right now, the CDC provides public data for three variants: B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1, which was first identified in Brazil. The U.S. has reported 1,881 B.1.1.7 cases across 45 states, 46 B.1.351 cases in 14 states, and five P.1 cases in four states, according to a CDC tally as of Feb. 23.

At the moment, lab officials aren’t able to tell patients or doctors whether someone has been infected by a variant, according to Kaiser Health News. High-level labs conduct genomic sequencing on samples and aren’t able to communicate information back to individual people.

But the Association of Public Health Laboratories and public health officials in several states are pushing for federal authorization of a test that could sequence the full genome and notify doctors. The test could be available in coming weeks, the news outlet reported.

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

Two research teams have identified a new coronavirus variant in New York City and across the Northeast that could evade natural immune responses and some monoclonal antibody treatments, according to CNN.

Jae Young Ju/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The variant, called B.1.526, has appeared in diverse neighborhoods in New York City and is “scattered in the Northeast,” the researchers said.

“We observed a steady increase in the detection rate from late December to mid-February, with an alarming rise to 12.7% in the past two weeks,” researchers from Columbia University Medical Center wrote in a report, which was published as a preprint Feb. 25. 

On Feb. 22, the team released another preprint about the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants first identified in the United Kingdom and South Africa, respectively, which also mentions the B.1.526 variant in the U.S. Neither report has been peer reviewed.

Viruses mutate often, and several coronavirus variants have been identified and followed during the pandemic. Not all mutations are significant or are necessarily more contagious or dangerous. Researchers have been tracking the B.1.526 variant in the U.S. to find out if there are significant mutations that could be a cause for concern.

In the most recent preprints, the variant appears to have the same mutation found in B.1.351, called E484K, which may allow the virus to evade vaccines and the body’s natural immune response. The E484K mutation has shown up in at least 59 lines of the coronavirus, the research team said. That means the virus is evolving independently across the country and world, which could give the virus an advantage.

“A concern is that it might be beginning to overtake other strains, just like the U.K. and South African variants,” David Ho, MD, the lead study author and director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia, told CNN.

“However, we don’t have enough data to firm up this point now,” he said.

In a separate preprint posted Feb. 23, a research team at the California Institute of Technology developed a software tool that noticed the rise of B.1.526 in the New York region. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.

“It appears that the frequency of lineage B.1.526 has increased rapidly in New York,” they wrote.

Both teams also reported on another variant, called B.1.427/B.1.429, which appears to be increasing in California. The variant could be more contagious and cause more severe disease, they said, but the research is still in the early stages.

Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, have tested virus samples from recent outbreaks in California and also found that the variant is becoming more common. The variant didn’t appear in samples from September but was in half of the samples by late January. It has a different pattern of mutations than other variants, and one called L452R may affect the spike protein on the virus and allow it attach to cells more easily.

“Our data shows that this is likely the key mutation that makes this variant more infectious,” Charles Chiu, MD, associate director of the clinical microbiology lab at UCSF, told CNN.

The team also noticed that patients with a B.1.427/B.1.429 infection had more severe COVID-19 cases and needed more oxygen, CNN reported. The team plans to post a preprint once public health officials in San Francisco review the report.

Right now, the CDC provides public data for three variants: B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1, which was first identified in Brazil. The U.S. has reported 1,881 B.1.1.7 cases across 45 states, 46 B.1.351 cases in 14 states, and five P.1 cases in four states, according to a CDC tally as of Feb. 23.

At the moment, lab officials aren’t able to tell patients or doctors whether someone has been infected by a variant, according to Kaiser Health News. High-level labs conduct genomic sequencing on samples and aren’t able to communicate information back to individual people.

But the Association of Public Health Laboratories and public health officials in several states are pushing for federal authorization of a test that could sequence the full genome and notify doctors. The test could be available in coming weeks, the news outlet reported.

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

Researchers studying a large set of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) tumor samples have identified four SCLC subtypes, and they propose that matching baseline tumor subtypes to SCLC therapy may enhance the depth and duration of response.

Carl M. Gay, MD, PhD, of University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues conducted this research and described their findings in Cancer Cell.

The authors noted that survival rates in SCLC remain dismal despite recent modest gains in progression-free survival and overall survival achieved through adding immunotherapy to platinum-based frontline chemotherapy.

Based on transcription factors indicating which genes are activated, prior research had already identified three possible SCLC subtypes. Many SCLC tumors, however, do not fit into one of these three groups, the authors said.
 

Inflamed gene signature

The four groups were identified using tumor expression data and nonnegative matrix factorization from published sources on 81 SCLC patients, and then validated via the largest SCLC data set available (276 SCLC patients enrolled in the phase 3 IMpower133 trial).

The SCLC subtypes were defined largely by differential expression of transcription factors – subtype SCLC-A by ASCL1, subtype SCLC-N by NEUROD1, and subtype SCLC-P by POU2F3. The fourth subtype, SCLC-I, is characterized by low expression of all three transcription factor signatures and an inflamed gene signature with a high expression of multiple immune genes, including significantly greater levels of genes indicating the presence of CD8-positive cytotoxic T cells.

Because each subtype demonstrates unique vulnerability to investigational therapies, this subtype classification has significant clinical implications.

“We propose that matching baseline tumor subtype to therapy, as well as manipulating subtype switching on therapy, may enhance depth and duration of response for SCLC patients,” the authors stated.

“Our paper shows that the inflamed group has a distinct biology and environment and tends to be more responsive to immunotherapy,” study author Lauren Averett Byers, MD, also of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, stated in a press release. “Identifying the inflamed group is very important because, so far, there have not been any validated biomarkers for small cell lung cancer that predict which patients get the most benefit from immunotherapy.”

In samples from the other three subtypes, SCLC-A was most responsive to BCL2 inhibitors, SCLC-N to Aurora kinase inhibitors, and SCLC-P to PARP inhibitors.

Treatment resistance

The tendency of SCLC to develop treatment resistance, even after an initial response, is a known challenge. Using single-cell RNA sequencing to evaluate tumor evolution, the authors observed a tendency of SCLC-A to switch to SCLC-I after chemotherapy treatment, a possible contributor to treatment resistance.

It will be necessary to verify the study findings through further investigations, particularly regarding the therapeutic vulnerabilities for each group.

“Now we can develop more effective strategies for each group in clinical trials, taking into account that they each have different biology and optimal drug targets,” Dr. Byers said. “As a field, small cell lung cancer is about 15 years behind non–small cell lung cancer’s renaissance of biomarkers and personalized therapies. This represents a huge step in understanding which drugs work best for which patients and gives us a path forward for personalized approaches for small cell lung cancer.”

“Dr. Gay’s work is the latest in a growing series of exciting studies demonstrating the utility of defining subtypes of small cell lung cancer based on expression of master transcriptional regulators,” commented Charles Rudin, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in an interview.

He added, “While tumors can evolve between some of these categories, the dominant subtype assignment influences therapeutic vulnerabilities. It is an exciting time for those of us engaged in small cell research. Subtyping should help guide more focused and successful clinical trials for patients with small cell lung cancer.”

The authors disclosed multiple relationships with companies. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, the University of Texas Southwestern and MD Anderson Cancer Center, and a variety of other governmental and nonprofit groups. Dr. Rudin is principal investigator of the NCI small cell lung cancer research consortium.

Researchers studying a large set of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) tumor samples have identified four SCLC subtypes, and they propose that matching baseline tumor subtypes to SCLC therapy may enhance the depth and duration of response.

Carl M. Gay, MD, PhD, of University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues conducted this research and described their findings in Cancer Cell.

The authors noted that survival rates in SCLC remain dismal despite recent modest gains in progression-free survival and overall survival achieved through adding immunotherapy to platinum-based frontline chemotherapy.

Based on transcription factors indicating which genes are activated, prior research had already identified three possible SCLC subtypes. Many SCLC tumors, however, do not fit into one of these three groups, the authors said.
 

Inflamed gene signature

The four groups were identified using tumor expression data and nonnegative matrix factorization from published sources on 81 SCLC patients, and then validated via the largest SCLC data set available (276 SCLC patients enrolled in the phase 3 IMpower133 trial).

The SCLC subtypes were defined largely by differential expression of transcription factors – subtype SCLC-A by ASCL1, subtype SCLC-N by NEUROD1, and subtype SCLC-P by POU2F3. The fourth subtype, SCLC-I, is characterized by low expression of all three transcription factor signatures and an inflamed gene signature with a high expression of multiple immune genes, including significantly greater levels of genes indicating the presence of CD8-positive cytotoxic T cells.

Because each subtype demonstrates unique vulnerability to investigational therapies, this subtype classification has significant clinical implications.

“We propose that matching baseline tumor subtype to therapy, as well as manipulating subtype switching on therapy, may enhance depth and duration of response for SCLC patients,” the authors stated.

“Our paper shows that the inflamed group has a distinct biology and environment and tends to be more responsive to immunotherapy,” study author Lauren Averett Byers, MD, also of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, stated in a press release. “Identifying the inflamed group is very important because, so far, there have not been any validated biomarkers for small cell lung cancer that predict which patients get the most benefit from immunotherapy.”

In samples from the other three subtypes, SCLC-A was most responsive to BCL2 inhibitors, SCLC-N to Aurora kinase inhibitors, and SCLC-P to PARP inhibitors.

Treatment resistance

The tendency of SCLC to develop treatment resistance, even after an initial response, is a known challenge. Using single-cell RNA sequencing to evaluate tumor evolution, the authors observed a tendency of SCLC-A to switch to SCLC-I after chemotherapy treatment, a possible contributor to treatment resistance.

It will be necessary to verify the study findings through further investigations, particularly regarding the therapeutic vulnerabilities for each group.

“Now we can develop more effective strategies for each group in clinical trials, taking into account that they each have different biology and optimal drug targets,” Dr. Byers said. “As a field, small cell lung cancer is about 15 years behind non–small cell lung cancer’s renaissance of biomarkers and personalized therapies. This represents a huge step in understanding which drugs work best for which patients and gives us a path forward for personalized approaches for small cell lung cancer.”

“Dr. Gay’s work is the latest in a growing series of exciting studies demonstrating the utility of defining subtypes of small cell lung cancer based on expression of master transcriptional regulators,” commented Charles Rudin, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in an interview.

He added, “While tumors can evolve between some of these categories, the dominant subtype assignment influences therapeutic vulnerabilities. It is an exciting time for those of us engaged in small cell research. Subtyping should help guide more focused and successful clinical trials for patients with small cell lung cancer.”

The authors disclosed multiple relationships with companies. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, the University of Texas Southwestern and MD Anderson Cancer Center, and a variety of other governmental and nonprofit groups. Dr. Rudin is principal investigator of the NCI small cell lung cancer research consortium.

Researchers studying a large set of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) tumor samples have identified four SCLC subtypes, and they propose that matching baseline tumor subtypes to SCLC therapy may enhance the depth and duration of response.

Carl M. Gay, MD, PhD, of University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues conducted this research and described their findings in Cancer Cell.

The authors noted that survival rates in SCLC remain dismal despite recent modest gains in progression-free survival and overall survival achieved through adding immunotherapy to platinum-based frontline chemotherapy.

Based on transcription factors indicating which genes are activated, prior research had already identified three possible SCLC subtypes. Many SCLC tumors, however, do not fit into one of these three groups, the authors said.
 

Inflamed gene signature

The four groups were identified using tumor expression data and nonnegative matrix factorization from published sources on 81 SCLC patients, and then validated via the largest SCLC data set available (276 SCLC patients enrolled in the phase 3 IMpower133 trial).

The SCLC subtypes were defined largely by differential expression of transcription factors – subtype SCLC-A by ASCL1, subtype SCLC-N by NEUROD1, and subtype SCLC-P by POU2F3. The fourth subtype, SCLC-I, is characterized by low expression of all three transcription factor signatures and an inflamed gene signature with a high expression of multiple immune genes, including significantly greater levels of genes indicating the presence of CD8-positive cytotoxic T cells.

Because each subtype demonstrates unique vulnerability to investigational therapies, this subtype classification has significant clinical implications.

“We propose that matching baseline tumor subtype to therapy, as well as manipulating subtype switching on therapy, may enhance depth and duration of response for SCLC patients,” the authors stated.

“Our paper shows that the inflamed group has a distinct biology and environment and tends to be more responsive to immunotherapy,” study author Lauren Averett Byers, MD, also of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, stated in a press release. “Identifying the inflamed group is very important because, so far, there have not been any validated biomarkers for small cell lung cancer that predict which patients get the most benefit from immunotherapy.”

In samples from the other three subtypes, SCLC-A was most responsive to BCL2 inhibitors, SCLC-N to Aurora kinase inhibitors, and SCLC-P to PARP inhibitors.

Treatment resistance

The tendency of SCLC to develop treatment resistance, even after an initial response, is a known challenge. Using single-cell RNA sequencing to evaluate tumor evolution, the authors observed a tendency of SCLC-A to switch to SCLC-I after chemotherapy treatment, a possible contributor to treatment resistance.

It will be necessary to verify the study findings through further investigations, particularly regarding the therapeutic vulnerabilities for each group.

“Now we can develop more effective strategies for each group in clinical trials, taking into account that they each have different biology and optimal drug targets,” Dr. Byers said. “As a field, small cell lung cancer is about 15 years behind non–small cell lung cancer’s renaissance of biomarkers and personalized therapies. This represents a huge step in understanding which drugs work best for which patients and gives us a path forward for personalized approaches for small cell lung cancer.”

“Dr. Gay’s work is the latest in a growing series of exciting studies demonstrating the utility of defining subtypes of small cell lung cancer based on expression of master transcriptional regulators,” commented Charles Rudin, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in an interview.

He added, “While tumors can evolve between some of these categories, the dominant subtype assignment influences therapeutic vulnerabilities. It is an exciting time for those of us engaged in small cell research. Subtyping should help guide more focused and successful clinical trials for patients with small cell lung cancer.”

The authors disclosed multiple relationships with companies. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, the University of Texas Southwestern and MD Anderson Cancer Center, and a variety of other governmental and nonprofit groups. Dr. Rudin is principal investigator of the NCI small cell lung cancer research consortium.

About half of 148 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection and elevated troponin levels had at least some evidence of myocardial injury on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging 2 months later, a new study shows.

“Our results demonstrate that in this subset of patients surviving severe COVID-19 and with troponin elevation, ongoing localized myocardial inflammation, whilst less frequent than previously reported, remains present in a proportion of patients and may represent an emerging issue of clinical relevance,” wrote Marianna Fontana, MD, PhD, of University College London, and colleagues.

The cardiac abnormalities identified were classified as nonischemic (including “myocarditis-like” late gadolinium enhancement [LGE]) in 26% of the cohort; as related to ischemic heart disease (infarction or inducible ischemia) in 22%; and as dual pathology in 6%.

Left ventricular (LV) function was normal in 89% of the 148 patients. In the 17 patients (11%) with LV dysfunction, only four had an ejection fraction below 35%. Of the nine patients whose LV dysfunction was related to myocardial infarction, six had a known history of ischemic heart disease.

European Heart Journal

Glass half full

Taking a “glass half full” approach, co–senior author Graham D. Cole, MD, PhD, noted on Twitter that nearly half the patients had no major cardiac abnormalities on CMR just 2 months after a bout with troponin-positive COVID-19.

“We think this is important: Even in a group who had been very sick with raised troponin, it was common to find no evidence of heart damage,” said Dr. Cole, of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust.

“We believe our data challenge the hypothesis that chronic inflammation, diffuse fibrosis, or long-term LV dysfunction is a dominant feature in those surviving COVID-19,” the investigators concluded in their report.

In an interview, Dr. Fontana explained further: “It has been reported in an early ‘pathfinder’ study that two-thirds of patients recovered from COVID-19 had CMR evidence of abnormal findings with a high incidence of elevated T1 and T2 in keeping with diffuse fibrosis and edema. Our findings with a larger, multicenter study and better controls show low rates of heart impairment and much less ongoing inflammation, which is reassuring.”

She also noted that the different patterns of injury suggest that different mechanisms are at play, including the possibility that “at least some of the found damage might have been preexisting, because people with heart damage are more likely to get severe disease.”

The investigators, including first author Tushar Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, also noted that myocarditis-like injury was limited to three or fewer myocardial segments in 88% of cases with no associated ventricular dysfunction, and that biventricular function was no different than in those without myocarditis.

“We use the word ‘myocarditis-like’ but we don’t have histology,” Dr. Fontana said. “Our group actually suspects a lot of this will be microvascular clotting (microangiopathic thrombosis). This is exciting, as newer anticoagulation strategies – for example, those being tried in RECOVERY – may have benefit.”

Aloke V. Finn, MD, of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., wishes researchers would stop using the term myocarditis altogether to describe clinical or imaging findings in COVID-19.

“MRI can’t diagnose myocarditis. It is a specific diagnosis that requires, ideally, histology, as the investigators acknowledged,” Dr. Finn said in an interview.

His group at CVPath recently published data showing pathologic evidence of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection, as reported by theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“As a clinician, when I think of myocarditis, I look at the echo and an LV gram, and I see if there is a wall motion abnormality and troponin elevation, but with normal coronary arteries. And if all that is there, then I think about myocarditis in my differential diagnosis,” he said. “But in most of these cases, as the authors rightly point out, most patients did not have what is necessary to really entertain a diagnosis of myocarditis.”

He agreed with Dr. Fontana’s suggestion that what the CMR might be picking up in these survivors is microthrombi, as his group saw in their recent autopsy study.

“It’s very possible these findings are concordant with the recent autopsy studies done by my group and others in terms of detecting the presence of microthrombi, but we don’t know this for certain because no one has ever studied this entity before in the clinic and we don’t really know how microthrombi might appear on CMR.”
 

Largest study to date

The 148 participants (mean age, 64 years; 70% male) in the largest study to date to investigate convalescing COVID-19 patients who had elevated troponins – something identified early in the pandemic as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 – were treated at one of six hospitals in London.

Patients who had abnormal troponin levels were offered an MRI scan of the heart after discharge and were compared with those from a control group of patients who had not had COVID-19 and with 40 healthy volunteers.

Median length of stay was 9 days, and 32% of patients required ventilatory support in the intensive care unit.

Just over half the patients (57%) had hypertension, 7% had had a previous myocardial infarction, 34% had diabetes, 46% had hypercholesterolemia, and 24% were smokers. Mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m².

CMR follow-up was conducted a median of 68 days after confirmation of a COVID-19 diagnosis.

On Twitter, Dr. Cole noted that the findings are subject to both survivor bias and referral bias. “We didn’t scan frail patients where the clinician felt [CMR] was unlikely to inform management.”

The findings, said Dr. Fontana, “say nothing about what happens to people who are not hospitalized with COVID, or those who are hospitalized but without elevated troponin.”

What they do offer, particularly if replicated, is a way forward in identifying patients at higher or lower risk for long-term sequelae and inform strategies that could improve outcomes, she added.

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

About half of 148 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection and elevated troponin levels had at least some evidence of myocardial injury on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging 2 months later, a new study shows.

“Our results demonstrate that in this subset of patients surviving severe COVID-19 and with troponin elevation, ongoing localized myocardial inflammation, whilst less frequent than previously reported, remains present in a proportion of patients and may represent an emerging issue of clinical relevance,” wrote Marianna Fontana, MD, PhD, of University College London, and colleagues.

The cardiac abnormalities identified were classified as nonischemic (including “myocarditis-like” late gadolinium enhancement [LGE]) in 26% of the cohort; as related to ischemic heart disease (infarction or inducible ischemia) in 22%; and as dual pathology in 6%.

Left ventricular (LV) function was normal in 89% of the 148 patients. In the 17 patients (11%) with LV dysfunction, only four had an ejection fraction below 35%. Of the nine patients whose LV dysfunction was related to myocardial infarction, six had a known history of ischemic heart disease.

European Heart Journal

Glass half full

Taking a “glass half full” approach, co–senior author Graham D. Cole, MD, PhD, noted on Twitter that nearly half the patients had no major cardiac abnormalities on CMR just 2 months after a bout with troponin-positive COVID-19.

“We think this is important: Even in a group who had been very sick with raised troponin, it was common to find no evidence of heart damage,” said Dr. Cole, of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust.

“We believe our data challenge the hypothesis that chronic inflammation, diffuse fibrosis, or long-term LV dysfunction is a dominant feature in those surviving COVID-19,” the investigators concluded in their report.

In an interview, Dr. Fontana explained further: “It has been reported in an early ‘pathfinder’ study that two-thirds of patients recovered from COVID-19 had CMR evidence of abnormal findings with a high incidence of elevated T1 and T2 in keeping with diffuse fibrosis and edema. Our findings with a larger, multicenter study and better controls show low rates of heart impairment and much less ongoing inflammation, which is reassuring.”

She also noted that the different patterns of injury suggest that different mechanisms are at play, including the possibility that “at least some of the found damage might have been preexisting, because people with heart damage are more likely to get severe disease.”

The investigators, including first author Tushar Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, also noted that myocarditis-like injury was limited to three or fewer myocardial segments in 88% of cases with no associated ventricular dysfunction, and that biventricular function was no different than in those without myocarditis.

“We use the word ‘myocarditis-like’ but we don’t have histology,” Dr. Fontana said. “Our group actually suspects a lot of this will be microvascular clotting (microangiopathic thrombosis). This is exciting, as newer anticoagulation strategies – for example, those being tried in RECOVERY – may have benefit.”

Aloke V. Finn, MD, of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., wishes researchers would stop using the term myocarditis altogether to describe clinical or imaging findings in COVID-19.

“MRI can’t diagnose myocarditis. It is a specific diagnosis that requires, ideally, histology, as the investigators acknowledged,” Dr. Finn said in an interview.

His group at CVPath recently published data showing pathologic evidence of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection, as reported by theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“As a clinician, when I think of myocarditis, I look at the echo and an LV gram, and I see if there is a wall motion abnormality and troponin elevation, but with normal coronary arteries. And if all that is there, then I think about myocarditis in my differential diagnosis,” he said. “But in most of these cases, as the authors rightly point out, most patients did not have what is necessary to really entertain a diagnosis of myocarditis.”

He agreed with Dr. Fontana’s suggestion that what the CMR might be picking up in these survivors is microthrombi, as his group saw in their recent autopsy study.

“It’s very possible these findings are concordant with the recent autopsy studies done by my group and others in terms of detecting the presence of microthrombi, but we don’t know this for certain because no one has ever studied this entity before in the clinic and we don’t really know how microthrombi might appear on CMR.”
 

Largest study to date

The 148 participants (mean age, 64 years; 70% male) in the largest study to date to investigate convalescing COVID-19 patients who had elevated troponins – something identified early in the pandemic as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 – were treated at one of six hospitals in London.

Patients who had abnormal troponin levels were offered an MRI scan of the heart after discharge and were compared with those from a control group of patients who had not had COVID-19 and with 40 healthy volunteers.

Median length of stay was 9 days, and 32% of patients required ventilatory support in the intensive care unit.

Just over half the patients (57%) had hypertension, 7% had had a previous myocardial infarction, 34% had diabetes, 46% had hypercholesterolemia, and 24% were smokers. Mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m².

CMR follow-up was conducted a median of 68 days after confirmation of a COVID-19 diagnosis.

On Twitter, Dr. Cole noted that the findings are subject to both survivor bias and referral bias. “We didn’t scan frail patients where the clinician felt [CMR] was unlikely to inform management.”

The findings, said Dr. Fontana, “say nothing about what happens to people who are not hospitalized with COVID, or those who are hospitalized but without elevated troponin.”

What they do offer, particularly if replicated, is a way forward in identifying patients at higher or lower risk for long-term sequelae and inform strategies that could improve outcomes, she added.

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

About half of 148 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection and elevated troponin levels had at least some evidence of myocardial injury on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging 2 months later, a new study shows.

“Our results demonstrate that in this subset of patients surviving severe COVID-19 and with troponin elevation, ongoing localized myocardial inflammation, whilst less frequent than previously reported, remains present in a proportion of patients and may represent an emerging issue of clinical relevance,” wrote Marianna Fontana, MD, PhD, of University College London, and colleagues.

The cardiac abnormalities identified were classified as nonischemic (including “myocarditis-like” late gadolinium enhancement [LGE]) in 26% of the cohort; as related to ischemic heart disease (infarction or inducible ischemia) in 22%; and as dual pathology in 6%.

Left ventricular (LV) function was normal in 89% of the 148 patients. In the 17 patients (11%) with LV dysfunction, only four had an ejection fraction below 35%. Of the nine patients whose LV dysfunction was related to myocardial infarction, six had a known history of ischemic heart disease.

European Heart Journal

Glass half full

Taking a “glass half full” approach, co–senior author Graham D. Cole, MD, PhD, noted on Twitter that nearly half the patients had no major cardiac abnormalities on CMR just 2 months after a bout with troponin-positive COVID-19.

“We think this is important: Even in a group who had been very sick with raised troponin, it was common to find no evidence of heart damage,” said Dr. Cole, of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust.

“We believe our data challenge the hypothesis that chronic inflammation, diffuse fibrosis, or long-term LV dysfunction is a dominant feature in those surviving COVID-19,” the investigators concluded in their report.

In an interview, Dr. Fontana explained further: “It has been reported in an early ‘pathfinder’ study that two-thirds of patients recovered from COVID-19 had CMR evidence of abnormal findings with a high incidence of elevated T1 and T2 in keeping with diffuse fibrosis and edema. Our findings with a larger, multicenter study and better controls show low rates of heart impairment and much less ongoing inflammation, which is reassuring.”

She also noted that the different patterns of injury suggest that different mechanisms are at play, including the possibility that “at least some of the found damage might have been preexisting, because people with heart damage are more likely to get severe disease.”

The investigators, including first author Tushar Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, also noted that myocarditis-like injury was limited to three or fewer myocardial segments in 88% of cases with no associated ventricular dysfunction, and that biventricular function was no different than in those without myocarditis.

“We use the word ‘myocarditis-like’ but we don’t have histology,” Dr. Fontana said. “Our group actually suspects a lot of this will be microvascular clotting (microangiopathic thrombosis). This is exciting, as newer anticoagulation strategies – for example, those being tried in RECOVERY – may have benefit.”

Aloke V. Finn, MD, of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., wishes researchers would stop using the term myocarditis altogether to describe clinical or imaging findings in COVID-19.

“MRI can’t diagnose myocarditis. It is a specific diagnosis that requires, ideally, histology, as the investigators acknowledged,” Dr. Finn said in an interview.

His group at CVPath recently published data showing pathologic evidence of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection, as reported by theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“As a clinician, when I think of myocarditis, I look at the echo and an LV gram, and I see if there is a wall motion abnormality and troponin elevation, but with normal coronary arteries. And if all that is there, then I think about myocarditis in my differential diagnosis,” he said. “But in most of these cases, as the authors rightly point out, most patients did not have what is necessary to really entertain a diagnosis of myocarditis.”

He agreed with Dr. Fontana’s suggestion that what the CMR might be picking up in these survivors is microthrombi, as his group saw in their recent autopsy study.

“It’s very possible these findings are concordant with the recent autopsy studies done by my group and others in terms of detecting the presence of microthrombi, but we don’t know this for certain because no one has ever studied this entity before in the clinic and we don’t really know how microthrombi might appear on CMR.”
 

Largest study to date

The 148 participants (mean age, 64 years; 70% male) in the largest study to date to investigate convalescing COVID-19 patients who had elevated troponins – something identified early in the pandemic as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 – were treated at one of six hospitals in London.

Patients who had abnormal troponin levels were offered an MRI scan of the heart after discharge and were compared with those from a control group of patients who had not had COVID-19 and with 40 healthy volunteers.

Median length of stay was 9 days, and 32% of patients required ventilatory support in the intensive care unit.

Just over half the patients (57%) had hypertension, 7% had had a previous myocardial infarction, 34% had diabetes, 46% had hypercholesterolemia, and 24% were smokers. Mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m².

CMR follow-up was conducted a median of 68 days after confirmation of a COVID-19 diagnosis.

On Twitter, Dr. Cole noted that the findings are subject to both survivor bias and referral bias. “We didn’t scan frail patients where the clinician felt [CMR] was unlikely to inform management.”

The findings, said Dr. Fontana, “say nothing about what happens to people who are not hospitalized with COVID, or those who are hospitalized but without elevated troponin.”

What they do offer, particularly if replicated, is a way forward in identifying patients at higher or lower risk for long-term sequelae and inform strategies that could improve outcomes, she added.

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

The prevalence of asymptomatic central sleep apnea after acute coronary syndrome is high and may be associated with the use of ticagrelor, a new study finds.
Prior studies have suggested that ticagrelor is associated with an increased likelihood of central sleep apnea. The drug’s label notes that two respiratory conditions – central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration – are adverse reactions that were identified after the drug’s approval in the United States in 2011. “Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of an unknown size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the label says. 
Among 80 patients receiving ticagrelor, 24 had central sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (CSAHS), whereas of 41 patients not taking ticagrelor, 3 had this condition (30% vs. 7.3%, P = .004), in the new study published online Jan. 20, 2021, in Sleep Medicine. A multivariable analysis included in the paper found that age and ticagrelor administration were the only two factors associated with the occurrence of CSAHS.

Findings are ‘striking’

The different rates of central sleep apnea in the study are striking, but it is not clear that asymptomatic central sleep apnea in patients taking ticagrelor is a concern, Ofer Jacobowitz, MD, PhD, associate professor of otolaryngology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y, said in an interview.

Study author continues to prescribe ticagrelor

One of the study authors, Philippe Meurin, MD, said that he continues to prescribe ticagrelor every day and that the side effect is not necessarily important. 
It is possible that central sleep apnea may resolve, although further studies would need to examine central sleep apnea over time to establish the duration of the condition, he added. Nevertheless, awareness of the association could have implications for clinical practice, Dr. Meurin said.
Central sleep apnea is rare, and if doctors detect it during a sleep study, they may perform extensive tests to assess for possible neurologic diseases, for example, when the cause may be attributed to the medication, he said. In addition, if a patient who is taking ticagrelor has dyspnea, the presence of central sleep apnea may suggest that dyspnea could be related to the drug, although this possibility needs further study, he noted.

Study included patients with ACS history, but no heart failure

Dr. Meurin, of Centre de Réadaptation Cardiaque de La Brie, Les Grands Prés, Villeneuve-Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues included in their study patients between 1 week and 1 year after acute coronary syndrome who did not have heart failure or a history of sleep apnea.
After an overnight sleep study, they classified patients as normal, as having CSAHS (i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with central sleep apneas), or as having obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS; i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with obstructive sleep apneas).
The prospective study included 121 consecutive patients between January 2018 and March 2020. Patients had a mean age of 56.8, and 88% were men.

Switching to another P2Y12 inhibitor ‘does not seem appropriate’

“CSAHS could be promoted by the use of ticagrelor, a relatively new drug that modifies the apneic threshold,” the study authors wrote. “Regarding underlying mechanisms, the most probable explanation seems to be increased chemosensitivity to hypercapnia by a direct P2Y12 inhibitory effect on the central nervous system.”
Doctors should not overestimate the severity of the adverse reaction or consider it the same way they do OSASH, they added. 
Among patients with acute coronary syndrome in the PLATO study, ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, “significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said. “Because in this study more than 9,000 patients received ticagrelor for 12 months, CSAHS (even if it seems frequent in our study) did not seem to impair the good efficacy/tolerance balance of the drug. Therefore, in asymptomatic CSAHS patients, switching from ticagrelor to another P2Y12 inhibitor does not seem appropriate.”
A recent analysis of data from randomized, controlled trials with ticagrelor did not find excess cases of sleep apnea with the drug. But an asymptomatic adverse event such as central sleep apnea “cannot emerge from a post hoc analysis,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said.
The analysis of randomized trial data was conducted by Marc S. Sabatine, MD, MPH, chairman of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coauthors. It was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions in April 2020.
They “used the gold standard for medical evidence (randomized, placebo-controlled trials) and found 158 cases of sleep apnea reported, with absolutely no difference between ticagrelor and placebo,” Dr. Sabatine said in an interview. Their analysis examined clinically overt apnea, he noted.
“It is quite clear that when looking at large numbers in placebo-controlled trials, there is no excess,” Dr. Sabatine said. “Meurin et al. are examining a different outcome: the results of a lab test in what may be entirely asymptomatic patients.”
A randomized trial could confirm the association, he said.
“The association may be real, but also may be play of chance or confounded,” said Dr. Sabatine. “To convince the medical community, the next step would be for the investigators to do a randomized trial and test whether ticagrelor increases the risk of central sleep apnea.”
Dr. Meurin and the study coauthors had no disclosures. The analysis of randomized, controlled trial data by Dr. Sabatine and colleagues was funded by AstraZeneca, which distributes ticagrelor under the trade name Brilinta. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant for AstraZeneca and received research grants through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca. He has consulted for and received grants through the hospital from other companies as well. Dr. Jacobowitz had no relevant disclosures.
[email protected] 

The prevalence of asymptomatic central sleep apnea after acute coronary syndrome is high and may be associated with the use of ticagrelor, a new study finds.
Prior studies have suggested that ticagrelor is associated with an increased likelihood of central sleep apnea. The drug’s label notes that two respiratory conditions – central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration – are adverse reactions that were identified after the drug’s approval in the United States in 2011. “Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of an unknown size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the label says. 
Among 80 patients receiving ticagrelor, 24 had central sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (CSAHS), whereas of 41 patients not taking ticagrelor, 3 had this condition (30% vs. 7.3%, P = .004), in the new study published online Jan. 20, 2021, in Sleep Medicine. A multivariable analysis included in the paper found that age and ticagrelor administration were the only two factors associated with the occurrence of CSAHS.

Findings are ‘striking’

The different rates of central sleep apnea in the study are striking, but it is not clear that asymptomatic central sleep apnea in patients taking ticagrelor is a concern, Ofer Jacobowitz, MD, PhD, associate professor of otolaryngology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y, said in an interview.

Study author continues to prescribe ticagrelor

One of the study authors, Philippe Meurin, MD, said that he continues to prescribe ticagrelor every day and that the side effect is not necessarily important. 
It is possible that central sleep apnea may resolve, although further studies would need to examine central sleep apnea over time to establish the duration of the condition, he added. Nevertheless, awareness of the association could have implications for clinical practice, Dr. Meurin said.
Central sleep apnea is rare, and if doctors detect it during a sleep study, they may perform extensive tests to assess for possible neurologic diseases, for example, when the cause may be attributed to the medication, he said. In addition, if a patient who is taking ticagrelor has dyspnea, the presence of central sleep apnea may suggest that dyspnea could be related to the drug, although this possibility needs further study, he noted.

Study included patients with ACS history, but no heart failure

Dr. Meurin, of Centre de Réadaptation Cardiaque de La Brie, Les Grands Prés, Villeneuve-Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues included in their study patients between 1 week and 1 year after acute coronary syndrome who did not have heart failure or a history of sleep apnea.
After an overnight sleep study, they classified patients as normal, as having CSAHS (i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with central sleep apneas), or as having obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS; i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with obstructive sleep apneas).
The prospective study included 121 consecutive patients between January 2018 and March 2020. Patients had a mean age of 56.8, and 88% were men.

Switching to another P2Y12 inhibitor ‘does not seem appropriate’

“CSAHS could be promoted by the use of ticagrelor, a relatively new drug that modifies the apneic threshold,” the study authors wrote. “Regarding underlying mechanisms, the most probable explanation seems to be increased chemosensitivity to hypercapnia by a direct P2Y12 inhibitory effect on the central nervous system.”
Doctors should not overestimate the severity of the adverse reaction or consider it the same way they do OSASH, they added. 
Among patients with acute coronary syndrome in the PLATO study, ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, “significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said. “Because in this study more than 9,000 patients received ticagrelor for 12 months, CSAHS (even if it seems frequent in our study) did not seem to impair the good efficacy/tolerance balance of the drug. Therefore, in asymptomatic CSAHS patients, switching from ticagrelor to another P2Y12 inhibitor does not seem appropriate.”
A recent analysis of data from randomized, controlled trials with ticagrelor did not find excess cases of sleep apnea with the drug. But an asymptomatic adverse event such as central sleep apnea “cannot emerge from a post hoc analysis,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said.
The analysis of randomized trial data was conducted by Marc S. Sabatine, MD, MPH, chairman of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coauthors. It was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions in April 2020.
They “used the gold standard for medical evidence (randomized, placebo-controlled trials) and found 158 cases of sleep apnea reported, with absolutely no difference between ticagrelor and placebo,” Dr. Sabatine said in an interview. Their analysis examined clinically overt apnea, he noted.
“It is quite clear that when looking at large numbers in placebo-controlled trials, there is no excess,” Dr. Sabatine said. “Meurin et al. are examining a different outcome: the results of a lab test in what may be entirely asymptomatic patients.”
A randomized trial could confirm the association, he said.
“The association may be real, but also may be play of chance or confounded,” said Dr. Sabatine. “To convince the medical community, the next step would be for the investigators to do a randomized trial and test whether ticagrelor increases the risk of central sleep apnea.”
Dr. Meurin and the study coauthors had no disclosures. The analysis of randomized, controlled trial data by Dr. Sabatine and colleagues was funded by AstraZeneca, which distributes ticagrelor under the trade name Brilinta. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant for AstraZeneca and received research grants through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca. He has consulted for and received grants through the hospital from other companies as well. Dr. Jacobowitz had no relevant disclosures.
[email protected] 

The prevalence of asymptomatic central sleep apnea after acute coronary syndrome is high and may be associated with the use of ticagrelor, a new study finds.
Prior studies have suggested that ticagrelor is associated with an increased likelihood of central sleep apnea. The drug’s label notes that two respiratory conditions – central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration – are adverse reactions that were identified after the drug’s approval in the United States in 2011. “Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of an unknown size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the label says. 
Among 80 patients receiving ticagrelor, 24 had central sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (CSAHS), whereas of 41 patients not taking ticagrelor, 3 had this condition (30% vs. 7.3%, P = .004), in the new study published online Jan. 20, 2021, in Sleep Medicine. A multivariable analysis included in the paper found that age and ticagrelor administration were the only two factors associated with the occurrence of CSAHS.

Findings are ‘striking’

The different rates of central sleep apnea in the study are striking, but it is not clear that asymptomatic central sleep apnea in patients taking ticagrelor is a concern, Ofer Jacobowitz, MD, PhD, associate professor of otolaryngology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y, said in an interview.

Study author continues to prescribe ticagrelor

One of the study authors, Philippe Meurin, MD, said that he continues to prescribe ticagrelor every day and that the side effect is not necessarily important. 
It is possible that central sleep apnea may resolve, although further studies would need to examine central sleep apnea over time to establish the duration of the condition, he added. Nevertheless, awareness of the association could have implications for clinical practice, Dr. Meurin said.
Central sleep apnea is rare, and if doctors detect it during a sleep study, they may perform extensive tests to assess for possible neurologic diseases, for example, when the cause may be attributed to the medication, he said. In addition, if a patient who is taking ticagrelor has dyspnea, the presence of central sleep apnea may suggest that dyspnea could be related to the drug, although this possibility needs further study, he noted.

Study included patients with ACS history, but no heart failure

Dr. Meurin, of Centre de Réadaptation Cardiaque de La Brie, Les Grands Prés, Villeneuve-Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues included in their study patients between 1 week and 1 year after acute coronary syndrome who did not have heart failure or a history of sleep apnea.
After an overnight sleep study, they classified patients as normal, as having CSAHS (i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with central sleep apneas), or as having obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS; i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with obstructive sleep apneas).
The prospective study included 121 consecutive patients between January 2018 and March 2020. Patients had a mean age of 56.8, and 88% were men.

Switching to another P2Y12 inhibitor ‘does not seem appropriate’

“CSAHS could be promoted by the use of ticagrelor, a relatively new drug that modifies the apneic threshold,” the study authors wrote. “Regarding underlying mechanisms, the most probable explanation seems to be increased chemosensitivity to hypercapnia by a direct P2Y12 inhibitory effect on the central nervous system.”
Doctors should not overestimate the severity of the adverse reaction or consider it the same way they do OSASH, they added. 
Among patients with acute coronary syndrome in the PLATO study, ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, “significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said. “Because in this study more than 9,000 patients received ticagrelor for 12 months, CSAHS (even if it seems frequent in our study) did not seem to impair the good efficacy/tolerance balance of the drug. Therefore, in asymptomatic CSAHS patients, switching from ticagrelor to another P2Y12 inhibitor does not seem appropriate.”
A recent analysis of data from randomized, controlled trials with ticagrelor did not find excess cases of sleep apnea with the drug. But an asymptomatic adverse event such as central sleep apnea “cannot emerge from a post hoc analysis,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said.
The analysis of randomized trial data was conducted by Marc S. Sabatine, MD, MPH, chairman of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coauthors. It was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions in April 2020.
They “used the gold standard for medical evidence (randomized, placebo-controlled trials) and found 158 cases of sleep apnea reported, with absolutely no difference between ticagrelor and placebo,” Dr. Sabatine said in an interview. Their analysis examined clinically overt apnea, he noted.
“It is quite clear that when looking at large numbers in placebo-controlled trials, there is no excess,” Dr. Sabatine said. “Meurin et al. are examining a different outcome: the results of a lab test in what may be entirely asymptomatic patients.”
A randomized trial could confirm the association, he said.
“The association may be real, but also may be play of chance or confounded,” said Dr. Sabatine. “To convince the medical community, the next step would be for the investigators to do a randomized trial and test whether ticagrelor increases the risk of central sleep apnea.”
Dr. Meurin and the study coauthors had no disclosures. The analysis of randomized, controlled trial data by Dr. Sabatine and colleagues was funded by AstraZeneca, which distributes ticagrelor under the trade name Brilinta. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant for AstraZeneca and received research grants through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca. He has consulted for and received grants through the hospital from other companies as well. Dr. Jacobowitz had no relevant disclosures.
[email protected]