User login
-
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
Weekly COVID-19 cases in children continue to drop
Despite a drop in the number of weekly COVID-19 cases, children made up a larger share of cases for the fourth consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
Just over 140,000 new cases of COVID-19 in children were reported for the week of Jan. 22-28, down from 165,000 the week before and down from the record high of 211,000 2 weeks earlier, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Since the beginning of January, however, the proportion of weekly cases occurring in children has risen from 12.9% to 15.1%, based on data collected by the AAP/CHA from the health department websites of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, 2.81 million children have been infected by the coronavirus, representing 12.8% of the total for all ages, which is almost 22 million. The cumulative rate since the start of the pandemic passed 3,700 cases per 100,000 children after increasing by 5.2% over the previous week, the AAP and CHA said in their report.
Cumulative hospitalizations in children just passed 11,000 in the 24 states (and New York City) that are reporting data for children, which represents 1.8% of COVID-19–related admissions for all ages, a proportion that has not changed since mid-November. Ten more deaths in children were reported during Jan. 22-28, bringing the total to 215 in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are tracking mortality.
In the 10 states that are reporting data on testing, rates of positive results in children range from 7.1% in Indiana, in which children make up the largest proportion of total tests performed (18.1%) to 28.4% in Iowa, where children make up the smallest proportion of tests (6.0%), the AAP and CHA said.
Despite a drop in the number of weekly COVID-19 cases, children made up a larger share of cases for the fourth consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
Just over 140,000 new cases of COVID-19 in children were reported for the week of Jan. 22-28, down from 165,000 the week before and down from the record high of 211,000 2 weeks earlier, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Since the beginning of January, however, the proportion of weekly cases occurring in children has risen from 12.9% to 15.1%, based on data collected by the AAP/CHA from the health department websites of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, 2.81 million children have been infected by the coronavirus, representing 12.8% of the total for all ages, which is almost 22 million. The cumulative rate since the start of the pandemic passed 3,700 cases per 100,000 children after increasing by 5.2% over the previous week, the AAP and CHA said in their report.
Cumulative hospitalizations in children just passed 11,000 in the 24 states (and New York City) that are reporting data for children, which represents 1.8% of COVID-19–related admissions for all ages, a proportion that has not changed since mid-November. Ten more deaths in children were reported during Jan. 22-28, bringing the total to 215 in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are tracking mortality.
In the 10 states that are reporting data on testing, rates of positive results in children range from 7.1% in Indiana, in which children make up the largest proportion of total tests performed (18.1%) to 28.4% in Iowa, where children make up the smallest proportion of tests (6.0%), the AAP and CHA said.
Despite a drop in the number of weekly COVID-19 cases, children made up a larger share of cases for the fourth consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
Just over 140,000 new cases of COVID-19 in children were reported for the week of Jan. 22-28, down from 165,000 the week before and down from the record high of 211,000 2 weeks earlier, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Since the beginning of January, however, the proportion of weekly cases occurring in children has risen from 12.9% to 15.1%, based on data collected by the AAP/CHA from the health department websites of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, 2.81 million children have been infected by the coronavirus, representing 12.8% of the total for all ages, which is almost 22 million. The cumulative rate since the start of the pandemic passed 3,700 cases per 100,000 children after increasing by 5.2% over the previous week, the AAP and CHA said in their report.
Cumulative hospitalizations in children just passed 11,000 in the 24 states (and New York City) that are reporting data for children, which represents 1.8% of COVID-19–related admissions for all ages, a proportion that has not changed since mid-November. Ten more deaths in children were reported during Jan. 22-28, bringing the total to 215 in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are tracking mortality.
In the 10 states that are reporting data on testing, rates of positive results in children range from 7.1% in Indiana, in which children make up the largest proportion of total tests performed (18.1%) to 28.4% in Iowa, where children make up the smallest proportion of tests (6.0%), the AAP and CHA said.
Afternoon napping associated with better cognition in elderly, study shows
according to a new study in General Psychiatry.
The findings add to those seen in other observational studies showing afternoon napping promotes cognitive function, said the authors of the paper, published in General Psychiatry.
“The prevalence of afternoon napping has been increasing in older adults much more than in younger individuals,” wrote Han Cai, MS, of the department of geriatrics at The Fourth People’s Hospital of Wuhu, Anhui, China, and coauthors. “The elderly individuals who took afternoon naps showed significantly higher cognitive performance compared with those who did not nap.”
The researchers enrolled 2,214 people in the study – all Han Chinese and aged 60 or older. Afternoon napping was considered any period of inactivity of at least 5 minutes but less than 2 hours after lunch and outside of the person’s main sleep schedule. Those who reported ever napping – 1,534 subjects – were included in the napping group, and the others – 680 – in the nonnapping group. Patients with major physical conditions were excluded.
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Neuropsychological Test Battery (NTB) were used to measure cognitive function, and 739 patients agreed to blood tests for lipid values.
The average total MMSE score was higher for the napping group at 25.3 points out of 30, than for the nonnapping group, at 24.56 (P = .003). Those in the napping group also had significantly higher scores in the orientation portion of the MoCA test, at 5.55 out of 6 points, compared with 5.41 for the nonnapping group (P = .006).
Those in the napping group scored significantly higher on the digit span and language fluency parts of the Neuropsychological Test Battery (P = .009 and .020, respectively).
Dementia was assessed with face-to-face visits with clinicians, but diagnoses of dementia were not different between the groups.
Triglycerides were found to be higher – though still in the normal range – in the napping group compared with the nonnapping group, 1.80 mmol/L to 1.75 mmol/L, the researchers found (P = .001). No differences were seen for HDL or LDL cholesterol levels, or in hypertension or diabetes, the researchers reported.
The authors noted that inflammation is likely an important feature in the relationship between napping and cognitive function. Inflammatory cytokines have been found to play a role in sleep disorders, and strong inflammatory responses can lead to adverse events, including cognitive impairment.
“Sleep is known to be a regulator of the immune response that counters these inflammatory mediators, whereas napping, in particular, is thought to be an evolved response to inflammation,” they said.
The average age of patients in the napping group was 72.8 years, slightly older than those in the nonnapping group at 71.3 years, and this was a significant difference (P = .016).
The researchers acknowledged that the study “could not show direct causality of napping, whether beneficial or harmful,” and that “a lack of detailed information regarding napping duration ... also limited the description of napping status.”
Junxin Li, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, who has studied napping and cognition, said that previous research generally supports a U-shaped relationship between napping and mental acuity, with shorter or medium-length naps benefiting cognition and no naps or naps that are too long being detrimental.
“This study looked at no nap versus naps of less than 2 hours and may not be able to capture this potential U-shaped association,” she said.
For clinicians, the duration, timing, frequency, and purpose of naps are important factors in making recommendations to patients, she said.
“For example, timing – napping in the early evening close to older adult’s bedtime may delay their bedtime and interfere with their nighttime sleep quality. Taking naps after lunchtime is hypothesized to provide the most therapeutic values to the health and usually recommended,” she said. Regular napping is better than “randomly dozing off,” Dr. Li added.
There are also cultural considerations – in east Asia, napping tends to be considered part of a healthy lifestyle, while in western countries it is not – and this could impact napping behaviors and how these behaviors affect cognition, she said.
Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at the Northwestern University, Chicago, said the results are consistent with early cross-sectional studies that showed that regular, scheduled naps in the afternoon were associated with positive cognitive performance and lower cardiometabolic disease risk.
Dr. Zee noted that it’s important to recognize that the positive data are associated with naps that are planned, while older adults napping because of excess sleepiness are at a higher risk for cognitive impairment and other health issues.
The study authors, Dr. Li, and Dr. Zee reported no relevant financial disclosures.
according to a new study in General Psychiatry.
The findings add to those seen in other observational studies showing afternoon napping promotes cognitive function, said the authors of the paper, published in General Psychiatry.
“The prevalence of afternoon napping has been increasing in older adults much more than in younger individuals,” wrote Han Cai, MS, of the department of geriatrics at The Fourth People’s Hospital of Wuhu, Anhui, China, and coauthors. “The elderly individuals who took afternoon naps showed significantly higher cognitive performance compared with those who did not nap.”
The researchers enrolled 2,214 people in the study – all Han Chinese and aged 60 or older. Afternoon napping was considered any period of inactivity of at least 5 minutes but less than 2 hours after lunch and outside of the person’s main sleep schedule. Those who reported ever napping – 1,534 subjects – were included in the napping group, and the others – 680 – in the nonnapping group. Patients with major physical conditions were excluded.
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Neuropsychological Test Battery (NTB) were used to measure cognitive function, and 739 patients agreed to blood tests for lipid values.
The average total MMSE score was higher for the napping group at 25.3 points out of 30, than for the nonnapping group, at 24.56 (P = .003). Those in the napping group also had significantly higher scores in the orientation portion of the MoCA test, at 5.55 out of 6 points, compared with 5.41 for the nonnapping group (P = .006).
Those in the napping group scored significantly higher on the digit span and language fluency parts of the Neuropsychological Test Battery (P = .009 and .020, respectively).
Dementia was assessed with face-to-face visits with clinicians, but diagnoses of dementia were not different between the groups.
Triglycerides were found to be higher – though still in the normal range – in the napping group compared with the nonnapping group, 1.80 mmol/L to 1.75 mmol/L, the researchers found (P = .001). No differences were seen for HDL or LDL cholesterol levels, or in hypertension or diabetes, the researchers reported.
The authors noted that inflammation is likely an important feature in the relationship between napping and cognitive function. Inflammatory cytokines have been found to play a role in sleep disorders, and strong inflammatory responses can lead to adverse events, including cognitive impairment.
“Sleep is known to be a regulator of the immune response that counters these inflammatory mediators, whereas napping, in particular, is thought to be an evolved response to inflammation,” they said.
The average age of patients in the napping group was 72.8 years, slightly older than those in the nonnapping group at 71.3 years, and this was a significant difference (P = .016).
The researchers acknowledged that the study “could not show direct causality of napping, whether beneficial or harmful,” and that “a lack of detailed information regarding napping duration ... also limited the description of napping status.”
Junxin Li, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, who has studied napping and cognition, said that previous research generally supports a U-shaped relationship between napping and mental acuity, with shorter or medium-length naps benefiting cognition and no naps or naps that are too long being detrimental.
“This study looked at no nap versus naps of less than 2 hours and may not be able to capture this potential U-shaped association,” she said.
For clinicians, the duration, timing, frequency, and purpose of naps are important factors in making recommendations to patients, she said.
“For example, timing – napping in the early evening close to older adult’s bedtime may delay their bedtime and interfere with their nighttime sleep quality. Taking naps after lunchtime is hypothesized to provide the most therapeutic values to the health and usually recommended,” she said. Regular napping is better than “randomly dozing off,” Dr. Li added.
There are also cultural considerations – in east Asia, napping tends to be considered part of a healthy lifestyle, while in western countries it is not – and this could impact napping behaviors and how these behaviors affect cognition, she said.
Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at the Northwestern University, Chicago, said the results are consistent with early cross-sectional studies that showed that regular, scheduled naps in the afternoon were associated with positive cognitive performance and lower cardiometabolic disease risk.
Dr. Zee noted that it’s important to recognize that the positive data are associated with naps that are planned, while older adults napping because of excess sleepiness are at a higher risk for cognitive impairment and other health issues.
The study authors, Dr. Li, and Dr. Zee reported no relevant financial disclosures.
according to a new study in General Psychiatry.
The findings add to those seen in other observational studies showing afternoon napping promotes cognitive function, said the authors of the paper, published in General Psychiatry.
“The prevalence of afternoon napping has been increasing in older adults much more than in younger individuals,” wrote Han Cai, MS, of the department of geriatrics at The Fourth People’s Hospital of Wuhu, Anhui, China, and coauthors. “The elderly individuals who took afternoon naps showed significantly higher cognitive performance compared with those who did not nap.”
The researchers enrolled 2,214 people in the study – all Han Chinese and aged 60 or older. Afternoon napping was considered any period of inactivity of at least 5 minutes but less than 2 hours after lunch and outside of the person’s main sleep schedule. Those who reported ever napping – 1,534 subjects – were included in the napping group, and the others – 680 – in the nonnapping group. Patients with major physical conditions were excluded.
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Neuropsychological Test Battery (NTB) were used to measure cognitive function, and 739 patients agreed to blood tests for lipid values.
The average total MMSE score was higher for the napping group at 25.3 points out of 30, than for the nonnapping group, at 24.56 (P = .003). Those in the napping group also had significantly higher scores in the orientation portion of the MoCA test, at 5.55 out of 6 points, compared with 5.41 for the nonnapping group (P = .006).
Those in the napping group scored significantly higher on the digit span and language fluency parts of the Neuropsychological Test Battery (P = .009 and .020, respectively).
Dementia was assessed with face-to-face visits with clinicians, but diagnoses of dementia were not different between the groups.
Triglycerides were found to be higher – though still in the normal range – in the napping group compared with the nonnapping group, 1.80 mmol/L to 1.75 mmol/L, the researchers found (P = .001). No differences were seen for HDL or LDL cholesterol levels, or in hypertension or diabetes, the researchers reported.
The authors noted that inflammation is likely an important feature in the relationship between napping and cognitive function. Inflammatory cytokines have been found to play a role in sleep disorders, and strong inflammatory responses can lead to adverse events, including cognitive impairment.
“Sleep is known to be a regulator of the immune response that counters these inflammatory mediators, whereas napping, in particular, is thought to be an evolved response to inflammation,” they said.
The average age of patients in the napping group was 72.8 years, slightly older than those in the nonnapping group at 71.3 years, and this was a significant difference (P = .016).
The researchers acknowledged that the study “could not show direct causality of napping, whether beneficial or harmful,” and that “a lack of detailed information regarding napping duration ... also limited the description of napping status.”
Junxin Li, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, who has studied napping and cognition, said that previous research generally supports a U-shaped relationship between napping and mental acuity, with shorter or medium-length naps benefiting cognition and no naps or naps that are too long being detrimental.
“This study looked at no nap versus naps of less than 2 hours and may not be able to capture this potential U-shaped association,” she said.
For clinicians, the duration, timing, frequency, and purpose of naps are important factors in making recommendations to patients, she said.
“For example, timing – napping in the early evening close to older adult’s bedtime may delay their bedtime and interfere with their nighttime sleep quality. Taking naps after lunchtime is hypothesized to provide the most therapeutic values to the health and usually recommended,” she said. Regular napping is better than “randomly dozing off,” Dr. Li added.
There are also cultural considerations – in east Asia, napping tends to be considered part of a healthy lifestyle, while in western countries it is not – and this could impact napping behaviors and how these behaviors affect cognition, she said.
Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at the Northwestern University, Chicago, said the results are consistent with early cross-sectional studies that showed that regular, scheduled naps in the afternoon were associated with positive cognitive performance and lower cardiometabolic disease risk.
Dr. Zee noted that it’s important to recognize that the positive data are associated with naps that are planned, while older adults napping because of excess sleepiness are at a higher risk for cognitive impairment and other health issues.
The study authors, Dr. Li, and Dr. Zee reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Microthrombi, necrosis seen in COVID-19 hearts on autopsy
Autopsies on patients who died from COVID-19 are providing important clues on how to treat the disease. In an analysis of 40 hearts from COVID-19 patients who died early in the pandemic, myocyte necrosis was seen in 14 hearts, or 35%.
In the majority of these hearts, pathologists found both small areas of focal necrosis and cardiac thrombi, most of which were microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular cells.
In an interview, senior author Aloke V. Finn, MD, CVPath Institute, Gaithersburg, Md., stressed the importance of understanding what they saw, but also what they didn’t see.
“What we saw in the majority of patients with myocardial injury were these small areas of infarct and microthrombi in small vessels. What we didn’t see was any evidence of myocarditis and or huge infarcts in, like, the LAD artery,” he said.
“What we’re seeing here is not clinically detectable. ... There is no test that will tell you there are microthrombi and no imaging tests that will show these focal areas of necrosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there,” he added.
The finding of myocyte necrosis in about one-third of samples is consistent with another study that showed that 30%-40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have elevated troponins, noted Dr. Finn. The investigators were unable to obtain troponin levels on their patients, which could limit the clinical translation of myocardial necrosis detected at autopsy.
Dr. Finn and colleagues, including first author Dario Pellegrini, MD, from Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy, published their findings online in Circulation on Jan. 22, 2020.
The report is a follow-up to another just published by Dr. Finn’s group in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which showed that myocarditis is a very rare finding in COVID-19 autopsies.
Only three of 14 individuals (21.4%) with evidence of myocyte necrosis showed evidence of acute MI, which Dr. Finn and colleagues define as an area of necrosis at least 1 cm2 in size. The remaining 11 (78.6%) had only discrete areas of myocyte necrosis (>20 necrotic myocytes with an area of ≥0.05 mm2, but <1 cm2).
“This makes sense when we saw what type of thrombus there was in these cases; it wasn’t thrombus in major epicardial vessels but microthombi in small vessels,” said Dr. Finn.
In those with necrosis, cardiac thrombi were present in 11 of 14 (78.6%) cases, with 2 of 14 (14.2%) having epicardial coronary artery thrombi and 0 of 14 (64.3%) having microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular arteries.
Further supporting the role of COVID-19–related hypercoagulability as the cause of myocardial injury in many patients, the investigators noted that the incidence of severe coronary artery disease (defined as >75% cross sectional narrowing) did not differ significantly between those with and without necrosis.
COVID-19 vs. non–COVID-19 thrombi
Going one step further, Dr. Finn’s team compared cardiac microthrombi from their COVID-19–positive autopsy cases with intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19 cases. They also compared the samples with aspirated thrombi obtained during primary percutaneous coronary intervention from uninfected and COVID-19–infected patients presenting with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).
The autopsy-obtained microthrombi had significantly more fibrin and terminal complement C5b-9 immunostaining than intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19–negative subjects and than aspirated thrombi from either COVID-positive or COVID-negative STEMI patients.
“Basically, what we’re seeing in these thrombi is evidence of an immune-mediated reaction,” said Dr. Finn, explaining that complement C5b-9 is an innate immune system protein that circulates in the blood in response to any kind of activation of the immune system. “It is nonspecific but can also lead to coagulation problems,” he said.
Anticoagulation, yes, but dose unclear
These findings clearly support the use of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID patients, said Jeffrey Weitz, MD, director of the Thrombosis & Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But the details of how much anticoagulation, what kind, and for whom are still a moving target.
“I think what we can say at this point is that these autopsy findings fit with previous studies that have shown microthrombi in the lungs and thrombi in the legs and gut, and support the notion that these patients should receive prophylactic doses of anticoagulants if they’re sick enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. Weitz.
“But it’s not as simple as to say that this study shows clots form in the heart of COVID patients and therefore more anticoagulation is going to be better than less anticoagulation,” he said in an interview.
Recent top-line findings from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – show that full-dose anticoagulation was beneficial in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation.
Moderately ill patients are those not in intensive care and who did not require organ support, such as mechanical ventilation, at the time of enrollment.
However, the same group reported findings in December that showed that routine use of full-dose anticoagulation when started in the ICU in critically ill patients was not beneficial and possibly harmful.
Dr. Weitz was only a little bit surprised by this finding of potential harm in the sickest patients. “I figured everybody should get prophylaxis but I wasn’t sure that everybody should get intensified anticoagulant. But my assumption was that if anybody is going to benefit from it, it would be the ICU patients.”
It was notable, said Dr. Weitz, that levels of D-dimer, a fibrin degradation product, were not associated with outcomes. “So, it doesn’t seem to be that patients with evidence of more clotting are more likely to benefit, which might indicate that it’s not the anticoagulant effect of the heparin that’s helping, but maybe the anti-inflammatory effect. At this point, we just don’t know.”
All three studies have paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup, but are continuing to enroll patients with moderate illness and expect to publish results in the coming months, according to previous coverage from this news organization.
The study was funded by CVPath, a nonprofit institute that receives funding from a number of different industry entities. Dr. Finn and Dr. Weitz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Autopsies on patients who died from COVID-19 are providing important clues on how to treat the disease. In an analysis of 40 hearts from COVID-19 patients who died early in the pandemic, myocyte necrosis was seen in 14 hearts, or 35%.
In the majority of these hearts, pathologists found both small areas of focal necrosis and cardiac thrombi, most of which were microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular cells.
In an interview, senior author Aloke V. Finn, MD, CVPath Institute, Gaithersburg, Md., stressed the importance of understanding what they saw, but also what they didn’t see.
“What we saw in the majority of patients with myocardial injury were these small areas of infarct and microthrombi in small vessels. What we didn’t see was any evidence of myocarditis and or huge infarcts in, like, the LAD artery,” he said.
“What we’re seeing here is not clinically detectable. ... There is no test that will tell you there are microthrombi and no imaging tests that will show these focal areas of necrosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there,” he added.
The finding of myocyte necrosis in about one-third of samples is consistent with another study that showed that 30%-40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have elevated troponins, noted Dr. Finn. The investigators were unable to obtain troponin levels on their patients, which could limit the clinical translation of myocardial necrosis detected at autopsy.
Dr. Finn and colleagues, including first author Dario Pellegrini, MD, from Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy, published their findings online in Circulation on Jan. 22, 2020.
The report is a follow-up to another just published by Dr. Finn’s group in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which showed that myocarditis is a very rare finding in COVID-19 autopsies.
Only three of 14 individuals (21.4%) with evidence of myocyte necrosis showed evidence of acute MI, which Dr. Finn and colleagues define as an area of necrosis at least 1 cm2 in size. The remaining 11 (78.6%) had only discrete areas of myocyte necrosis (>20 necrotic myocytes with an area of ≥0.05 mm2, but <1 cm2).
“This makes sense when we saw what type of thrombus there was in these cases; it wasn’t thrombus in major epicardial vessels but microthombi in small vessels,” said Dr. Finn.
In those with necrosis, cardiac thrombi were present in 11 of 14 (78.6%) cases, with 2 of 14 (14.2%) having epicardial coronary artery thrombi and 0 of 14 (64.3%) having microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular arteries.
Further supporting the role of COVID-19–related hypercoagulability as the cause of myocardial injury in many patients, the investigators noted that the incidence of severe coronary artery disease (defined as >75% cross sectional narrowing) did not differ significantly between those with and without necrosis.
COVID-19 vs. non–COVID-19 thrombi
Going one step further, Dr. Finn’s team compared cardiac microthrombi from their COVID-19–positive autopsy cases with intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19 cases. They also compared the samples with aspirated thrombi obtained during primary percutaneous coronary intervention from uninfected and COVID-19–infected patients presenting with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).
The autopsy-obtained microthrombi had significantly more fibrin and terminal complement C5b-9 immunostaining than intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19–negative subjects and than aspirated thrombi from either COVID-positive or COVID-negative STEMI patients.
“Basically, what we’re seeing in these thrombi is evidence of an immune-mediated reaction,” said Dr. Finn, explaining that complement C5b-9 is an innate immune system protein that circulates in the blood in response to any kind of activation of the immune system. “It is nonspecific but can also lead to coagulation problems,” he said.
Anticoagulation, yes, but dose unclear
These findings clearly support the use of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID patients, said Jeffrey Weitz, MD, director of the Thrombosis & Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But the details of how much anticoagulation, what kind, and for whom are still a moving target.
“I think what we can say at this point is that these autopsy findings fit with previous studies that have shown microthrombi in the lungs and thrombi in the legs and gut, and support the notion that these patients should receive prophylactic doses of anticoagulants if they’re sick enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. Weitz.
“But it’s not as simple as to say that this study shows clots form in the heart of COVID patients and therefore more anticoagulation is going to be better than less anticoagulation,” he said in an interview.
Recent top-line findings from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – show that full-dose anticoagulation was beneficial in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation.
Moderately ill patients are those not in intensive care and who did not require organ support, such as mechanical ventilation, at the time of enrollment.
However, the same group reported findings in December that showed that routine use of full-dose anticoagulation when started in the ICU in critically ill patients was not beneficial and possibly harmful.
Dr. Weitz was only a little bit surprised by this finding of potential harm in the sickest patients. “I figured everybody should get prophylaxis but I wasn’t sure that everybody should get intensified anticoagulant. But my assumption was that if anybody is going to benefit from it, it would be the ICU patients.”
It was notable, said Dr. Weitz, that levels of D-dimer, a fibrin degradation product, were not associated with outcomes. “So, it doesn’t seem to be that patients with evidence of more clotting are more likely to benefit, which might indicate that it’s not the anticoagulant effect of the heparin that’s helping, but maybe the anti-inflammatory effect. At this point, we just don’t know.”
All three studies have paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup, but are continuing to enroll patients with moderate illness and expect to publish results in the coming months, according to previous coverage from this news organization.
The study was funded by CVPath, a nonprofit institute that receives funding from a number of different industry entities. Dr. Finn and Dr. Weitz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Autopsies on patients who died from COVID-19 are providing important clues on how to treat the disease. In an analysis of 40 hearts from COVID-19 patients who died early in the pandemic, myocyte necrosis was seen in 14 hearts, or 35%.
In the majority of these hearts, pathologists found both small areas of focal necrosis and cardiac thrombi, most of which were microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular cells.
In an interview, senior author Aloke V. Finn, MD, CVPath Institute, Gaithersburg, Md., stressed the importance of understanding what they saw, but also what they didn’t see.
“What we saw in the majority of patients with myocardial injury were these small areas of infarct and microthrombi in small vessels. What we didn’t see was any evidence of myocarditis and or huge infarcts in, like, the LAD artery,” he said.
“What we’re seeing here is not clinically detectable. ... There is no test that will tell you there are microthrombi and no imaging tests that will show these focal areas of necrosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there,” he added.
The finding of myocyte necrosis in about one-third of samples is consistent with another study that showed that 30%-40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have elevated troponins, noted Dr. Finn. The investigators were unable to obtain troponin levels on their patients, which could limit the clinical translation of myocardial necrosis detected at autopsy.
Dr. Finn and colleagues, including first author Dario Pellegrini, MD, from Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy, published their findings online in Circulation on Jan. 22, 2020.
The report is a follow-up to another just published by Dr. Finn’s group in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which showed that myocarditis is a very rare finding in COVID-19 autopsies.
Only three of 14 individuals (21.4%) with evidence of myocyte necrosis showed evidence of acute MI, which Dr. Finn and colleagues define as an area of necrosis at least 1 cm2 in size. The remaining 11 (78.6%) had only discrete areas of myocyte necrosis (>20 necrotic myocytes with an area of ≥0.05 mm2, but <1 cm2).
“This makes sense when we saw what type of thrombus there was in these cases; it wasn’t thrombus in major epicardial vessels but microthombi in small vessels,” said Dr. Finn.
In those with necrosis, cardiac thrombi were present in 11 of 14 (78.6%) cases, with 2 of 14 (14.2%) having epicardial coronary artery thrombi and 0 of 14 (64.3%) having microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular arteries.
Further supporting the role of COVID-19–related hypercoagulability as the cause of myocardial injury in many patients, the investigators noted that the incidence of severe coronary artery disease (defined as >75% cross sectional narrowing) did not differ significantly between those with and without necrosis.
COVID-19 vs. non–COVID-19 thrombi
Going one step further, Dr. Finn’s team compared cardiac microthrombi from their COVID-19–positive autopsy cases with intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19 cases. They also compared the samples with aspirated thrombi obtained during primary percutaneous coronary intervention from uninfected and COVID-19–infected patients presenting with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).
The autopsy-obtained microthrombi had significantly more fibrin and terminal complement C5b-9 immunostaining than intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19–negative subjects and than aspirated thrombi from either COVID-positive or COVID-negative STEMI patients.
“Basically, what we’re seeing in these thrombi is evidence of an immune-mediated reaction,” said Dr. Finn, explaining that complement C5b-9 is an innate immune system protein that circulates in the blood in response to any kind of activation of the immune system. “It is nonspecific but can also lead to coagulation problems,” he said.
Anticoagulation, yes, but dose unclear
These findings clearly support the use of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID patients, said Jeffrey Weitz, MD, director of the Thrombosis & Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But the details of how much anticoagulation, what kind, and for whom are still a moving target.
“I think what we can say at this point is that these autopsy findings fit with previous studies that have shown microthrombi in the lungs and thrombi in the legs and gut, and support the notion that these patients should receive prophylactic doses of anticoagulants if they’re sick enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. Weitz.
“But it’s not as simple as to say that this study shows clots form in the heart of COVID patients and therefore more anticoagulation is going to be better than less anticoagulation,” he said in an interview.
Recent top-line findings from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – show that full-dose anticoagulation was beneficial in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation.
Moderately ill patients are those not in intensive care and who did not require organ support, such as mechanical ventilation, at the time of enrollment.
However, the same group reported findings in December that showed that routine use of full-dose anticoagulation when started in the ICU in critically ill patients was not beneficial and possibly harmful.
Dr. Weitz was only a little bit surprised by this finding of potential harm in the sickest patients. “I figured everybody should get prophylaxis but I wasn’t sure that everybody should get intensified anticoagulant. But my assumption was that if anybody is going to benefit from it, it would be the ICU patients.”
It was notable, said Dr. Weitz, that levels of D-dimer, a fibrin degradation product, were not associated with outcomes. “So, it doesn’t seem to be that patients with evidence of more clotting are more likely to benefit, which might indicate that it’s not the anticoagulant effect of the heparin that’s helping, but maybe the anti-inflammatory effect. At this point, we just don’t know.”
All three studies have paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup, but are continuing to enroll patients with moderate illness and expect to publish results in the coming months, according to previous coverage from this news organization.
The study was funded by CVPath, a nonprofit institute that receives funding from a number of different industry entities. Dr. Finn and Dr. Weitz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New NIH database will track neurologic effects of COVID-19
“We know COVID-19 can disrupt multiple body systems, but the effects of the virus and the body’s response to COVID-19 infection on the brain, spinal cord, nerves, and muscle can be particularly devastating and contribute to persistence of disability even after the virus is cleared,” said Barbara Karp, MD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
“There is an urgent need to understand COVID-19–related neurological problems, which not uncommonly include headaches, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, stroke, pain, and sleep disorders as well as some very rare complications of serious infections,” said Dr. Karp.
The COVID-19 NeuroDatabank/BioBank (NeuroCOVID) is funded by the NINDS. It was created and will be maintained by researchers at NYU Langone Health in New York.
The project is led by Andrea Troxel, ScD, professor of population health, and Eva Petkova, PhD, professor of population health and child and adolescent psychiatry, both at New York University.
“We’ve built a pretty comprehensive database that will accept deidentified patient information about new neurological issues that coincide with their COVID disease or worsening of preexisting neurological problems,” said Dr. Troxel. “In addition, we have a bio repository that will accept almost any kind of biological sample, such as blood, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue,” she said.
“Neuroimages are very difficult to store because the files are so enormous, but we’ve had some questions about that, and we’re looking into whether we can accommodate neuroimages,” Dr. Troxel noted.
Dr. Troxel said a “blast of information and invitations” has gone out in an effort to acquire data and biospecimens. “We’ve been really pleased with the amount of interest already, interest not only from large academic medical centers, as you might expect, but also from some smaller stand-alone clinics and even some individuals who have either experienced some of these neurological problems of COVID or know those who have and are really eager to try to provide information,” she added.
Researchers interested in using data and biosamples from the database may submit requests to the NeuroCOVID Steering Committee. More information is available online on the NeuroCOVID website.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“We know COVID-19 can disrupt multiple body systems, but the effects of the virus and the body’s response to COVID-19 infection on the brain, spinal cord, nerves, and muscle can be particularly devastating and contribute to persistence of disability even after the virus is cleared,” said Barbara Karp, MD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
“There is an urgent need to understand COVID-19–related neurological problems, which not uncommonly include headaches, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, stroke, pain, and sleep disorders as well as some very rare complications of serious infections,” said Dr. Karp.
The COVID-19 NeuroDatabank/BioBank (NeuroCOVID) is funded by the NINDS. It was created and will be maintained by researchers at NYU Langone Health in New York.
The project is led by Andrea Troxel, ScD, professor of population health, and Eva Petkova, PhD, professor of population health and child and adolescent psychiatry, both at New York University.
“We’ve built a pretty comprehensive database that will accept deidentified patient information about new neurological issues that coincide with their COVID disease or worsening of preexisting neurological problems,” said Dr. Troxel. “In addition, we have a bio repository that will accept almost any kind of biological sample, such as blood, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue,” she said.
“Neuroimages are very difficult to store because the files are so enormous, but we’ve had some questions about that, and we’re looking into whether we can accommodate neuroimages,” Dr. Troxel noted.
Dr. Troxel said a “blast of information and invitations” has gone out in an effort to acquire data and biospecimens. “We’ve been really pleased with the amount of interest already, interest not only from large academic medical centers, as you might expect, but also from some smaller stand-alone clinics and even some individuals who have either experienced some of these neurological problems of COVID or know those who have and are really eager to try to provide information,” she added.
Researchers interested in using data and biosamples from the database may submit requests to the NeuroCOVID Steering Committee. More information is available online on the NeuroCOVID website.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“We know COVID-19 can disrupt multiple body systems, but the effects of the virus and the body’s response to COVID-19 infection on the brain, spinal cord, nerves, and muscle can be particularly devastating and contribute to persistence of disability even after the virus is cleared,” said Barbara Karp, MD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
“There is an urgent need to understand COVID-19–related neurological problems, which not uncommonly include headaches, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, stroke, pain, and sleep disorders as well as some very rare complications of serious infections,” said Dr. Karp.
The COVID-19 NeuroDatabank/BioBank (NeuroCOVID) is funded by the NINDS. It was created and will be maintained by researchers at NYU Langone Health in New York.
The project is led by Andrea Troxel, ScD, professor of population health, and Eva Petkova, PhD, professor of population health and child and adolescent psychiatry, both at New York University.
“We’ve built a pretty comprehensive database that will accept deidentified patient information about new neurological issues that coincide with their COVID disease or worsening of preexisting neurological problems,” said Dr. Troxel. “In addition, we have a bio repository that will accept almost any kind of biological sample, such as blood, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue,” she said.
“Neuroimages are very difficult to store because the files are so enormous, but we’ve had some questions about that, and we’re looking into whether we can accommodate neuroimages,” Dr. Troxel noted.
Dr. Troxel said a “blast of information and invitations” has gone out in an effort to acquire data and biospecimens. “We’ve been really pleased with the amount of interest already, interest not only from large academic medical centers, as you might expect, but also from some smaller stand-alone clinics and even some individuals who have either experienced some of these neurological problems of COVID or know those who have and are really eager to try to provide information,” she added.
Researchers interested in using data and biosamples from the database may submit requests to the NeuroCOVID Steering Committee. More information is available online on the NeuroCOVID website.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pandemic seems to impact lung cancer diagnosis and prognosis
The two-center study showed a 38% decrease in new lung cancer diagnoses during the pandemic. Patients diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the pandemic had more severe disease than patients diagnosed prepandemic, but cases of SCLC were not more severe during the pandemic. Still, the 30-day mortality rate nearly doubled for both NSCLC and SCLC patients during the pandemic.
“The prioritization of the health care system towards COVID-19 patients has led to drastic changes in cancer management that could interfere with the initial diagnosis of lung cancer, resulting in delayed treatment and worse outcomes,” said Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. “Delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality.”
Dr. Reyes and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of new lung cancer cases, disease severity, and clinical outcomes. Dr. Reyes reported the group’s findings at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3700), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Study details
Dr. Reyes and colleagues compared data from two tertiary hospitals in Spain in the first 6 months of 2020 with data from the same period in 2019. Spain was one of the countries most affected by COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.
The study’s primary endpoint was differences by period in the number of new lung cancer cases and disease severity. A secondary endpoint was 30-day mortality rate by period and histology.
The study included 162 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer – 100 diagnosed before the pandemic began and 62 diagnosed during the pandemic. Overall, 68% of patients had NSCLC, and 32% had SCLC.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the prepandemic and pandemic groups, except for the proportion of nonsmokers. Twice as many patients diagnosed during the pandemic were nonsmokers (16% vs. 8%).
Differences by time period and subtype
During the pandemic, there was a 38% reduction in all lung cancer diagnoses, a 36% reduction in NSCLC diagnoses, and a 42% reduction in SCLC diagnoses.
Respiratory symptoms were more common during the pandemic for both NSCLC (30% vs. 23%) and SCLC (32% vs. 24%).
Cases of NSCLC diagnosed during the pandemic were more severe, but SCLC cases were not.
In the NSCLC cohort, symptomatic disease was more common during the pandemic (74% vs. 63%), as were advanced disease (58% vs. 46%), more than two metastatic sites (16% vs. 12%), oncologic emergencies (7% vs. 3%), hospitalization (21% vs. 18%), and death during hospitalization (44% vs. 17%).
For SCLC, symptomatic disease was less common during the pandemic (74% vs. 79%), as were advanced disease (52% vs. 67%), more than two metastatic sites (26% vs. 36%), oncologic emergencies (5% vs. 12%), hospitalization (21% vs. 33%), and death during hospitalization (0% vs. 18%).
Nevertheless, the 30-day mortality rate almost doubled during the pandemic for both NSCLC (49% vs. 25%) and SCLC (32% vs. 18%).
For both subtypes together, the median overall survival was 6.7 months during the pandemic and 7.9 months before the pandemic.
Implications and next steps
“In our descriptive study, lung cancer diagnosis is being affected during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Reyes said. “Fewer new lung cancer cases were diagnosed during COVID-19.”
Some patients with acute respiratory infections who tested negative for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the pandemic may have had undiagnosed lung cancer, noted Matthew Peters, MD, of Concord Repatriation General Hospital and Macquarie University Hospital, both in Sydney, who was not involved in this study.
“They receive a negative result and think their problem is reduced but wonder why they still have a cough,” Dr. Peters said. “The various lockdowns and social distancing reduced the diagnosis of respiratory viral illnesses that often result in an accidental diagnosis of lung cancer. As time goes by, we will recapture harvesting of accidental diagnosis of lung cancer and provide curative treatments.”
Dr. Reyes emphasized that strategies for maintaining cancer diagnoses need to be implemented during the pandemic. She also noted that this study is ongoing, with the goal of assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19.
Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She did not disclose funding for this study. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda.
The two-center study showed a 38% decrease in new lung cancer diagnoses during the pandemic. Patients diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the pandemic had more severe disease than patients diagnosed prepandemic, but cases of SCLC were not more severe during the pandemic. Still, the 30-day mortality rate nearly doubled for both NSCLC and SCLC patients during the pandemic.
“The prioritization of the health care system towards COVID-19 patients has led to drastic changes in cancer management that could interfere with the initial diagnosis of lung cancer, resulting in delayed treatment and worse outcomes,” said Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. “Delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality.”
Dr. Reyes and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of new lung cancer cases, disease severity, and clinical outcomes. Dr. Reyes reported the group’s findings at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3700), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Study details
Dr. Reyes and colleagues compared data from two tertiary hospitals in Spain in the first 6 months of 2020 with data from the same period in 2019. Spain was one of the countries most affected by COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.
The study’s primary endpoint was differences by period in the number of new lung cancer cases and disease severity. A secondary endpoint was 30-day mortality rate by period and histology.
The study included 162 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer – 100 diagnosed before the pandemic began and 62 diagnosed during the pandemic. Overall, 68% of patients had NSCLC, and 32% had SCLC.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the prepandemic and pandemic groups, except for the proportion of nonsmokers. Twice as many patients diagnosed during the pandemic were nonsmokers (16% vs. 8%).
Differences by time period and subtype
During the pandemic, there was a 38% reduction in all lung cancer diagnoses, a 36% reduction in NSCLC diagnoses, and a 42% reduction in SCLC diagnoses.
Respiratory symptoms were more common during the pandemic for both NSCLC (30% vs. 23%) and SCLC (32% vs. 24%).
Cases of NSCLC diagnosed during the pandemic were more severe, but SCLC cases were not.
In the NSCLC cohort, symptomatic disease was more common during the pandemic (74% vs. 63%), as were advanced disease (58% vs. 46%), more than two metastatic sites (16% vs. 12%), oncologic emergencies (7% vs. 3%), hospitalization (21% vs. 18%), and death during hospitalization (44% vs. 17%).
For SCLC, symptomatic disease was less common during the pandemic (74% vs. 79%), as were advanced disease (52% vs. 67%), more than two metastatic sites (26% vs. 36%), oncologic emergencies (5% vs. 12%), hospitalization (21% vs. 33%), and death during hospitalization (0% vs. 18%).
Nevertheless, the 30-day mortality rate almost doubled during the pandemic for both NSCLC (49% vs. 25%) and SCLC (32% vs. 18%).
For both subtypes together, the median overall survival was 6.7 months during the pandemic and 7.9 months before the pandemic.
Implications and next steps
“In our descriptive study, lung cancer diagnosis is being affected during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Reyes said. “Fewer new lung cancer cases were diagnosed during COVID-19.”
Some patients with acute respiratory infections who tested negative for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the pandemic may have had undiagnosed lung cancer, noted Matthew Peters, MD, of Concord Repatriation General Hospital and Macquarie University Hospital, both in Sydney, who was not involved in this study.
“They receive a negative result and think their problem is reduced but wonder why they still have a cough,” Dr. Peters said. “The various lockdowns and social distancing reduced the diagnosis of respiratory viral illnesses that often result in an accidental diagnosis of lung cancer. As time goes by, we will recapture harvesting of accidental diagnosis of lung cancer and provide curative treatments.”
Dr. Reyes emphasized that strategies for maintaining cancer diagnoses need to be implemented during the pandemic. She also noted that this study is ongoing, with the goal of assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19.
Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She did not disclose funding for this study. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda.
The two-center study showed a 38% decrease in new lung cancer diagnoses during the pandemic. Patients diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the pandemic had more severe disease than patients diagnosed prepandemic, but cases of SCLC were not more severe during the pandemic. Still, the 30-day mortality rate nearly doubled for both NSCLC and SCLC patients during the pandemic.
“The prioritization of the health care system towards COVID-19 patients has led to drastic changes in cancer management that could interfere with the initial diagnosis of lung cancer, resulting in delayed treatment and worse outcomes,” said Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. “Delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality.”
Dr. Reyes and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of new lung cancer cases, disease severity, and clinical outcomes. Dr. Reyes reported the group’s findings at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3700), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
Study details
Dr. Reyes and colleagues compared data from two tertiary hospitals in Spain in the first 6 months of 2020 with data from the same period in 2019. Spain was one of the countries most affected by COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.
The study’s primary endpoint was differences by period in the number of new lung cancer cases and disease severity. A secondary endpoint was 30-day mortality rate by period and histology.
The study included 162 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer – 100 diagnosed before the pandemic began and 62 diagnosed during the pandemic. Overall, 68% of patients had NSCLC, and 32% had SCLC.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the prepandemic and pandemic groups, except for the proportion of nonsmokers. Twice as many patients diagnosed during the pandemic were nonsmokers (16% vs. 8%).
Differences by time period and subtype
During the pandemic, there was a 38% reduction in all lung cancer diagnoses, a 36% reduction in NSCLC diagnoses, and a 42% reduction in SCLC diagnoses.
Respiratory symptoms were more common during the pandemic for both NSCLC (30% vs. 23%) and SCLC (32% vs. 24%).
Cases of NSCLC diagnosed during the pandemic were more severe, but SCLC cases were not.
In the NSCLC cohort, symptomatic disease was more common during the pandemic (74% vs. 63%), as were advanced disease (58% vs. 46%), more than two metastatic sites (16% vs. 12%), oncologic emergencies (7% vs. 3%), hospitalization (21% vs. 18%), and death during hospitalization (44% vs. 17%).
For SCLC, symptomatic disease was less common during the pandemic (74% vs. 79%), as were advanced disease (52% vs. 67%), more than two metastatic sites (26% vs. 36%), oncologic emergencies (5% vs. 12%), hospitalization (21% vs. 33%), and death during hospitalization (0% vs. 18%).
Nevertheless, the 30-day mortality rate almost doubled during the pandemic for both NSCLC (49% vs. 25%) and SCLC (32% vs. 18%).
For both subtypes together, the median overall survival was 6.7 months during the pandemic and 7.9 months before the pandemic.
Implications and next steps
“In our descriptive study, lung cancer diagnosis is being affected during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Reyes said. “Fewer new lung cancer cases were diagnosed during COVID-19.”
Some patients with acute respiratory infections who tested negative for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the pandemic may have had undiagnosed lung cancer, noted Matthew Peters, MD, of Concord Repatriation General Hospital and Macquarie University Hospital, both in Sydney, who was not involved in this study.
“They receive a negative result and think their problem is reduced but wonder why they still have a cough,” Dr. Peters said. “The various lockdowns and social distancing reduced the diagnosis of respiratory viral illnesses that often result in an accidental diagnosis of lung cancer. As time goes by, we will recapture harvesting of accidental diagnosis of lung cancer and provide curative treatments.”
Dr. Reyes emphasized that strategies for maintaining cancer diagnoses need to be implemented during the pandemic. She also noted that this study is ongoing, with the goal of assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19.
Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She did not disclose funding for this study. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda.
FROM WCLC 2020
J&J vaccine 85% efficacious against severe COVID globally
The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.
The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.
“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.
“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.
“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.
The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.
But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).
But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.
Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”
“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”
Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”
It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”
Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
Company defends numbers
Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.
“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.
“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”
Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”
Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.
Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.
The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.
“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.
“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.
“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.
The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.
But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).
But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.
Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”
“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”
Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”
It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”
Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
Company defends numbers
Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.
“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.
“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”
Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”
Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.
Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.
The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.
“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.
“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.
“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.
The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.
But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).
But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.
Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”
“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”
Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”
It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”
Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
Company defends numbers
Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.
“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.
“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”
Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”
Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.
Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rapid shifts in radiotherapy for cancer in response to COVID-19
Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.
The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.
“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).
“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.
“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.
The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).
Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.
On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).
Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.
The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.
There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.
This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.
“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.
“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.
The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer
In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.
One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.
These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.
Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.
The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.
“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”
The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.
What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.
“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.
“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
Radiotherapy remains reduced
Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.
“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.
“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”
By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”
The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.
No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.
The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.
“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).
“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.
“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.
The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).
Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.
On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).
Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.
The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.
There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.
This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.
“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.
“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.
The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer
In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.
One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.
These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.
Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.
The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.
“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”
The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.
What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.
“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.
“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
Radiotherapy remains reduced
Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.
“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.
“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”
By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”
The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.
No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.
The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.
“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).
“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.
“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.
The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).
Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.
On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).
Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.
The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.
There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.
This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.
“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.
“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.
The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer
In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.
One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.
These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.
Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.
The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.
“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”
The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.
What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.
“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.
“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
Radiotherapy remains reduced
Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.
“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.
“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”
By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”
The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.
No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Category 5’ COVID hurricane approaches, expert says
The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.
“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.
The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.
Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”
Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.
Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.
“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.
The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.
“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.
“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.
The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.
Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”
Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.
Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.
“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.
The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.
“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.
“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.
The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.
Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”
Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.
Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.
“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.
The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.
“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Newer iPhones disable implanted defibrillators
Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be warned that some newer models of smartphones equipped with magnets, such as the iPhone 12, can disable their device, inhibiting its lifesaving functions, according to investigators who tested and confirmed this effect.
“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted which persisted for the duration of the test,” reported the investigating team led by Joshua C. Greenberg, MD, who is an electrophysiology fellow at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The results were published in Heart Rhythm.
The American Heart Association has already cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for ICDs and pacemakers. On the AHA website, there is a list of devices and their potential for functional interference, but cell phones and other common devices are identified as posing a low risk.
The most recent iPhone and perhaps other advanced smartphones appear to be different. According to the authors of a study that tested the iPhone 12, this model has a circular array of magnets around a central charging coil. This array interacts with Apple’s proprietary MagSafe technology, which accelerates charging. The magnets also serve to orient the phone on the charger and enable other MagSafe accessories.
The authors of the new study were concerned that this array of magnets might be sufficiently strong to interfere with ICDs or other devices at risk. In a previously published study, the strength of a magnetic field sufficient to interfere with implantable cardiac devices was estimated to be at least 10 gauss.
Tests were performed on a patient wearing a Medtronic ICD.
“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted,” according to the authors of the study. The functional loss of the ICS persisted for the duration of proximity. It was reproduced multiple times and with multiple phone positions.
Previous studies have provided evidence that earlier models do not share this risk. In a study testing the iPhone 6 and an Apple Watch in 148 patients with various types of implantable electronic devices, including pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, resynchronization defibrillators, and resynchronization pacemakers, only one instance of interference was observed in 1,352 tests.
With wand telemetry, iPhone-induced interferences could be detected with the iPhone 6 in 14% of the patients, but these did not appear to be clinically meaningful, and this type of interference could not be detected with the Apple Watch, according to the report. The single observed interaction, which was between an iPhone 6 and a dual-chamber pacemaker, suggested device-device interactions are uncommon.
More recently, a woman with a single-chamber Medtronic ICD who went to sleep wearing an Apple Watch was awoken by warning beeps from her cardiac device, according to a case report published online. The Apple watch became the prime suspect in causing the ICD warning when proximity of the watch reproduced the warning during clinical examination. However, the magnetic interference was ultimately found to be emanating from the wristband, not the watch.
This case prompted additional studies with Fitbit and other Apple Watch wristbands. Both wristbands contain magnets used to track heart rate. Both were found capable of deactivating ICDs at distances of approximately 2 cm. On the basis of these results, the authors concluded that patients should be counseled about the risk posed by wristbands used in fitness tracking, concluding that they should be kept at least 6 inches away from ICDs and not worn while sleeping.
On their website, Apple maintains a page that specifically warns about the potential for interactions between iPhone 12s and medical devices . Although there is an acknowledgment that the iPhone12 contains more magnets than prior iPhone models, it is stated that iPhone 12 models are “not expected to pose a greater risk of magnetic interference to medical devices than prior iPhone models.” Nevertheless, the Apple instructions advise keeping the iPhone and MagSafe accessories more than 6 inches away from medical devices.
Dr. Greenberg and coinvestigators concluded that the iPhone 12 does pose a greater risk to the dysfunction of ICDs and other medical devices because of the more powerful magnets. As a result, the study brings forward “an important public health issue concerning the newer generation iPhone 12.”
Well aware of this issue and this study, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, director of cardiac pacing and tachyarrhythmia devices, Cleveland Clinic, agreed. He said the focus should not be restricted to the iPhone 12 series but other wearable devices as alluded to in the study.
“Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are designed to respond to magnets for important reasons, but magnets have many common uses,” he said. These can change the function of the implantable cardiac devise, but “it is temporary and only when placed in close proximity.”
The solution is simple. “Patients should be careful to avoid locating these objects near these devices,” Dr. Wilkoff said.
However, the first step is awareness. According to the study authors, devices with magnets powerful enough to impair function of implantable devices, such as the iPhone 12 “can potentially inhibit lifesaving therapy.”
Patients should be counseled and provided with practical steps, according to the authors. This includes keeping these devices out of pockets near implantable devices. They called for more noise from makers of smartphones and other devices with strong enough magnets to alter pacemaker and ICD function, and they advised physicians to draw awareness to this issue.
Dr. Greenberg reported no potential conflicts of interest.
Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be warned that some newer models of smartphones equipped with magnets, such as the iPhone 12, can disable their device, inhibiting its lifesaving functions, according to investigators who tested and confirmed this effect.
“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted which persisted for the duration of the test,” reported the investigating team led by Joshua C. Greenberg, MD, who is an electrophysiology fellow at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The results were published in Heart Rhythm.
The American Heart Association has already cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for ICDs and pacemakers. On the AHA website, there is a list of devices and their potential for functional interference, but cell phones and other common devices are identified as posing a low risk.
The most recent iPhone and perhaps other advanced smartphones appear to be different. According to the authors of a study that tested the iPhone 12, this model has a circular array of magnets around a central charging coil. This array interacts with Apple’s proprietary MagSafe technology, which accelerates charging. The magnets also serve to orient the phone on the charger and enable other MagSafe accessories.
The authors of the new study were concerned that this array of magnets might be sufficiently strong to interfere with ICDs or other devices at risk. In a previously published study, the strength of a magnetic field sufficient to interfere with implantable cardiac devices was estimated to be at least 10 gauss.
Tests were performed on a patient wearing a Medtronic ICD.
“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted,” according to the authors of the study. The functional loss of the ICS persisted for the duration of proximity. It was reproduced multiple times and with multiple phone positions.
Previous studies have provided evidence that earlier models do not share this risk. In a study testing the iPhone 6 and an Apple Watch in 148 patients with various types of implantable electronic devices, including pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, resynchronization defibrillators, and resynchronization pacemakers, only one instance of interference was observed in 1,352 tests.
With wand telemetry, iPhone-induced interferences could be detected with the iPhone 6 in 14% of the patients, but these did not appear to be clinically meaningful, and this type of interference could not be detected with the Apple Watch, according to the report. The single observed interaction, which was between an iPhone 6 and a dual-chamber pacemaker, suggested device-device interactions are uncommon.
More recently, a woman with a single-chamber Medtronic ICD who went to sleep wearing an Apple Watch was awoken by warning beeps from her cardiac device, according to a case report published online. The Apple watch became the prime suspect in causing the ICD warning when proximity of the watch reproduced the warning during clinical examination. However, the magnetic interference was ultimately found to be emanating from the wristband, not the watch.
This case prompted additional studies with Fitbit and other Apple Watch wristbands. Both wristbands contain magnets used to track heart rate. Both were found capable of deactivating ICDs at distances of approximately 2 cm. On the basis of these results, the authors concluded that patients should be counseled about the risk posed by wristbands used in fitness tracking, concluding that they should be kept at least 6 inches away from ICDs and not worn while sleeping.
On their website, Apple maintains a page that specifically warns about the potential for interactions between iPhone 12s and medical devices . Although there is an acknowledgment that the iPhone12 contains more magnets than prior iPhone models, it is stated that iPhone 12 models are “not expected to pose a greater risk of magnetic interference to medical devices than prior iPhone models.” Nevertheless, the Apple instructions advise keeping the iPhone and MagSafe accessories more than 6 inches away from medical devices.
Dr. Greenberg and coinvestigators concluded that the iPhone 12 does pose a greater risk to the dysfunction of ICDs and other medical devices because of the more powerful magnets. As a result, the study brings forward “an important public health issue concerning the newer generation iPhone 12.”
Well aware of this issue and this study, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, director of cardiac pacing and tachyarrhythmia devices, Cleveland Clinic, agreed. He said the focus should not be restricted to the iPhone 12 series but other wearable devices as alluded to in the study.
“Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are designed to respond to magnets for important reasons, but magnets have many common uses,” he said. These can change the function of the implantable cardiac devise, but “it is temporary and only when placed in close proximity.”
The solution is simple. “Patients should be careful to avoid locating these objects near these devices,” Dr. Wilkoff said.
However, the first step is awareness. According to the study authors, devices with magnets powerful enough to impair function of implantable devices, such as the iPhone 12 “can potentially inhibit lifesaving therapy.”
Patients should be counseled and provided with practical steps, according to the authors. This includes keeping these devices out of pockets near implantable devices. They called for more noise from makers of smartphones and other devices with strong enough magnets to alter pacemaker and ICD function, and they advised physicians to draw awareness to this issue.
Dr. Greenberg reported no potential conflicts of interest.
Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be warned that some newer models of smartphones equipped with magnets, such as the iPhone 12, can disable their device, inhibiting its lifesaving functions, according to investigators who tested and confirmed this effect.
“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted which persisted for the duration of the test,” reported the investigating team led by Joshua C. Greenberg, MD, who is an electrophysiology fellow at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The results were published in Heart Rhythm.
The American Heart Association has already cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for ICDs and pacemakers. On the AHA website, there is a list of devices and their potential for functional interference, but cell phones and other common devices are identified as posing a low risk.
The most recent iPhone and perhaps other advanced smartphones appear to be different. According to the authors of a study that tested the iPhone 12, this model has a circular array of magnets around a central charging coil. This array interacts with Apple’s proprietary MagSafe technology, which accelerates charging. The magnets also serve to orient the phone on the charger and enable other MagSafe accessories.
The authors of the new study were concerned that this array of magnets might be sufficiently strong to interfere with ICDs or other devices at risk. In a previously published study, the strength of a magnetic field sufficient to interfere with implantable cardiac devices was estimated to be at least 10 gauss.
Tests were performed on a patient wearing a Medtronic ICD.
“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted,” according to the authors of the study. The functional loss of the ICS persisted for the duration of proximity. It was reproduced multiple times and with multiple phone positions.
Previous studies have provided evidence that earlier models do not share this risk. In a study testing the iPhone 6 and an Apple Watch in 148 patients with various types of implantable electronic devices, including pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, resynchronization defibrillators, and resynchronization pacemakers, only one instance of interference was observed in 1,352 tests.
With wand telemetry, iPhone-induced interferences could be detected with the iPhone 6 in 14% of the patients, but these did not appear to be clinically meaningful, and this type of interference could not be detected with the Apple Watch, according to the report. The single observed interaction, which was between an iPhone 6 and a dual-chamber pacemaker, suggested device-device interactions are uncommon.
More recently, a woman with a single-chamber Medtronic ICD who went to sleep wearing an Apple Watch was awoken by warning beeps from her cardiac device, according to a case report published online. The Apple watch became the prime suspect in causing the ICD warning when proximity of the watch reproduced the warning during clinical examination. However, the magnetic interference was ultimately found to be emanating from the wristband, not the watch.
This case prompted additional studies with Fitbit and other Apple Watch wristbands. Both wristbands contain magnets used to track heart rate. Both were found capable of deactivating ICDs at distances of approximately 2 cm. On the basis of these results, the authors concluded that patients should be counseled about the risk posed by wristbands used in fitness tracking, concluding that they should be kept at least 6 inches away from ICDs and not worn while sleeping.
On their website, Apple maintains a page that specifically warns about the potential for interactions between iPhone 12s and medical devices . Although there is an acknowledgment that the iPhone12 contains more magnets than prior iPhone models, it is stated that iPhone 12 models are “not expected to pose a greater risk of magnetic interference to medical devices than prior iPhone models.” Nevertheless, the Apple instructions advise keeping the iPhone and MagSafe accessories more than 6 inches away from medical devices.
Dr. Greenberg and coinvestigators concluded that the iPhone 12 does pose a greater risk to the dysfunction of ICDs and other medical devices because of the more powerful magnets. As a result, the study brings forward “an important public health issue concerning the newer generation iPhone 12.”
Well aware of this issue and this study, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, director of cardiac pacing and tachyarrhythmia devices, Cleveland Clinic, agreed. He said the focus should not be restricted to the iPhone 12 series but other wearable devices as alluded to in the study.
“Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are designed to respond to magnets for important reasons, but magnets have many common uses,” he said. These can change the function of the implantable cardiac devise, but “it is temporary and only when placed in close proximity.”
The solution is simple. “Patients should be careful to avoid locating these objects near these devices,” Dr. Wilkoff said.
However, the first step is awareness. According to the study authors, devices with magnets powerful enough to impair function of implantable devices, such as the iPhone 12 “can potentially inhibit lifesaving therapy.”
Patients should be counseled and provided with practical steps, according to the authors. This includes keeping these devices out of pockets near implantable devices. They called for more noise from makers of smartphones and other devices with strong enough magnets to alter pacemaker and ICD function, and they advised physicians to draw awareness to this issue.
Dr. Greenberg reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM HEART RHYTHM
Tough pain relief choices in the COVID-19 pandemic
More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.
Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.
The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.
But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.
The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.
“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”
One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.
British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.
“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.
And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.
The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.
NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.
The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.
“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
More new evidence
Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.
In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.
Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.
Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.
There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.
Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.
The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.
But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.
The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.
“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”
One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.
British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.
“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.
And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.
The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.
NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.
The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.
“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
More new evidence
Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.
In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.
Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.
Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.
There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.
Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.
The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.
But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.
The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.
“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”
One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.
British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.
“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.
And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.
The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.
NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.
The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.
“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
More new evidence
Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.
In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.
Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.
Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.
There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.