CHEST Physician

A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

Further, this case suggests such infections may not be easily detectable in neonates until days after birth.
 

The data

In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.

The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.

“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.

Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”

The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
 

Some perspective

In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.

With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127

A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

Further, this case suggests such infections may not be easily detectable in neonates until days after birth.
 

The data

In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.

The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.

“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.

Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”

The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
 

Some perspective

In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.

With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127

A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

Further, this case suggests such infections may not be easily detectable in neonates until days after birth.
 

The data

In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.

The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.

“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.

Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”

The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
 

Some perspective

In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.

With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127

Home spirometry has become increasingly used among cystic fibrosis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, and new research suggests that home devices perform reasonably well. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) values were a bit lower than values seen in clinical spirometry performed in the same patient at a nearby time point, but the procedure reliably picked up decreases in FEV₁, potentially helping patients and clinicians spot exacerbations early.

“Home spirometry was sort of a curiosity that was slowly working its way into cystic fibrosis research in 2019, and then all of a sudden in 2020 it became front and center as the only way to continue with clinical monitoring and research in many cases,” Alexander Paynter, MS, a biostatistician at the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s Therapeutic Development Network Coordinating Center, said during a talk at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

To better determine how closely home spirometry matches clinical spirometry, Mr. Paynter and his colleagues analyzed data from the eICE study, which included 267 cystic fibrosis patients aged 14 and over at 14 cystic fibrosis centers. They were randomized to use home spirometry as an early intervention to detect exacerbations, or to continue usual clinic care with visits to the clinic every 3 months. The dataset includes twice-weekly home spirometry values, with a full-year of follow-up data. The researchers compared the home spirometry data to the clinical data closest in time to it. Clinic spirometry data with no corresponding home data within 7 days were discarded.

There was an estimated difference of –2.01 mL between home and clinic tests, with home spirometry producing lower values (95% confidence interval, –3.56 to –0.45). “There is actually a bias in home spirometry as compared to clinic spirometry,” concluded Mr. Paynter.

One explanation for lower values in home spirometry is that users are inexperienced with the device. If that’s true, then agreement should improve over time, but the researchers didn’t see strong evidence of that. Among 44 patients who completed five clinical visits, there was a difference of –2.97 (standard deviation [SD], 10.51) at baseline, –1.66 at 3 months (SD, 13.49), –3.7 at 6 months (SD, 12.44), –0.86 at 9 months (SD, 13.73), and –0.53 at 12 months (SD, 13.35). Though there was improvement over time, “we don’t find a lot of evidence that this bias completely resolves,” said Mr. Paynter.

In fact, a more likely explanation is the presence of coaching by a technician during clinical spirometry, according to Robert J. Giusti, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center at New York University. “When they’re doing it at home, they don’t do it with the same effort, so I think that coaching through telemedicine during the home spirometry would make that difference disappear,” he said when asked to comment on the study.

SOURCE: Alex Paynter et al. NACFC 2020. Poster 643.

Home spirometry has become increasingly used among cystic fibrosis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, and new research suggests that home devices perform reasonably well. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) values were a bit lower than values seen in clinical spirometry performed in the same patient at a nearby time point, but the procedure reliably picked up decreases in FEV₁, potentially helping patients and clinicians spot exacerbations early.

“Home spirometry was sort of a curiosity that was slowly working its way into cystic fibrosis research in 2019, and then all of a sudden in 2020 it became front and center as the only way to continue with clinical monitoring and research in many cases,” Alexander Paynter, MS, a biostatistician at the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s Therapeutic Development Network Coordinating Center, said during a talk at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

To better determine how closely home spirometry matches clinical spirometry, Mr. Paynter and his colleagues analyzed data from the eICE study, which included 267 cystic fibrosis patients aged 14 and over at 14 cystic fibrosis centers. They were randomized to use home spirometry as an early intervention to detect exacerbations, or to continue usual clinic care with visits to the clinic every 3 months. The dataset includes twice-weekly home spirometry values, with a full-year of follow-up data. The researchers compared the home spirometry data to the clinical data closest in time to it. Clinic spirometry data with no corresponding home data within 7 days were discarded.

There was an estimated difference of –2.01 mL between home and clinic tests, with home spirometry producing lower values (95% confidence interval, –3.56 to –0.45). “There is actually a bias in home spirometry as compared to clinic spirometry,” concluded Mr. Paynter.

One explanation for lower values in home spirometry is that users are inexperienced with the device. If that’s true, then agreement should improve over time, but the researchers didn’t see strong evidence of that. Among 44 patients who completed five clinical visits, there was a difference of –2.97 (standard deviation [SD], 10.51) at baseline, –1.66 at 3 months (SD, 13.49), –3.7 at 6 months (SD, 12.44), –0.86 at 9 months (SD, 13.73), and –0.53 at 12 months (SD, 13.35). Though there was improvement over time, “we don’t find a lot of evidence that this bias completely resolves,” said Mr. Paynter.

In fact, a more likely explanation is the presence of coaching by a technician during clinical spirometry, according to Robert J. Giusti, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center at New York University. “When they’re doing it at home, they don’t do it with the same effort, so I think that coaching through telemedicine during the home spirometry would make that difference disappear,” he said when asked to comment on the study.

SOURCE: Alex Paynter et al. NACFC 2020. Poster 643.

Home spirometry has become increasingly used among cystic fibrosis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, and new research suggests that home devices perform reasonably well. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) values were a bit lower than values seen in clinical spirometry performed in the same patient at a nearby time point, but the procedure reliably picked up decreases in FEV₁, potentially helping patients and clinicians spot exacerbations early.

“Home spirometry was sort of a curiosity that was slowly working its way into cystic fibrosis research in 2019, and then all of a sudden in 2020 it became front and center as the only way to continue with clinical monitoring and research in many cases,” Alexander Paynter, MS, a biostatistician at the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s Therapeutic Development Network Coordinating Center, said during a talk at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

To better determine how closely home spirometry matches clinical spirometry, Mr. Paynter and his colleagues analyzed data from the eICE study, which included 267 cystic fibrosis patients aged 14 and over at 14 cystic fibrosis centers. They were randomized to use home spirometry as an early intervention to detect exacerbations, or to continue usual clinic care with visits to the clinic every 3 months. The dataset includes twice-weekly home spirometry values, with a full-year of follow-up data. The researchers compared the home spirometry data to the clinical data closest in time to it. Clinic spirometry data with no corresponding home data within 7 days were discarded.

There was an estimated difference of –2.01 mL between home and clinic tests, with home spirometry producing lower values (95% confidence interval, –3.56 to –0.45). “There is actually a bias in home spirometry as compared to clinic spirometry,” concluded Mr. Paynter.

One explanation for lower values in home spirometry is that users are inexperienced with the device. If that’s true, then agreement should improve over time, but the researchers didn’t see strong evidence of that. Among 44 patients who completed five clinical visits, there was a difference of –2.97 (standard deviation [SD], 10.51) at baseline, –1.66 at 3 months (SD, 13.49), –3.7 at 6 months (SD, 12.44), –0.86 at 9 months (SD, 13.73), and –0.53 at 12 months (SD, 13.35). Though there was improvement over time, “we don’t find a lot of evidence that this bias completely resolves,” said Mr. Paynter.

In fact, a more likely explanation is the presence of coaching by a technician during clinical spirometry, according to Robert J. Giusti, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center at New York University. “When they’re doing it at home, they don’t do it with the same effort, so I think that coaching through telemedicine during the home spirometry would make that difference disappear,” he said when asked to comment on the study.

SOURCE: Alex Paynter et al. NACFC 2020. Poster 643.

As COVID-19 cases surge in the United States, one Texas veterinarian has been quietly tracking the spread of the disease – not in people, but in their pets.

Since June, Dr. Sarah Hamer and her team at Texas A&M University have tested hundreds of animals from area households where humans contracted COVID-19. They’ve swabbed dogs and cats, sure, but also pet hamsters and guinea pigs, looking for signs of infection. “We’re open to all of it,” said Dr. Hamer, a professor of epidemiology, who has found at least 19 cases of infection.

One pet that tested positive was Phoenix, a 7-year-old part Siamese cat owned by Kaitlyn Romoser, who works in a university lab. Ms. Romoser, 23, was confirmed to have COVID-19 twice, once in March and again in September. The second time she was much sicker, she said, and Phoenix was her constant companion.

“If I would have known animals were just getting it everywhere, I would have tried to distance myself, but he will not distance himself from me,” Ms. Romoser said. “He sleeps in my bed with me. There was absolutely no social distancing.”

Across the country, veterinarians and other researchers are scouring the animal kingdom for signs of the virus that causes COVID-19. At least 2,000 animals in the U.S. have been tested for the coronavirus since the pandemic began, according to federal records. Cats and dogs that were exposed to sick owners represent most of the animals tested and 80% of the positive cases found.

But scientists have cast a wide net investigating other animals that could be at risk. In states from California to Florida, researchers have tested species ranging from farmed minks and zoo cats to unexpected critters like dolphins, armadillos, and anteaters.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an official tally of confirmed animal COVID cases that stands at several dozen. But that list is a vast undercount of actual infections. In Utah and Wisconsin, for instance, more than 14,000 minks died in recent weeks after contracting COVID infections initially spread by humans.

So far, there’s limited evidence that animals are transmitting the virus to people. Veterinarians emphasize that pet owners appear to be in no danger from their animal companions and should continue to love and care for them. But scientists say continued testing is one way to remain vigilant in the face of a previously unknown pathogen.

“We just know that coronaviruses, as a family, infect a lot of species, mostly mammals,” said Dr. Peter Rabinowitz, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and the director of the University of Washington Center for One Health Research in Seattle. “It makes sense to take a species-spanning approach and look at a wide spectrum.”

Much of the testing has been rooted in scientific curiosity. Since the pandemic began, a major puzzle has been how the virus, which likely originated in bats, spread to humans. A leading theory is that it jumped to an intermediate species, still unknown, and then to people.

In April, a 4-year-old Malayan tiger at the Bronx Zoo tested positive for COVID-19 in a first-of-its-kind case after seven big cats showed signs of respiratory illness. The tiger, Nadia, contracted the virus from a caretaker, federal health officials said. Four other tigers and three African lions were also confirmed to be infected.

In Washington state, the site of the first U.S. outbreak in humans, scientists rushed to design a COVID test for animals in March, said Charlie Powell, a spokesperson for the Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Pullman. “We knew with warm-blooded animals, housed together, there’s going to be some cross-infection,” he said. Tests for animals use different reagent compounds than those used for tests in people, so they don’t deplete the human supply, Mr. Powell added.

Since spring, the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory has tested nearly 80 animals, including 38 dogs, 29 cats, 2 ferrets, a camel, and 2 tamanduas, a type of anteater. The lab also tested six minks from the outbreak in Utah, five of which accounted for the lab’s only positive tests.

All told, nearly 1,400 animals have been tested for COVID-19 through the National Animal Health Laboratory Network or private labs, said Lyndsay Cole, a spokesperson for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. More than 400 animals have been tested through the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. At least 250 more have been tested through academic research projects.

Most of the tests have been in household cats and dogs with suspicious respiratory symptoms. In June, the USDA reported that a dog in New York was the first pet dog to test positive for the coronavirus after falling ill and struggling to breathe. The dog, a 7-year-old German shepherd named Buddy, later died. Officials determined he’d contracted the virus from his owner.

Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor the USDA recommends routine testing for house pets or other animals – but that hasn’t stopped owners from asking, said Dr. Douglas Kratt, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

“The questions have become a little more consistent at my practice,” he said. “People do want to know about COVID-19 and their pets. Can their pet pick it up at a clinic or boarding or in doggie day care?”

The answer, so far, is that humans are the primary source of infection in pets. In September, a small, unpublished study from the University of Guelph in Canada found that companion cats and dogs appeared to be infected by their sick owners, judging by antibodies to the coronavirus detected in their blood.

In Texas, Dr. Hamer started testing animals from households where someone had contracted COVID-19 to learn more about transmission pathways. “Right now, we’re very much trying to describe what’s happening in nature,” she said.

So far, most of the animals – including Phoenix, Ms. Romoser’s cat – have shown no signs of illness or disease. That’s true so far for many species of animals tested for COVID-19, veterinarians said. Most nonhuman creatures appear to weather COVID infection with mild symptoms like sniffles and lethargy, if any.

Still, owners should apply best practices for avoiding COVID infection to pets, too, Dr. Kratt said. Don’t let pets come into contact with unfamiliar animals, he suggested. Owners should wash their hands frequently and avoid nuzzling and other very close contact, if possible.

Cats appear to be more susceptible to COVID-19 than dogs, researchers said. And minks, which are farmed in the U.S. and elsewhere for their fur, appear quite vulnerable.

In the meantime, the list of creatures tested for COVID-19 – whether for illness or science – is growing. In Florida, 22 animals had been tested as of early October, including 3 wild dolphins, 2 civets, 2 clouded leopards, a gorilla, an orangutan, an alpaca, and a bush baby, state officials said.

In California, 29 animals had been tested by the end of September, including a meerkat, a monkey, and a coatimundi, a member of the raccoon family.

In Seattle, a plan to test orcas, or killer whales, in Puget Sound was called off at the last minute after a member of the scientific team was exposed to COVID-19 and had to quarantine, said Dr. Joe Gaydos, a senior wildlife veterinarian and science director for the SeaDoc Society, a conservation program at the University of California-Davis. The group missed its September window to locate the animals and obtain breath and fecal samples for analysis.

No one thinks marine animals will play a big role in the pandemic decimating the human population, Dr. Gaydos said. But testing many creatures on both land and sea is vital.

“We don’t know what this virus is going to do or can do,” Dr. Gaydos said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

As COVID-19 cases surge in the United States, one Texas veterinarian has been quietly tracking the spread of the disease – not in people, but in their pets.

Since June, Dr. Sarah Hamer and her team at Texas A&M University have tested hundreds of animals from area households where humans contracted COVID-19. They’ve swabbed dogs and cats, sure, but also pet hamsters and guinea pigs, looking for signs of infection. “We’re open to all of it,” said Dr. Hamer, a professor of epidemiology, who has found at least 19 cases of infection.

One pet that tested positive was Phoenix, a 7-year-old part Siamese cat owned by Kaitlyn Romoser, who works in a university lab. Ms. Romoser, 23, was confirmed to have COVID-19 twice, once in March and again in September. The second time she was much sicker, she said, and Phoenix was her constant companion.

“If I would have known animals were just getting it everywhere, I would have tried to distance myself, but he will not distance himself from me,” Ms. Romoser said. “He sleeps in my bed with me. There was absolutely no social distancing.”

Across the country, veterinarians and other researchers are scouring the animal kingdom for signs of the virus that causes COVID-19. At least 2,000 animals in the U.S. have been tested for the coronavirus since the pandemic began, according to federal records. Cats and dogs that were exposed to sick owners represent most of the animals tested and 80% of the positive cases found.

But scientists have cast a wide net investigating other animals that could be at risk. In states from California to Florida, researchers have tested species ranging from farmed minks and zoo cats to unexpected critters like dolphins, armadillos, and anteaters.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an official tally of confirmed animal COVID cases that stands at several dozen. But that list is a vast undercount of actual infections. In Utah and Wisconsin, for instance, more than 14,000 minks died in recent weeks after contracting COVID infections initially spread by humans.

So far, there’s limited evidence that animals are transmitting the virus to people. Veterinarians emphasize that pet owners appear to be in no danger from their animal companions and should continue to love and care for them. But scientists say continued testing is one way to remain vigilant in the face of a previously unknown pathogen.

“We just know that coronaviruses, as a family, infect a lot of species, mostly mammals,” said Dr. Peter Rabinowitz, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and the director of the University of Washington Center for One Health Research in Seattle. “It makes sense to take a species-spanning approach and look at a wide spectrum.”

Much of the testing has been rooted in scientific curiosity. Since the pandemic began, a major puzzle has been how the virus, which likely originated in bats, spread to humans. A leading theory is that it jumped to an intermediate species, still unknown, and then to people.

In April, a 4-year-old Malayan tiger at the Bronx Zoo tested positive for COVID-19 in a first-of-its-kind case after seven big cats showed signs of respiratory illness. The tiger, Nadia, contracted the virus from a caretaker, federal health officials said. Four other tigers and three African lions were also confirmed to be infected.

In Washington state, the site of the first U.S. outbreak in humans, scientists rushed to design a COVID test for animals in March, said Charlie Powell, a spokesperson for the Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Pullman. “We knew with warm-blooded animals, housed together, there’s going to be some cross-infection,” he said. Tests for animals use different reagent compounds than those used for tests in people, so they don’t deplete the human supply, Mr. Powell added.

Since spring, the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory has tested nearly 80 animals, including 38 dogs, 29 cats, 2 ferrets, a camel, and 2 tamanduas, a type of anteater. The lab also tested six minks from the outbreak in Utah, five of which accounted for the lab’s only positive tests.

All told, nearly 1,400 animals have been tested for COVID-19 through the National Animal Health Laboratory Network or private labs, said Lyndsay Cole, a spokesperson for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. More than 400 animals have been tested through the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. At least 250 more have been tested through academic research projects.

Most of the tests have been in household cats and dogs with suspicious respiratory symptoms. In June, the USDA reported that a dog in New York was the first pet dog to test positive for the coronavirus after falling ill and struggling to breathe. The dog, a 7-year-old German shepherd named Buddy, later died. Officials determined he’d contracted the virus from his owner.

Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor the USDA recommends routine testing for house pets or other animals – but that hasn’t stopped owners from asking, said Dr. Douglas Kratt, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

“The questions have become a little more consistent at my practice,” he said. “People do want to know about COVID-19 and their pets. Can their pet pick it up at a clinic or boarding or in doggie day care?”

The answer, so far, is that humans are the primary source of infection in pets. In September, a small, unpublished study from the University of Guelph in Canada found that companion cats and dogs appeared to be infected by their sick owners, judging by antibodies to the coronavirus detected in their blood.

In Texas, Dr. Hamer started testing animals from households where someone had contracted COVID-19 to learn more about transmission pathways. “Right now, we’re very much trying to describe what’s happening in nature,” she said.

So far, most of the animals – including Phoenix, Ms. Romoser’s cat – have shown no signs of illness or disease. That’s true so far for many species of animals tested for COVID-19, veterinarians said. Most nonhuman creatures appear to weather COVID infection with mild symptoms like sniffles and lethargy, if any.

Still, owners should apply best practices for avoiding COVID infection to pets, too, Dr. Kratt said. Don’t let pets come into contact with unfamiliar animals, he suggested. Owners should wash their hands frequently and avoid nuzzling and other very close contact, if possible.

Cats appear to be more susceptible to COVID-19 than dogs, researchers said. And minks, which are farmed in the U.S. and elsewhere for their fur, appear quite vulnerable.

In the meantime, the list of creatures tested for COVID-19 – whether for illness or science – is growing. In Florida, 22 animals had been tested as of early October, including 3 wild dolphins, 2 civets, 2 clouded leopards, a gorilla, an orangutan, an alpaca, and a bush baby, state officials said.

In California, 29 animals had been tested by the end of September, including a meerkat, a monkey, and a coatimundi, a member of the raccoon family.

In Seattle, a plan to test orcas, or killer whales, in Puget Sound was called off at the last minute after a member of the scientific team was exposed to COVID-19 and had to quarantine, said Dr. Joe Gaydos, a senior wildlife veterinarian and science director for the SeaDoc Society, a conservation program at the University of California-Davis. The group missed its September window to locate the animals and obtain breath and fecal samples for analysis.

No one thinks marine animals will play a big role in the pandemic decimating the human population, Dr. Gaydos said. But testing many creatures on both land and sea is vital.

“We don’t know what this virus is going to do or can do,” Dr. Gaydos said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

As COVID-19 cases surge in the United States, one Texas veterinarian has been quietly tracking the spread of the disease – not in people, but in their pets.

Since June, Dr. Sarah Hamer and her team at Texas A&M University have tested hundreds of animals from area households where humans contracted COVID-19. They’ve swabbed dogs and cats, sure, but also pet hamsters and guinea pigs, looking for signs of infection. “We’re open to all of it,” said Dr. Hamer, a professor of epidemiology, who has found at least 19 cases of infection.

One pet that tested positive was Phoenix, a 7-year-old part Siamese cat owned by Kaitlyn Romoser, who works in a university lab. Ms. Romoser, 23, was confirmed to have COVID-19 twice, once in March and again in September. The second time she was much sicker, she said, and Phoenix was her constant companion.

“If I would have known animals were just getting it everywhere, I would have tried to distance myself, but he will not distance himself from me,” Ms. Romoser said. “He sleeps in my bed with me. There was absolutely no social distancing.”

Across the country, veterinarians and other researchers are scouring the animal kingdom for signs of the virus that causes COVID-19. At least 2,000 animals in the U.S. have been tested for the coronavirus since the pandemic began, according to federal records. Cats and dogs that were exposed to sick owners represent most of the animals tested and 80% of the positive cases found.

But scientists have cast a wide net investigating other animals that could be at risk. In states from California to Florida, researchers have tested species ranging from farmed minks and zoo cats to unexpected critters like dolphins, armadillos, and anteaters.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an official tally of confirmed animal COVID cases that stands at several dozen. But that list is a vast undercount of actual infections. In Utah and Wisconsin, for instance, more than 14,000 minks died in recent weeks after contracting COVID infections initially spread by humans.

So far, there’s limited evidence that animals are transmitting the virus to people. Veterinarians emphasize that pet owners appear to be in no danger from their animal companions and should continue to love and care for them. But scientists say continued testing is one way to remain vigilant in the face of a previously unknown pathogen.

“We just know that coronaviruses, as a family, infect a lot of species, mostly mammals,” said Dr. Peter Rabinowitz, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and the director of the University of Washington Center for One Health Research in Seattle. “It makes sense to take a species-spanning approach and look at a wide spectrum.”

Much of the testing has been rooted in scientific curiosity. Since the pandemic began, a major puzzle has been how the virus, which likely originated in bats, spread to humans. A leading theory is that it jumped to an intermediate species, still unknown, and then to people.

In April, a 4-year-old Malayan tiger at the Bronx Zoo tested positive for COVID-19 in a first-of-its-kind case after seven big cats showed signs of respiratory illness. The tiger, Nadia, contracted the virus from a caretaker, federal health officials said. Four other tigers and three African lions were also confirmed to be infected.

In Washington state, the site of the first U.S. outbreak in humans, scientists rushed to design a COVID test for animals in March, said Charlie Powell, a spokesperson for the Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Pullman. “We knew with warm-blooded animals, housed together, there’s going to be some cross-infection,” he said. Tests for animals use different reagent compounds than those used for tests in people, so they don’t deplete the human supply, Mr. Powell added.

Since spring, the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory has tested nearly 80 animals, including 38 dogs, 29 cats, 2 ferrets, a camel, and 2 tamanduas, a type of anteater. The lab also tested six minks from the outbreak in Utah, five of which accounted for the lab’s only positive tests.

All told, nearly 1,400 animals have been tested for COVID-19 through the National Animal Health Laboratory Network or private labs, said Lyndsay Cole, a spokesperson for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. More than 400 animals have been tested through the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. At least 250 more have been tested through academic research projects.

Most of the tests have been in household cats and dogs with suspicious respiratory symptoms. In June, the USDA reported that a dog in New York was the first pet dog to test positive for the coronavirus after falling ill and struggling to breathe. The dog, a 7-year-old German shepherd named Buddy, later died. Officials determined he’d contracted the virus from his owner.

Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor the USDA recommends routine testing for house pets or other animals – but that hasn’t stopped owners from asking, said Dr. Douglas Kratt, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

“The questions have become a little more consistent at my practice,” he said. “People do want to know about COVID-19 and their pets. Can their pet pick it up at a clinic or boarding or in doggie day care?”

The answer, so far, is that humans are the primary source of infection in pets. In September, a small, unpublished study from the University of Guelph in Canada found that companion cats and dogs appeared to be infected by their sick owners, judging by antibodies to the coronavirus detected in their blood.

In Texas, Dr. Hamer started testing animals from households where someone had contracted COVID-19 to learn more about transmission pathways. “Right now, we’re very much trying to describe what’s happening in nature,” she said.

So far, most of the animals – including Phoenix, Ms. Romoser’s cat – have shown no signs of illness or disease. That’s true so far for many species of animals tested for COVID-19, veterinarians said. Most nonhuman creatures appear to weather COVID infection with mild symptoms like sniffles and lethargy, if any.

Still, owners should apply best practices for avoiding COVID infection to pets, too, Dr. Kratt said. Don’t let pets come into contact with unfamiliar animals, he suggested. Owners should wash their hands frequently and avoid nuzzling and other very close contact, if possible.

Cats appear to be more susceptible to COVID-19 than dogs, researchers said. And minks, which are farmed in the U.S. and elsewhere for their fur, appear quite vulnerable.

In the meantime, the list of creatures tested for COVID-19 – whether for illness or science – is growing. In Florida, 22 animals had been tested as of early October, including 3 wild dolphins, 2 civets, 2 clouded leopards, a gorilla, an orangutan, an alpaca, and a bush baby, state officials said.

In California, 29 animals had been tested by the end of September, including a meerkat, a monkey, and a coatimundi, a member of the raccoon family.

In Seattle, a plan to test orcas, or killer whales, in Puget Sound was called off at the last minute after a member of the scientific team was exposed to COVID-19 and had to quarantine, said Dr. Joe Gaydos, a senior wildlife veterinarian and science director for the SeaDoc Society, a conservation program at the University of California-Davis. The group missed its September window to locate the animals and obtain breath and fecal samples for analysis.

No one thinks marine animals will play a big role in the pandemic decimating the human population, Dr. Gaydos said. But testing many creatures on both land and sea is vital.

“We don’t know what this virus is going to do or can do,” Dr. Gaydos said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Most SARS-CoV-2 virus strains feature a specific mutation that makes them more transmissible, to the point that these strains now predominate globally, new evidence shows.

In contrast to a greater variety of strains early in the pandemic, now 99.9% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the study feature the D614G mutation on the spike protein. In addition, people infected with a D614G strain have higher nasopharynx viral loads at diagnosis.

It’s not all bad news. This single-point mutation was not associated with worse clinical COVID-19 severity. Also, the mutation isn’t expected to interfere with the efficacy any of the antibody cocktails, small molecule therapies or vaccines in development.

Furthermore, “as bad as SARS-CoV-2 is, we may have dodged a bullet in terms of how quickly it mutates,” study author Ilya Finkelstein, PhD, said in an interview. This virus mutates much slower than HIV, for example, giving researchers a greater chance to stay one step ahead, he said.

The study was published online Oct. 30 in the journal mBio.
 

Molecular sleuthing

The research was possible because colleagues at the Houston Methodist Hospital system sequenced the genome of 5085 SARS-CoV-2 strains early in the outbreak and during a second wave of infection over the summer, Dr. Finkelstein said.

The unique data source also includes information from plasma, convalescent plasma, and patient outcomes. Studying a large and diverse population in a major metropolitan area like Houston helps create a “molecular fingerprint” for the virus that will continue to be very useful, said Dr. Finkelstein, a researcher and director of the Finkelstein Lab at the University of Texas, Austin.

D614G was the most common genetic substitution the researchers found, appearing in 82% of SARS-CoV-2 strains during the first wave from March 5 to May 11. The proportion with this mutation jumped to 99.9% by the second wave, defined as occurring between May 12 and July 7 in the study.

The jump in mutation frequency “occurred very rapidly, in a matter of just a few months,” the researchers noted.

The presence of the mutation during the first wave was independently associated with mechanical ventilation days, overall length of stay, and ICU length of stay. However, it was not associated with any significant differences in patient outcomes.

The D614G mutation is now so common worldwide that these viruses are considered reference strains. Researchers believe D614G predominates because it increases the spike protein’s ability to open cells for the virus to enter.

Despite the large number of virus strains evaluated, the samples only represent about 10% of COVID-19 cases in Houston during the study, a potential limitation. Also, some collected samples could not be used for high-quality genome analysis because of limited virus nucleic acid.

Also, it remains unclear if host-virus immune interactions play a significant role. However, the researchers noted in the paper that “available data suggest that, in the aggregate, host genetics does not play an overwhelming role in determining outcome in the great majority of adult patients, once virus infection is established.”
 

Surveillance ongoing

“The findings will help us to understand the origin, composition, and trajectory of future infection waves and the potential effect of the host immune response and therapeutic maneuvers on SARS-CoV-2 evolution,” the researchers added.

Going forward, the ongoing molecular surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 “may provide critical insights into the origin of the new infection spikes and waves that are occurring as public health constraints are further relaxed, schools and colleges reopen, holidays occur, commercial air travel increases and individuals change their behavior because of COVID-19 ‘fatigue,’ ” the researchers noted.

They added that the genome data will also be useful in assessing ongoing molecular evolution in spike and other proteins “as baseline herd immunity is generated, either by natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or by vaccination.”
 

Further validation warranted

“The study is very interesting and well performed,” Noam Shomron, PhD, a member of the faculty of medicine at Tel Aviv University, said in an interview.

Analyzing the “SARS-CoV-2 molecular evolution in a specific region in the USA … could be viewed as a microcosm of what occurs in other large cities in the USA,” he said.

However, “before jumping to conclusions, this should be further validated,” added Dr. Shomron, who authored a study suggesting differences in genetic alleles could partially explain variations across countries in the infection rates, severity, and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2.

“We know that many other features and contributors might affect the results – even social constraints could generate a bias in the observations,” he said. 

Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Shomron disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most SARS-CoV-2 virus strains feature a specific mutation that makes them more transmissible, to the point that these strains now predominate globally, new evidence shows.

In contrast to a greater variety of strains early in the pandemic, now 99.9% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the study feature the D614G mutation on the spike protein. In addition, people infected with a D614G strain have higher nasopharynx viral loads at diagnosis.

It’s not all bad news. This single-point mutation was not associated with worse clinical COVID-19 severity. Also, the mutation isn’t expected to interfere with the efficacy any of the antibody cocktails, small molecule therapies or vaccines in development.

Furthermore, “as bad as SARS-CoV-2 is, we may have dodged a bullet in terms of how quickly it mutates,” study author Ilya Finkelstein, PhD, said in an interview. This virus mutates much slower than HIV, for example, giving researchers a greater chance to stay one step ahead, he said.

The study was published online Oct. 30 in the journal mBio.
 

Molecular sleuthing

The research was possible because colleagues at the Houston Methodist Hospital system sequenced the genome of 5085 SARS-CoV-2 strains early in the outbreak and during a second wave of infection over the summer, Dr. Finkelstein said.

The unique data source also includes information from plasma, convalescent plasma, and patient outcomes. Studying a large and diverse population in a major metropolitan area like Houston helps create a “molecular fingerprint” for the virus that will continue to be very useful, said Dr. Finkelstein, a researcher and director of the Finkelstein Lab at the University of Texas, Austin.

D614G was the most common genetic substitution the researchers found, appearing in 82% of SARS-CoV-2 strains during the first wave from March 5 to May 11. The proportion with this mutation jumped to 99.9% by the second wave, defined as occurring between May 12 and July 7 in the study.

The jump in mutation frequency “occurred very rapidly, in a matter of just a few months,” the researchers noted.

The presence of the mutation during the first wave was independently associated with mechanical ventilation days, overall length of stay, and ICU length of stay. However, it was not associated with any significant differences in patient outcomes.

The D614G mutation is now so common worldwide that these viruses are considered reference strains. Researchers believe D614G predominates because it increases the spike protein’s ability to open cells for the virus to enter.

Despite the large number of virus strains evaluated, the samples only represent about 10% of COVID-19 cases in Houston during the study, a potential limitation. Also, some collected samples could not be used for high-quality genome analysis because of limited virus nucleic acid.

Also, it remains unclear if host-virus immune interactions play a significant role. However, the researchers noted in the paper that “available data suggest that, in the aggregate, host genetics does not play an overwhelming role in determining outcome in the great majority of adult patients, once virus infection is established.”
 

Surveillance ongoing

“The findings will help us to understand the origin, composition, and trajectory of future infection waves and the potential effect of the host immune response and therapeutic maneuvers on SARS-CoV-2 evolution,” the researchers added.

Going forward, the ongoing molecular surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 “may provide critical insights into the origin of the new infection spikes and waves that are occurring as public health constraints are further relaxed, schools and colleges reopen, holidays occur, commercial air travel increases and individuals change their behavior because of COVID-19 ‘fatigue,’ ” the researchers noted.

They added that the genome data will also be useful in assessing ongoing molecular evolution in spike and other proteins “as baseline herd immunity is generated, either by natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or by vaccination.”
 

Further validation warranted

“The study is very interesting and well performed,” Noam Shomron, PhD, a member of the faculty of medicine at Tel Aviv University, said in an interview.

Analyzing the “SARS-CoV-2 molecular evolution in a specific region in the USA … could be viewed as a microcosm of what occurs in other large cities in the USA,” he said.

However, “before jumping to conclusions, this should be further validated,” added Dr. Shomron, who authored a study suggesting differences in genetic alleles could partially explain variations across countries in the infection rates, severity, and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2.

“We know that many other features and contributors might affect the results – even social constraints could generate a bias in the observations,” he said. 

Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Shomron disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most SARS-CoV-2 virus strains feature a specific mutation that makes them more transmissible, to the point that these strains now predominate globally, new evidence shows.

In contrast to a greater variety of strains early in the pandemic, now 99.9% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the study feature the D614G mutation on the spike protein. In addition, people infected with a D614G strain have higher nasopharynx viral loads at diagnosis.

It’s not all bad news. This single-point mutation was not associated with worse clinical COVID-19 severity. Also, the mutation isn’t expected to interfere with the efficacy any of the antibody cocktails, small molecule therapies or vaccines in development.

Furthermore, “as bad as SARS-CoV-2 is, we may have dodged a bullet in terms of how quickly it mutates,” study author Ilya Finkelstein, PhD, said in an interview. This virus mutates much slower than HIV, for example, giving researchers a greater chance to stay one step ahead, he said.

The study was published online Oct. 30 in the journal mBio.
 

Molecular sleuthing

The research was possible because colleagues at the Houston Methodist Hospital system sequenced the genome of 5085 SARS-CoV-2 strains early in the outbreak and during a second wave of infection over the summer, Dr. Finkelstein said.

The unique data source also includes information from plasma, convalescent plasma, and patient outcomes. Studying a large and diverse population in a major metropolitan area like Houston helps create a “molecular fingerprint” for the virus that will continue to be very useful, said Dr. Finkelstein, a researcher and director of the Finkelstein Lab at the University of Texas, Austin.

D614G was the most common genetic substitution the researchers found, appearing in 82% of SARS-CoV-2 strains during the first wave from March 5 to May 11. The proportion with this mutation jumped to 99.9% by the second wave, defined as occurring between May 12 and July 7 in the study.

The jump in mutation frequency “occurred very rapidly, in a matter of just a few months,” the researchers noted.

The presence of the mutation during the first wave was independently associated with mechanical ventilation days, overall length of stay, and ICU length of stay. However, it was not associated with any significant differences in patient outcomes.

The D614G mutation is now so common worldwide that these viruses are considered reference strains. Researchers believe D614G predominates because it increases the spike protein’s ability to open cells for the virus to enter.

Despite the large number of virus strains evaluated, the samples only represent about 10% of COVID-19 cases in Houston during the study, a potential limitation. Also, some collected samples could not be used for high-quality genome analysis because of limited virus nucleic acid.

Also, it remains unclear if host-virus immune interactions play a significant role. However, the researchers noted in the paper that “available data suggest that, in the aggregate, host genetics does not play an overwhelming role in determining outcome in the great majority of adult patients, once virus infection is established.”
 

Surveillance ongoing

“The findings will help us to understand the origin, composition, and trajectory of future infection waves and the potential effect of the host immune response and therapeutic maneuvers on SARS-CoV-2 evolution,” the researchers added.

Going forward, the ongoing molecular surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 “may provide critical insights into the origin of the new infection spikes and waves that are occurring as public health constraints are further relaxed, schools and colleges reopen, holidays occur, commercial air travel increases and individuals change their behavior because of COVID-19 ‘fatigue,’ ” the researchers noted.

They added that the genome data will also be useful in assessing ongoing molecular evolution in spike and other proteins “as baseline herd immunity is generated, either by natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or by vaccination.”
 

Further validation warranted

“The study is very interesting and well performed,” Noam Shomron, PhD, a member of the faculty of medicine at Tel Aviv University, said in an interview.

Analyzing the “SARS-CoV-2 molecular evolution in a specific region in the USA … could be viewed as a microcosm of what occurs in other large cities in the USA,” he said.

However, “before jumping to conclusions, this should be further validated,” added Dr. Shomron, who authored a study suggesting differences in genetic alleles could partially explain variations across countries in the infection rates, severity, and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2.

“We know that many other features and contributors might affect the results – even social constraints could generate a bias in the observations,” he said. 

Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Shomron disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a large international study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, the likelihood of having severe pneumonia (i.e., needing invasive mechanical ventilation) increased stepwise with increasing body mass index (BMI) – independent of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or current smoking.

The main finding was a linear correlation between BMI and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for center, age, sex, and other prespecified metabolic risk factors.

Risk was “highest for older people and males, but the next most important risk factor to developing severe pneumonia if infected [was] obesity,” said François Pattou, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (France), who presented the findings at the ObesityWeek 2020 virtual meeting. The results were also recently published in a preprint article in The Lancet.

Dr. Pattou and colleagues first reported back in April that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, especially in younger patients. Many further reports linked the two, and the French researchers then set out to conduct the current large, international, multicenter cohort study.

“The high number of patients included here [allowed us] to disentangle the role of various metabolic cofactors and to show that obesity, not diabetes or hypertension, was the main determinant of severe pneumonia [after age and gender],” Dr. Pattou said in an interview.

And the impact of obesity was most pronounced in women younger than 50 years.
 

Patients with severe obesity must protect themselves

Of interest, the study also found an “obesity paradox” for mortality after admission to the ICU.

Specifically, compared with leaner patients (BMI < 25 kg/m²), those with severe obesity (obesity class III, BMI ≥ 40) had an increased risk of dying within 28 days of admission to ICU. But patients with overweight to moderate obesity (BMI 25-39.9) had a lower risk of this outcome.

“The second original finding of our study,” Dr. Pattou continued, was the “nonlinear relation observed between BMI and all-cause mortality rate in ICU patients.”

Matteo Rottoli, MD, PhD, author of a related study reported by in July, said the new trial “confirms the findings of our study, which are that obesity is an independent risk factor for intensive care admission and death.”

Dr. Rottoli, from Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues found that in their population of patients with COVID-19, a BMI > 35 was associated with a greater risk of death.

The takeaway message from the research is that “obesity should be considered one of the most important parameters to identify the population at risk” of getting COVID-19 who need to take extra precautions such as social distancing, Dr. Rottoli stressed.

Dr. Pattou agrees, particularly when it comes to severe obesity.

Intensive care physicians have learned a lot in the past months about COVID-19 pneumonia and how to address it (such as not precipitating intubation, using corticosteroids), he explained.

“Importantly, the general population has also learned a lot, and we can hope that patients with obesity, especially those with severe obesity, will take extra measures to protect themselves, resulting in a decrease of the incidence of severe pneumonia in young and severely obese patients,” he added.
 

Untangling BMI from other metabolic risk factors

Dr. Pattou said that, from Dec. 16, 2019, to Nov. 1, 2020, more than 45 million people worldwide tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 1.2 million people died from it.

Multiple studies have reported that, among people with COVID-19, those with obesity are at higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, and death, but it had not been clear if BMI was an independent risk factor.

Dr. Pattou and colleagues aimed to examine the relationship between BMI and COVID-19 pneumonia severity, defined by the need for mechanical ventilation (primary outcome), as well as 28-day all-cause mortality (secondary outcome) among patients admitted to the ICU.

They also sought to disentangle the effect of BMI from other metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and current smoking) and examine the influence of age and sex on outcomes.

They performed a retrospective analysis of 1,461 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (positive reverse polymerase chain reaction test using a nasal or pharyngeal swab specimen) who were admitted to the ICU at 21 centers from Feb. 19 to May 11, 2020.

Participating centers were in France (13), Italy (3), the United States (1 in New York and 1 in Providence, R.I.), Israel (1), Belgium (1), and Spain (1).

Close to three-quarters of patients were men (73%), which is similar to multiple other studies, Dr. Pattou said. Patients were a mean age of 64 years and had a mean BMI of 28.1.

Half of patients had hypertension (52%), 29% had diabetes, 29% had hyperlipidemia, and 6.5% were current smokers.

Close to three-quarters (74%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, and 36% died within 28 days of ICU admission.

Each 5-kg/m² increase in BMI was associated with a 27% increased risk of mechanical ventilation in the overall cohort and a 65% increased risk of this outcome among women younger than 50 years, after adjustment for other risk factors.

Male sex and each 10-year increase in age were associated with an 82% and a 17% increased risk of ventilation, respectively, but hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and current smoking were not associated with a greater risk. After adjustment for center, age, sex, and prespecified metabolic risk factors, obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40) was associated with a 68% increase in mortality, compared with the risk seen in lean patients.

The findings were similar across different centers.

“To our knowledge, this study represents the first international collaborative effort to explore the association of BMI with the outcomes of pneumonia among COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU,” said the investigators.

They conclude that “available evidence should foster more focused and effective interventions in COVID-19 patients with the highest risk of severe pneumonia, in order to reduce future strain on intensive care resources worldwide, and inform physio-pathological research to elucidate the mechanism of severe lung damage in COVID-19.”

The study did not receive specific funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In a large international study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, the likelihood of having severe pneumonia (i.e., needing invasive mechanical ventilation) increased stepwise with increasing body mass index (BMI) – independent of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or current smoking.

The main finding was a linear correlation between BMI and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for center, age, sex, and other prespecified metabolic risk factors.

Risk was “highest for older people and males, but the next most important risk factor to developing severe pneumonia if infected [was] obesity,” said François Pattou, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (France), who presented the findings at the ObesityWeek 2020 virtual meeting. The results were also recently published in a preprint article in The Lancet.

Dr. Pattou and colleagues first reported back in April that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, especially in younger patients. Many further reports linked the two, and the French researchers then set out to conduct the current large, international, multicenter cohort study.

“The high number of patients included here [allowed us] to disentangle the role of various metabolic cofactors and to show that obesity, not diabetes or hypertension, was the main determinant of severe pneumonia [after age and gender],” Dr. Pattou said in an interview.

And the impact of obesity was most pronounced in women younger than 50 years.
 

Patients with severe obesity must protect themselves

Of interest, the study also found an “obesity paradox” for mortality after admission to the ICU.

Specifically, compared with leaner patients (BMI < 25 kg/m²), those with severe obesity (obesity class III, BMI ≥ 40) had an increased risk of dying within 28 days of admission to ICU. But patients with overweight to moderate obesity (BMI 25-39.9) had a lower risk of this outcome.

“The second original finding of our study,” Dr. Pattou continued, was the “nonlinear relation observed between BMI and all-cause mortality rate in ICU patients.”

Matteo Rottoli, MD, PhD, author of a related study reported by in July, said the new trial “confirms the findings of our study, which are that obesity is an independent risk factor for intensive care admission and death.”

Dr. Rottoli, from Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues found that in their population of patients with COVID-19, a BMI > 35 was associated with a greater risk of death.

The takeaway message from the research is that “obesity should be considered one of the most important parameters to identify the population at risk” of getting COVID-19 who need to take extra precautions such as social distancing, Dr. Rottoli stressed.

Dr. Pattou agrees, particularly when it comes to severe obesity.

Intensive care physicians have learned a lot in the past months about COVID-19 pneumonia and how to address it (such as not precipitating intubation, using corticosteroids), he explained.

“Importantly, the general population has also learned a lot, and we can hope that patients with obesity, especially those with severe obesity, will take extra measures to protect themselves, resulting in a decrease of the incidence of severe pneumonia in young and severely obese patients,” he added.
 

Untangling BMI from other metabolic risk factors

Dr. Pattou said that, from Dec. 16, 2019, to Nov. 1, 2020, more than 45 million people worldwide tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 1.2 million people died from it.

Multiple studies have reported that, among people with COVID-19, those with obesity are at higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, and death, but it had not been clear if BMI was an independent risk factor.

Dr. Pattou and colleagues aimed to examine the relationship between BMI and COVID-19 pneumonia severity, defined by the need for mechanical ventilation (primary outcome), as well as 28-day all-cause mortality (secondary outcome) among patients admitted to the ICU.

They also sought to disentangle the effect of BMI from other metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and current smoking) and examine the influence of age and sex on outcomes.

They performed a retrospective analysis of 1,461 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (positive reverse polymerase chain reaction test using a nasal or pharyngeal swab specimen) who were admitted to the ICU at 21 centers from Feb. 19 to May 11, 2020.

Participating centers were in France (13), Italy (3), the United States (1 in New York and 1 in Providence, R.I.), Israel (1), Belgium (1), and Spain (1).

Close to three-quarters of patients were men (73%), which is similar to multiple other studies, Dr. Pattou said. Patients were a mean age of 64 years and had a mean BMI of 28.1.

Half of patients had hypertension (52%), 29% had diabetes, 29% had hyperlipidemia, and 6.5% were current smokers.

Close to three-quarters (74%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, and 36% died within 28 days of ICU admission.

Each 5-kg/m² increase in BMI was associated with a 27% increased risk of mechanical ventilation in the overall cohort and a 65% increased risk of this outcome among women younger than 50 years, after adjustment for other risk factors.

Male sex and each 10-year increase in age were associated with an 82% and a 17% increased risk of ventilation, respectively, but hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and current smoking were not associated with a greater risk. After adjustment for center, age, sex, and prespecified metabolic risk factors, obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40) was associated with a 68% increase in mortality, compared with the risk seen in lean patients.

The findings were similar across different centers.

“To our knowledge, this study represents the first international collaborative effort to explore the association of BMI with the outcomes of pneumonia among COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU,” said the investigators.

They conclude that “available evidence should foster more focused and effective interventions in COVID-19 patients with the highest risk of severe pneumonia, in order to reduce future strain on intensive care resources worldwide, and inform physio-pathological research to elucidate the mechanism of severe lung damage in COVID-19.”

The study did not receive specific funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In a large international study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, the likelihood of having severe pneumonia (i.e., needing invasive mechanical ventilation) increased stepwise with increasing body mass index (BMI) – independent of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or current smoking.

The main finding was a linear correlation between BMI and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for center, age, sex, and other prespecified metabolic risk factors.

Risk was “highest for older people and males, but the next most important risk factor to developing severe pneumonia if infected [was] obesity,” said François Pattou, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (France), who presented the findings at the ObesityWeek 2020 virtual meeting. The results were also recently published in a preprint article in The Lancet.

Dr. Pattou and colleagues first reported back in April that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, especially in younger patients. Many further reports linked the two, and the French researchers then set out to conduct the current large, international, multicenter cohort study.

“The high number of patients included here [allowed us] to disentangle the role of various metabolic cofactors and to show that obesity, not diabetes or hypertension, was the main determinant of severe pneumonia [after age and gender],” Dr. Pattou said in an interview.

And the impact of obesity was most pronounced in women younger than 50 years.
 

Patients with severe obesity must protect themselves

Of interest, the study also found an “obesity paradox” for mortality after admission to the ICU.

Specifically, compared with leaner patients (BMI < 25 kg/m²), those with severe obesity (obesity class III, BMI ≥ 40) had an increased risk of dying within 28 days of admission to ICU. But patients with overweight to moderate obesity (BMI 25-39.9) had a lower risk of this outcome.

“The second original finding of our study,” Dr. Pattou continued, was the “nonlinear relation observed between BMI and all-cause mortality rate in ICU patients.”

Matteo Rottoli, MD, PhD, author of a related study reported by in July, said the new trial “confirms the findings of our study, which are that obesity is an independent risk factor for intensive care admission and death.”

Dr. Rottoli, from Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues found that in their population of patients with COVID-19, a BMI > 35 was associated with a greater risk of death.

The takeaway message from the research is that “obesity should be considered one of the most important parameters to identify the population at risk” of getting COVID-19 who need to take extra precautions such as social distancing, Dr. Rottoli stressed.

Dr. Pattou agrees, particularly when it comes to severe obesity.

Intensive care physicians have learned a lot in the past months about COVID-19 pneumonia and how to address it (such as not precipitating intubation, using corticosteroids), he explained.

“Importantly, the general population has also learned a lot, and we can hope that patients with obesity, especially those with severe obesity, will take extra measures to protect themselves, resulting in a decrease of the incidence of severe pneumonia in young and severely obese patients,” he added.
 

Untangling BMI from other metabolic risk factors

Dr. Pattou said that, from Dec. 16, 2019, to Nov. 1, 2020, more than 45 million people worldwide tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 1.2 million people died from it.

Multiple studies have reported that, among people with COVID-19, those with obesity are at higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, and death, but it had not been clear if BMI was an independent risk factor.

Dr. Pattou and colleagues aimed to examine the relationship between BMI and COVID-19 pneumonia severity, defined by the need for mechanical ventilation (primary outcome), as well as 28-day all-cause mortality (secondary outcome) among patients admitted to the ICU.

They also sought to disentangle the effect of BMI from other metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and current smoking) and examine the influence of age and sex on outcomes.

They performed a retrospective analysis of 1,461 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (positive reverse polymerase chain reaction test using a nasal or pharyngeal swab specimen) who were admitted to the ICU at 21 centers from Feb. 19 to May 11, 2020.

Participating centers were in France (13), Italy (3), the United States (1 in New York and 1 in Providence, R.I.), Israel (1), Belgium (1), and Spain (1).

Close to three-quarters of patients were men (73%), which is similar to multiple other studies, Dr. Pattou said. Patients were a mean age of 64 years and had a mean BMI of 28.1.

Half of patients had hypertension (52%), 29% had diabetes, 29% had hyperlipidemia, and 6.5% were current smokers.

Close to three-quarters (74%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, and 36% died within 28 days of ICU admission.

Each 5-kg/m² increase in BMI was associated with a 27% increased risk of mechanical ventilation in the overall cohort and a 65% increased risk of this outcome among women younger than 50 years, after adjustment for other risk factors.

Male sex and each 10-year increase in age were associated with an 82% and a 17% increased risk of ventilation, respectively, but hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and current smoking were not associated with a greater risk. After adjustment for center, age, sex, and prespecified metabolic risk factors, obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40) was associated with a 68% increase in mortality, compared with the risk seen in lean patients.

The findings were similar across different centers.

“To our knowledge, this study represents the first international collaborative effort to explore the association of BMI with the outcomes of pneumonia among COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU,” said the investigators.

They conclude that “available evidence should foster more focused and effective interventions in COVID-19 patients with the highest risk of severe pneumonia, in order to reduce future strain on intensive care resources worldwide, and inform physio-pathological research to elucidate the mechanism of severe lung damage in COVID-19.”

The study did not receive specific funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The first study to suggest benefit from low-dose radiotherapy for severe COVID-19–induced pneumonia involved only 20 patients, but the results were so promising that two larger randomized trials are now underway.

“RESCUE-119 was a trial based on the hypothesis that low-dose radiation therapy may help eliminate the stormy cytokine release and unchecked edema in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said Mohammed Khan, MD, PhD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We found patients had a quicker improvement in their time to clinical recovery with low-dose radiation therapy, compared to controls, and this was significant even in this small cohort of patients,” he said.

Dr. Khan was speaking at a special press briefing held during the virtual American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

A total of 20 patients were involved in the trial. Ten patients were treated with low-dose radiotherapy; 10 others, who served as control patients, were treated with the best supportive care and COVID-directed therapies. The control patients were matched for age and comorbidities. All these patients were hospitalized and were oxygen dependent, Dr. Khan noted. In addition, for all patients, serial x-rays demonstrated consolidation and damage in the lung.

The intervention consisted of whole-lung low-dose radiotherapy delivered at a dose of 1.5 Gy.

The first five patients were assessed at an interim endpoint of 7 days to confirm the safety of the procedure. Subsequently, a total of 10 patients were treated with radiotherapy and were followed to day 28.

The main study endpoints were time to clinical recovery, determined on the basis of the patient’s being taken off oxygen, and improvement, evidenced on either serial x-rays or by inflammatory biomarkers.

The median time to clinical recovery was almost three times faster for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, at a median of 3 days; for control patients, the median was 12 days (P = .048).

“We also saw a trend toward getting patients out of hospital sooner,” Dr. Khan added. The mean time to hospital discharge was 12 days for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, compared with 20 days for control patients (P = .19).

Only one patient required intubation after receiving low-dose radiotherapy, whereas 4 of 10 control patients required some sort of intubation (P = .12), he noted.

Investigators also saw improvements on serial x-rays in 9 of 10 patients treated with low-dose radiotherapy, compared with only 4 patients in the control group. There was also a significant improvement in delirium among the low-dose radiotherapy group compared with control patients (P < .01). Before receiving low-dose radiotherapy, C-reactive protein levels increased by 22% per day. After receiving the 1.5-Gy radiation treatment, there was a sharp reduction in C-reactive protein levels (P < .01) as well as in lactate dehydrogenase levels (P = .03).

Overall survival, however, did not differ between the two treatment groups; 90% of both groups were alive at day 28.

“By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, [low-dose radiotherapy] may improve COVID-19 outcomes through immunomodulation,” Dr. Khan explained.
 

VENTED and PRE-VENT trials

These results from the small RESCUE-119 trial led to the launch of two larger phase 2 trials, the VENTED and the PRE-VENT trials, noted Arnab Chakravarti, MD, professor and chair of radiation oncology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

To be enrolled in the VENTED trial, patients must have received mechanical ventilation. They will receive at least one dose of ultra-low-dose bilateral whole-lung radiotherapy, with the option of receiving a second dose. The primary objective is 30-day mortality rate.

“The hypothesis is that low-dose thoracic radiation will decrease inflammation and improve outcomes for these intubated COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Chakravarti explained.

The PRE-VENT trial will explore low-dose thoracic radiotherapy for hospitalized patients with severe respiratory compromise who have not yet been intubated. Two doses of low-dose radiotherapy will be tested and compared. The primary study objective is to determine which of the two doses appears to be the most efficacious, Dr. Chakravarti noted.

“The ultimate question to which we remain agnostic is whether the potential benefits of low-dose radiation therapy outweigh the risks,” he said.

Low-dose radiotherapy is readily available in most countries, unlike the newly developed COVID-19 drugs, which are only available in the developed world, he noted. “This creates a bit more economic equity in terms of COVID-19 treatment.”

In addition, it may offer a therapeutic option that could be useful in the future, “as low-dose radiation therapy does not discriminate against various viruses that may cause another pandemic,” he commented. It could offer “a stopgap measure where we don’t have to shut down society completely, which, as we have all witnessed, can cause tremendous financial and social unrest.”
 

Reasonable question

Whether or not radiotherapy has value for the short-term management of severe pulmonary inflammation caused by COVID-19 is a reasonable question to evaluate in clinical trials, commented discussant Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of radiation oncology, University of Washington, Seattle.

He noted that inflammatory cells are highly sensitive to radiation, and low-dose radiotherapy has been used effectively in other inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis. Indeed, before the discovery of antibiotics, low-dose radiation was used with reasonable efficacy to treat pneumonia.

“The pneumonia associated with this viral infection is a bit unique in that what happens is the infection triggers an inflammatory cascade – the so-called cytokine storm – that essentially overwhelms the lungs, thereby leading, unfortunately, to mortality,” Dr. Rengan noted. “So a big focus of our energy is how to stop this inflammatory cascade from occurring.”

Corticosteroids are currently the only therapeutic intervention that has shown any mortality benefit in COVID-19, he pointed out.

The question now being asked is: “Can we suppress inflammation specifically within the lung?” Dr. Rengan continued. The main problem with radiotherapy is that it has different effects on various tissues, both immediately and over the long term.

“The immediate benefit that we will likely see from these studies is the immediate sterilization of inflammatory cells,” he said. However, injury to normal lung tissue from low-dose radiotherapy could lead to inflammation weeks or months later, and this could contribute to the disease burden and increase the risk of dying.

Dr. Rengan also noted that there are some very real practical concerns about offering radiotherapy to COVID-19 patients, including potential COVID-19 transmission to vulnerable cancer patients.

Nevertheless, Dr. Rengan said the results to date are very important and that ongoing trials will provide important new information about the long-term impact of this particular treatment in high-risk patients.

“This is a race to the bottom – we are trying to find the lowest possible dose of radiation therapy that we can deliver to sterilize these inflammatory cells without creating any harm to the surrounding tissue,” he said.

“It also brings radiation oncologists into the fight against this deadly disease,” he added.

Dr. Rengan has received honoraria from Novocur and has served as a consultant to AstraZeneca.

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

The first study to suggest benefit from low-dose radiotherapy for severe COVID-19–induced pneumonia involved only 20 patients, but the results were so promising that two larger randomized trials are now underway.

“RESCUE-119 was a trial based on the hypothesis that low-dose radiation therapy may help eliminate the stormy cytokine release and unchecked edema in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said Mohammed Khan, MD, PhD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We found patients had a quicker improvement in their time to clinical recovery with low-dose radiation therapy, compared to controls, and this was significant even in this small cohort of patients,” he said.

Dr. Khan was speaking at a special press briefing held during the virtual American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

A total of 20 patients were involved in the trial. Ten patients were treated with low-dose radiotherapy; 10 others, who served as control patients, were treated with the best supportive care and COVID-directed therapies. The control patients were matched for age and comorbidities. All these patients were hospitalized and were oxygen dependent, Dr. Khan noted. In addition, for all patients, serial x-rays demonstrated consolidation and damage in the lung.

The intervention consisted of whole-lung low-dose radiotherapy delivered at a dose of 1.5 Gy.

The first five patients were assessed at an interim endpoint of 7 days to confirm the safety of the procedure. Subsequently, a total of 10 patients were treated with radiotherapy and were followed to day 28.

The main study endpoints were time to clinical recovery, determined on the basis of the patient’s being taken off oxygen, and improvement, evidenced on either serial x-rays or by inflammatory biomarkers.

The median time to clinical recovery was almost three times faster for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, at a median of 3 days; for control patients, the median was 12 days (P = .048).

“We also saw a trend toward getting patients out of hospital sooner,” Dr. Khan added. The mean time to hospital discharge was 12 days for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, compared with 20 days for control patients (P = .19).

Only one patient required intubation after receiving low-dose radiotherapy, whereas 4 of 10 control patients required some sort of intubation (P = .12), he noted.

Investigators also saw improvements on serial x-rays in 9 of 10 patients treated with low-dose radiotherapy, compared with only 4 patients in the control group. There was also a significant improvement in delirium among the low-dose radiotherapy group compared with control patients (P < .01). Before receiving low-dose radiotherapy, C-reactive protein levels increased by 22% per day. After receiving the 1.5-Gy radiation treatment, there was a sharp reduction in C-reactive protein levels (P < .01) as well as in lactate dehydrogenase levels (P = .03).

Overall survival, however, did not differ between the two treatment groups; 90% of both groups were alive at day 28.

“By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, [low-dose radiotherapy] may improve COVID-19 outcomes through immunomodulation,” Dr. Khan explained.
 

VENTED and PRE-VENT trials

These results from the small RESCUE-119 trial led to the launch of two larger phase 2 trials, the VENTED and the PRE-VENT trials, noted Arnab Chakravarti, MD, professor and chair of radiation oncology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

To be enrolled in the VENTED trial, patients must have received mechanical ventilation. They will receive at least one dose of ultra-low-dose bilateral whole-lung radiotherapy, with the option of receiving a second dose. The primary objective is 30-day mortality rate.

“The hypothesis is that low-dose thoracic radiation will decrease inflammation and improve outcomes for these intubated COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Chakravarti explained.

The PRE-VENT trial will explore low-dose thoracic radiotherapy for hospitalized patients with severe respiratory compromise who have not yet been intubated. Two doses of low-dose radiotherapy will be tested and compared. The primary study objective is to determine which of the two doses appears to be the most efficacious, Dr. Chakravarti noted.

“The ultimate question to which we remain agnostic is whether the potential benefits of low-dose radiation therapy outweigh the risks,” he said.

Low-dose radiotherapy is readily available in most countries, unlike the newly developed COVID-19 drugs, which are only available in the developed world, he noted. “This creates a bit more economic equity in terms of COVID-19 treatment.”

In addition, it may offer a therapeutic option that could be useful in the future, “as low-dose radiation therapy does not discriminate against various viruses that may cause another pandemic,” he commented. It could offer “a stopgap measure where we don’t have to shut down society completely, which, as we have all witnessed, can cause tremendous financial and social unrest.”
 

Reasonable question

Whether or not radiotherapy has value for the short-term management of severe pulmonary inflammation caused by COVID-19 is a reasonable question to evaluate in clinical trials, commented discussant Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of radiation oncology, University of Washington, Seattle.

He noted that inflammatory cells are highly sensitive to radiation, and low-dose radiotherapy has been used effectively in other inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis. Indeed, before the discovery of antibiotics, low-dose radiation was used with reasonable efficacy to treat pneumonia.

“The pneumonia associated with this viral infection is a bit unique in that what happens is the infection triggers an inflammatory cascade – the so-called cytokine storm – that essentially overwhelms the lungs, thereby leading, unfortunately, to mortality,” Dr. Rengan noted. “So a big focus of our energy is how to stop this inflammatory cascade from occurring.”

Corticosteroids are currently the only therapeutic intervention that has shown any mortality benefit in COVID-19, he pointed out.

The question now being asked is: “Can we suppress inflammation specifically within the lung?” Dr. Rengan continued. The main problem with radiotherapy is that it has different effects on various tissues, both immediately and over the long term.

“The immediate benefit that we will likely see from these studies is the immediate sterilization of inflammatory cells,” he said. However, injury to normal lung tissue from low-dose radiotherapy could lead to inflammation weeks or months later, and this could contribute to the disease burden and increase the risk of dying.

Dr. Rengan also noted that there are some very real practical concerns about offering radiotherapy to COVID-19 patients, including potential COVID-19 transmission to vulnerable cancer patients.

Nevertheless, Dr. Rengan said the results to date are very important and that ongoing trials will provide important new information about the long-term impact of this particular treatment in high-risk patients.

“This is a race to the bottom – we are trying to find the lowest possible dose of radiation therapy that we can deliver to sterilize these inflammatory cells without creating any harm to the surrounding tissue,” he said.

“It also brings radiation oncologists into the fight against this deadly disease,” he added.

Dr. Rengan has received honoraria from Novocur and has served as a consultant to AstraZeneca.

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

The first study to suggest benefit from low-dose radiotherapy for severe COVID-19–induced pneumonia involved only 20 patients, but the results were so promising that two larger randomized trials are now underway.

“RESCUE-119 was a trial based on the hypothesis that low-dose radiation therapy may help eliminate the stormy cytokine release and unchecked edema in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said Mohammed Khan, MD, PhD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We found patients had a quicker improvement in their time to clinical recovery with low-dose radiation therapy, compared to controls, and this was significant even in this small cohort of patients,” he said.

Dr. Khan was speaking at a special press briefing held during the virtual American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

A total of 20 patients were involved in the trial. Ten patients were treated with low-dose radiotherapy; 10 others, who served as control patients, were treated with the best supportive care and COVID-directed therapies. The control patients were matched for age and comorbidities. All these patients were hospitalized and were oxygen dependent, Dr. Khan noted. In addition, for all patients, serial x-rays demonstrated consolidation and damage in the lung.

The intervention consisted of whole-lung low-dose radiotherapy delivered at a dose of 1.5 Gy.

The first five patients were assessed at an interim endpoint of 7 days to confirm the safety of the procedure. Subsequently, a total of 10 patients were treated with radiotherapy and were followed to day 28.

The main study endpoints were time to clinical recovery, determined on the basis of the patient’s being taken off oxygen, and improvement, evidenced on either serial x-rays or by inflammatory biomarkers.

The median time to clinical recovery was almost three times faster for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, at a median of 3 days; for control patients, the median was 12 days (P = .048).

“We also saw a trend toward getting patients out of hospital sooner,” Dr. Khan added. The mean time to hospital discharge was 12 days for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, compared with 20 days for control patients (P = .19).

Only one patient required intubation after receiving low-dose radiotherapy, whereas 4 of 10 control patients required some sort of intubation (P = .12), he noted.

Investigators also saw improvements on serial x-rays in 9 of 10 patients treated with low-dose radiotherapy, compared with only 4 patients in the control group. There was also a significant improvement in delirium among the low-dose radiotherapy group compared with control patients (P < .01). Before receiving low-dose radiotherapy, C-reactive protein levels increased by 22% per day. After receiving the 1.5-Gy radiation treatment, there was a sharp reduction in C-reactive protein levels (P < .01) as well as in lactate dehydrogenase levels (P = .03).

Overall survival, however, did not differ between the two treatment groups; 90% of both groups were alive at day 28.

“By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, [low-dose radiotherapy] may improve COVID-19 outcomes through immunomodulation,” Dr. Khan explained.
 

VENTED and PRE-VENT trials

These results from the small RESCUE-119 trial led to the launch of two larger phase 2 trials, the VENTED and the PRE-VENT trials, noted Arnab Chakravarti, MD, professor and chair of radiation oncology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

To be enrolled in the VENTED trial, patients must have received mechanical ventilation. They will receive at least one dose of ultra-low-dose bilateral whole-lung radiotherapy, with the option of receiving a second dose. The primary objective is 30-day mortality rate.

“The hypothesis is that low-dose thoracic radiation will decrease inflammation and improve outcomes for these intubated COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Chakravarti explained.

The PRE-VENT trial will explore low-dose thoracic radiotherapy for hospitalized patients with severe respiratory compromise who have not yet been intubated. Two doses of low-dose radiotherapy will be tested and compared. The primary study objective is to determine which of the two doses appears to be the most efficacious, Dr. Chakravarti noted.

“The ultimate question to which we remain agnostic is whether the potential benefits of low-dose radiation therapy outweigh the risks,” he said.

Low-dose radiotherapy is readily available in most countries, unlike the newly developed COVID-19 drugs, which are only available in the developed world, he noted. “This creates a bit more economic equity in terms of COVID-19 treatment.”

In addition, it may offer a therapeutic option that could be useful in the future, “as low-dose radiation therapy does not discriminate against various viruses that may cause another pandemic,” he commented. It could offer “a stopgap measure where we don’t have to shut down society completely, which, as we have all witnessed, can cause tremendous financial and social unrest.”
 

Reasonable question

Whether or not radiotherapy has value for the short-term management of severe pulmonary inflammation caused by COVID-19 is a reasonable question to evaluate in clinical trials, commented discussant Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of radiation oncology, University of Washington, Seattle.

He noted that inflammatory cells are highly sensitive to radiation, and low-dose radiotherapy has been used effectively in other inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis. Indeed, before the discovery of antibiotics, low-dose radiation was used with reasonable efficacy to treat pneumonia.

“The pneumonia associated with this viral infection is a bit unique in that what happens is the infection triggers an inflammatory cascade – the so-called cytokine storm – that essentially overwhelms the lungs, thereby leading, unfortunately, to mortality,” Dr. Rengan noted. “So a big focus of our energy is how to stop this inflammatory cascade from occurring.”

Corticosteroids are currently the only therapeutic intervention that has shown any mortality benefit in COVID-19, he pointed out.

The question now being asked is: “Can we suppress inflammation specifically within the lung?” Dr. Rengan continued. The main problem with radiotherapy is that it has different effects on various tissues, both immediately and over the long term.

“The immediate benefit that we will likely see from these studies is the immediate sterilization of inflammatory cells,” he said. However, injury to normal lung tissue from low-dose radiotherapy could lead to inflammation weeks or months later, and this could contribute to the disease burden and increase the risk of dying.

Dr. Rengan also noted that there are some very real practical concerns about offering radiotherapy to COVID-19 patients, including potential COVID-19 transmission to vulnerable cancer patients.

Nevertheless, Dr. Rengan said the results to date are very important and that ongoing trials will provide important new information about the long-term impact of this particular treatment in high-risk patients.

“This is a race to the bottom – we are trying to find the lowest possible dose of radiation therapy that we can deliver to sterilize these inflammatory cells without creating any harm to the surrounding tissue,” he said.

“It also brings radiation oncologists into the fight against this deadly disease,” he added.

Dr. Rengan has received honoraria from Novocur and has served as a consultant to AstraZeneca.

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

New CFTR [cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator] modulator therapies can offer life-altering benefits to some patients with cystic fibrosis, even those with advanced disease.

Triple combination therapy in cystic fibrosis patients with advanced lung disease appears to improve lung function, and may delay the need for lung transplantation, according to a multicenter analysis of patients taking elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor.

The study participants had a percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV₁) of 40% or below, or other high-risk factors. Researchers compared them to control patients who were genetically ineligible for triple combination therapy.

Previous studies of such patients on individual drugs or previous combinations showed increases in lung function in patients with advanced disease, though the magnitude of improvement varied across regimens. “With this improvement, it’s unclear how CFTR modulators should affect lung transplant referral timing,” Brent Bermingham, MD, said during a presentation of the study at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

“The rationale for our study was that despite patients with advanced lung disease being excluded from phase III trials (of elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor), they are receiving a therapy with an unknown clinical efficacy and safety profile,” said Dr. Bermingham, a pulmonary and critical care fellow at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Lung transplant referral guidelines recommend that physicians initiate discussions about the potential benefit of lung transplant when FEV₁ drops below 50% of the predicted value. Patients should be referred for a transplant when the value is below 50% and rapidly declining (>20% decline in the past 12 months), when it drops below 40% with accompanying predictors of shortened survival, or when it drops below 30%. The guidelines were published before approval of triple combination therapy.

The researchers conducted an open-label retrospective analysis of 60 patients started on triple combination therapy between September 2019 and February 2020 at three centers in the Southeast. They compared percent predicted ppFEV₁ values prior to initiation of therapy to ppFEV₁ values obtained 2-12 weeks after the start of therapy. Patients on therapy were compared with 10 genetically ineligible controls. The two groups were generally similar aside from genetic status, though 100% of the therapy group had pancreatic insufficiency, compared with 90% of controls (P = .013).

The therapeutic group experienced a 7.8% increase in ppFEV₁ after starting therapy (P < .001), compared with a 0.5% decrease in controls (P = .65). Before initiation of therapy, 33% of the therapy group met the criteria for initiating a transplant discussion, while 67% had been recommended for transplant. After therapy, 55% met the criteria for discussion, 33% were recommended for transplant, and 12% no longer met the criteria for discussion of transplantation. Fifty percent of controls were in discussion, and this dropped to 40%, while 50% were referred for transplantation, and this increased to 60%. On therapy, transplant referral candidates had an increase of forced vital capacity from 48.9 to 59.16 (P < .001).

Adverse events were rare, with only one discontinuation that occurred following a lung transplant and was not believed to be treatment related.

“Our study had a large number of patients taken from multiple centers, which suggests generalizabilty and real-world experience,” said Dr. Bermingham.

The results are encouraging, said Robert J. Giusti, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics at the New York University and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center.

“We’re all remarking how wonderful patients feel these days. It’s really a disease-altering treatment. But for the high-risk group, whose FEV₁ is less than 40%, those are the patients we’re more concerned about because we thought maybe they had too much lung disease, and that they wouldn’t benefit from triple combination. But they seem to be improving, so that’s very reassuring,” said Dr. Giusti, who was not involved in the study.

The study received funding from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and Dartmouth College. Dr. Bermingham and Dr. Giusti have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Bermingham B et al. NACFC 2020, Abstract 645.

New CFTR [cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator] modulator therapies can offer life-altering benefits to some patients with cystic fibrosis, even those with advanced disease.

Triple combination therapy in cystic fibrosis patients with advanced lung disease appears to improve lung function, and may delay the need for lung transplantation, according to a multicenter analysis of patients taking elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor.

The study participants had a percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV₁) of 40% or below, or other high-risk factors. Researchers compared them to control patients who were genetically ineligible for triple combination therapy.

Previous studies of such patients on individual drugs or previous combinations showed increases in lung function in patients with advanced disease, though the magnitude of improvement varied across regimens. “With this improvement, it’s unclear how CFTR modulators should affect lung transplant referral timing,” Brent Bermingham, MD, said during a presentation of the study at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

“The rationale for our study was that despite patients with advanced lung disease being excluded from phase III trials (of elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor), they are receiving a therapy with an unknown clinical efficacy and safety profile,” said Dr. Bermingham, a pulmonary and critical care fellow at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Lung transplant referral guidelines recommend that physicians initiate discussions about the potential benefit of lung transplant when FEV₁ drops below 50% of the predicted value. Patients should be referred for a transplant when the value is below 50% and rapidly declining (>20% decline in the past 12 months), when it drops below 40% with accompanying predictors of shortened survival, or when it drops below 30%. The guidelines were published before approval of triple combination therapy.

The researchers conducted an open-label retrospective analysis of 60 patients started on triple combination therapy between September 2019 and February 2020 at three centers in the Southeast. They compared percent predicted ppFEV₁ values prior to initiation of therapy to ppFEV₁ values obtained 2-12 weeks after the start of therapy. Patients on therapy were compared with 10 genetically ineligible controls. The two groups were generally similar aside from genetic status, though 100% of the therapy group had pancreatic insufficiency, compared with 90% of controls (P = .013).

The therapeutic group experienced a 7.8% increase in ppFEV₁ after starting therapy (P < .001), compared with a 0.5% decrease in controls (P = .65). Before initiation of therapy, 33% of the therapy group met the criteria for initiating a transplant discussion, while 67% had been recommended for transplant. After therapy, 55% met the criteria for discussion, 33% were recommended for transplant, and 12% no longer met the criteria for discussion of transplantation. Fifty percent of controls were in discussion, and this dropped to 40%, while 50% were referred for transplantation, and this increased to 60%. On therapy, transplant referral candidates had an increase of forced vital capacity from 48.9 to 59.16 (P < .001).

Adverse events were rare, with only one discontinuation that occurred following a lung transplant and was not believed to be treatment related.

“Our study had a large number of patients taken from multiple centers, which suggests generalizabilty and real-world experience,” said Dr. Bermingham.

The results are encouraging, said Robert J. Giusti, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics at the New York University and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center.

“We’re all remarking how wonderful patients feel these days. It’s really a disease-altering treatment. But for the high-risk group, whose FEV₁ is less than 40%, those are the patients we’re more concerned about because we thought maybe they had too much lung disease, and that they wouldn’t benefit from triple combination. But they seem to be improving, so that’s very reassuring,” said Dr. Giusti, who was not involved in the study.

The study received funding from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and Dartmouth College. Dr. Bermingham and Dr. Giusti have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Bermingham B et al. NACFC 2020, Abstract 645.

New CFTR [cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator] modulator therapies can offer life-altering benefits to some patients with cystic fibrosis, even those with advanced disease.

Triple combination therapy in cystic fibrosis patients with advanced lung disease appears to improve lung function, and may delay the need for lung transplantation, according to a multicenter analysis of patients taking elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor.

The study participants had a percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV₁) of 40% or below, or other high-risk factors. Researchers compared them to control patients who were genetically ineligible for triple combination therapy.

Previous studies of such patients on individual drugs or previous combinations showed increases in lung function in patients with advanced disease, though the magnitude of improvement varied across regimens. “With this improvement, it’s unclear how CFTR modulators should affect lung transplant referral timing,” Brent Bermingham, MD, said during a presentation of the study at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

“The rationale for our study was that despite patients with advanced lung disease being excluded from phase III trials (of elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor), they are receiving a therapy with an unknown clinical efficacy and safety profile,” said Dr. Bermingham, a pulmonary and critical care fellow at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Lung transplant referral guidelines recommend that physicians initiate discussions about the potential benefit of lung transplant when FEV₁ drops below 50% of the predicted value. Patients should be referred for a transplant when the value is below 50% and rapidly declining (>20% decline in the past 12 months), when it drops below 40% with accompanying predictors of shortened survival, or when it drops below 30%. The guidelines were published before approval of triple combination therapy.

The researchers conducted an open-label retrospective analysis of 60 patients started on triple combination therapy between September 2019 and February 2020 at three centers in the Southeast. They compared percent predicted ppFEV₁ values prior to initiation of therapy to ppFEV₁ values obtained 2-12 weeks after the start of therapy. Patients on therapy were compared with 10 genetically ineligible controls. The two groups were generally similar aside from genetic status, though 100% of the therapy group had pancreatic insufficiency, compared with 90% of controls (P = .013).

The therapeutic group experienced a 7.8% increase in ppFEV₁ after starting therapy (P < .001), compared with a 0.5% decrease in controls (P = .65). Before initiation of therapy, 33% of the therapy group met the criteria for initiating a transplant discussion, while 67% had been recommended for transplant. After therapy, 55% met the criteria for discussion, 33% were recommended for transplant, and 12% no longer met the criteria for discussion of transplantation. Fifty percent of controls were in discussion, and this dropped to 40%, while 50% were referred for transplantation, and this increased to 60%. On therapy, transplant referral candidates had an increase of forced vital capacity from 48.9 to 59.16 (P < .001).

Adverse events were rare, with only one discontinuation that occurred following a lung transplant and was not believed to be treatment related.

“Our study had a large number of patients taken from multiple centers, which suggests generalizabilty and real-world experience,” said Dr. Bermingham.

The results are encouraging, said Robert J. Giusti, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics at the New York University and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center.

“We’re all remarking how wonderful patients feel these days. It’s really a disease-altering treatment. But for the high-risk group, whose FEV₁ is less than 40%, those are the patients we’re more concerned about because we thought maybe they had too much lung disease, and that they wouldn’t benefit from triple combination. But they seem to be improving, so that’s very reassuring,” said Dr. Giusti, who was not involved in the study.

The study received funding from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and Dartmouth College. Dr. Bermingham and Dr. Giusti have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Bermingham B et al. NACFC 2020, Abstract 645.

A smartphone app that combines passively collected physiologic data from wearable devices, such as fitness trackers, and self-reported symptoms can discriminate between COVID-19–positive and –negative individuals among those who report symptoms, new data suggest.

LDProd/Getty Images

After analyzing data from more than 30,000 participants, researchers from the Digital Engagement and Tracking for Early Control and Treatment (DETECT) study concluded that adding individual changes in sensor data improves models based on symptoms alone for differentiating symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 positive and symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 negative.

The combination can potentially identify infection clusters before wider community spread occurs, Giorgio Quer, PhD, and colleagues report in an article published online Oct. 29 in Nature Medicine. DETECT investigators note that marrying participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and resting heart rate, resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.73-0.86) for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.

“By better characterizing each individual’s unique baseline, you can then identify changes that may indicate that someone has a viral illness,” said Dr. Quer, director of artificial intelligence at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. “In previous research, we found that the proportion of individuals with elevated resting heart rate and sleep duration compared with their normal could significantly improve real-time detection of influenza-like illness rates at the state level,” he said in an interview.

Thus, continuous passively captured data may be a useful adjunct to bricks-and-mortar site testing, which is generally a one-off or infrequent sampling assay and is not always easily accessible, he added. Furthermore, traditional screening with temperature and symptom reporting is inadequate. An elevation in temperature is not as common as frequently believed for people who test positive for COVID-19, Dr. Quer continued. “Early identification via sensor variables of those who are presymptomatic or even asymptomatic would be especially valuable, as people may potentially be infectious during this period, and early detection is the ultimate goal,” Dr. Quer said.

According to his group, adding these physiologic changes from baseline values significantly outperformed detection (P < .01) using a British model described in an earlier study by by Cristina Menni, PhD, and associates. That method, in which symptoms were considered alone, yielded an AUC of 0.71 (IQR, 0.63-0.79).

According to Dr. Quer, one in five Americans currently wear an electronic device. “If we could enroll even a small percentage of these individuals, we’d be able to potentially identify clusters before they have the opportunity to spread,” he said.
 

DETECT study details

During the period March 15 to June 7, 2020, the study enrolled 30,529 participants from all 50 states. They ranged in age from younger than 35 years (23.1%) to older than 65 years (12.8%); the majority (63.5%) were aged 35-65 years, and 62% were women. Sensor devices in use by the cohort included Fitbit activity trackers (78.4%) and Apple HealthKit (31.2%).

Participants downloaded an app called MyDataHelps, which collects smartwatch and activity tracker information, including self-reported symptoms and diagnostic testing results. The app also monitors changes from baseline in resting heart rate, sleep duration, and physical activity, as measured by steps.

Overall, 3,811 participants reported having at least one symptom of some kind (e.g., fatigue, cough, dyspnea, loss of taste or smell). Of these, 54 reported testing positive for COVID-19, and 279 reported testing negative.

Sleep and activity were significantly different for the positive and negative groups, with an AUC of 0.68 (IQR, 0.57-0.79) for the sleep metric and 0.69 (IQR, 0.61-0.77) for the activity metric, suggesting that these parameters were more affected in COVID-19–positive participants.

When the investigators combined resting heart rate, sleep, and activity into a single metric, predictive performance improved to an AUC of 0.72 (IQR, 0.64-0.80).

The next step, Dr. Quer said, is to include an alert to notify users of possible infection.
 

Alerting users to possible COVID-19 infection

In a similar study, an alert feature was already incorporated. The study, led by Michael P. Snyder, PhD, director of the Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, will soon be published online in Nature Biomedical Engineering. In that study, presymptomatic detection of COVID-19 was achieved in more than 80% of participants using resting heart rate.

“The median is 4 days prior to symptom formation,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We have an alarm system to notify people when their heart rate is elevated. So a positive signal from a smartwatch can be used to follow up by polymerase chain reaction [testing].”

Dr. Snyder said these approaches offer a roadmap to containing widespread infections. “Public health authorities need to be open to these technologies and begin incorporating them into their tracking,” he said. “Right now, people do temperature checks, which are of limited value. Resting heart rate is much better information.”

Although the DETECT researchers have not yet received feedback on their results, they believe public health authorities could recommend the use of such apps. “These are devices that people routinely wear for tracking their fitness and sleep, so it would be relatively easy to use the data for viral illness tracking,” said co–lead author Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps. “Testing resources are still limited and don’t allow for routine serial testing of individuals who may be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Wearables can offer a different way to routinely monitor and screen people for changes in their data that may indicate COVID-19.”

The marshaling of data through consumer digital platforms to fight the coronavirus is gaining ground. New York State and New Jersey are already embracing smartphone apps to alert individuals to possible exposure to the virus.

More than 710,000 New Yorkers have downloaded the COVID NY Alert app, launched in October to help protect individuals and communities from COVID-19 by sending alerts without compromising privacy or personal information. “Upon receiving a notification about a potential exposure, users are then able to self-quarantine, get tested, and reduce the potential exposure risk to family, friends, coworkers, and others,” Jonah Bruno, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health, said in an interview.

And recently the Mayo Clinic and Safe Health Systems launched a platform to store COVID-19 testing and vaccination data.

Both the Scripps and Stanford platforms are part of a global technologic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective studies, led by device manufacturers and academic institutions, allow individuals to voluntarily share sensor and clinical data to address the crisis. Similar approaches have been used to track COVID-19 in large populations in Germany via the Corona Data Donation app.

The study by Dr. Quer and colleagues was funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported grants from Janssen and personal fees from Otsuka and Livongo outside of the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Snyder has ties to Personalis, Qbio, January, SensOmics, Protos, Mirvie, and Oralome.
 

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

A smartphone app that combines passively collected physiologic data from wearable devices, such as fitness trackers, and self-reported symptoms can discriminate between COVID-19–positive and –negative individuals among those who report symptoms, new data suggest.

LDProd/Getty Images

After analyzing data from more than 30,000 participants, researchers from the Digital Engagement and Tracking for Early Control and Treatment (DETECT) study concluded that adding individual changes in sensor data improves models based on symptoms alone for differentiating symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 positive and symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 negative.

The combination can potentially identify infection clusters before wider community spread occurs, Giorgio Quer, PhD, and colleagues report in an article published online Oct. 29 in Nature Medicine. DETECT investigators note that marrying participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and resting heart rate, resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.73-0.86) for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.

“By better characterizing each individual’s unique baseline, you can then identify changes that may indicate that someone has a viral illness,” said Dr. Quer, director of artificial intelligence at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. “In previous research, we found that the proportion of individuals with elevated resting heart rate and sleep duration compared with their normal could significantly improve real-time detection of influenza-like illness rates at the state level,” he said in an interview.

Thus, continuous passively captured data may be a useful adjunct to bricks-and-mortar site testing, which is generally a one-off or infrequent sampling assay and is not always easily accessible, he added. Furthermore, traditional screening with temperature and symptom reporting is inadequate. An elevation in temperature is not as common as frequently believed for people who test positive for COVID-19, Dr. Quer continued. “Early identification via sensor variables of those who are presymptomatic or even asymptomatic would be especially valuable, as people may potentially be infectious during this period, and early detection is the ultimate goal,” Dr. Quer said.

According to his group, adding these physiologic changes from baseline values significantly outperformed detection (P < .01) using a British model described in an earlier study by by Cristina Menni, PhD, and associates. That method, in which symptoms were considered alone, yielded an AUC of 0.71 (IQR, 0.63-0.79).

According to Dr. Quer, one in five Americans currently wear an electronic device. “If we could enroll even a small percentage of these individuals, we’d be able to potentially identify clusters before they have the opportunity to spread,” he said.
 

DETECT study details

During the period March 15 to June 7, 2020, the study enrolled 30,529 participants from all 50 states. They ranged in age from younger than 35 years (23.1%) to older than 65 years (12.8%); the majority (63.5%) were aged 35-65 years, and 62% were women. Sensor devices in use by the cohort included Fitbit activity trackers (78.4%) and Apple HealthKit (31.2%).

Participants downloaded an app called MyDataHelps, which collects smartwatch and activity tracker information, including self-reported symptoms and diagnostic testing results. The app also monitors changes from baseline in resting heart rate, sleep duration, and physical activity, as measured by steps.

Overall, 3,811 participants reported having at least one symptom of some kind (e.g., fatigue, cough, dyspnea, loss of taste or smell). Of these, 54 reported testing positive for COVID-19, and 279 reported testing negative.

Sleep and activity were significantly different for the positive and negative groups, with an AUC of 0.68 (IQR, 0.57-0.79) for the sleep metric and 0.69 (IQR, 0.61-0.77) for the activity metric, suggesting that these parameters were more affected in COVID-19–positive participants.

When the investigators combined resting heart rate, sleep, and activity into a single metric, predictive performance improved to an AUC of 0.72 (IQR, 0.64-0.80).

The next step, Dr. Quer said, is to include an alert to notify users of possible infection.
 

Alerting users to possible COVID-19 infection

In a similar study, an alert feature was already incorporated. The study, led by Michael P. Snyder, PhD, director of the Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, will soon be published online in Nature Biomedical Engineering. In that study, presymptomatic detection of COVID-19 was achieved in more than 80% of participants using resting heart rate.

“The median is 4 days prior to symptom formation,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We have an alarm system to notify people when their heart rate is elevated. So a positive signal from a smartwatch can be used to follow up by polymerase chain reaction [testing].”

Dr. Snyder said these approaches offer a roadmap to containing widespread infections. “Public health authorities need to be open to these technologies and begin incorporating them into their tracking,” he said. “Right now, people do temperature checks, which are of limited value. Resting heart rate is much better information.”

Although the DETECT researchers have not yet received feedback on their results, they believe public health authorities could recommend the use of such apps. “These are devices that people routinely wear for tracking their fitness and sleep, so it would be relatively easy to use the data for viral illness tracking,” said co–lead author Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps. “Testing resources are still limited and don’t allow for routine serial testing of individuals who may be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Wearables can offer a different way to routinely monitor and screen people for changes in their data that may indicate COVID-19.”

The marshaling of data through consumer digital platforms to fight the coronavirus is gaining ground. New York State and New Jersey are already embracing smartphone apps to alert individuals to possible exposure to the virus.

More than 710,000 New Yorkers have downloaded the COVID NY Alert app, launched in October to help protect individuals and communities from COVID-19 by sending alerts without compromising privacy or personal information. “Upon receiving a notification about a potential exposure, users are then able to self-quarantine, get tested, and reduce the potential exposure risk to family, friends, coworkers, and others,” Jonah Bruno, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health, said in an interview.

And recently the Mayo Clinic and Safe Health Systems launched a platform to store COVID-19 testing and vaccination data.

Both the Scripps and Stanford platforms are part of a global technologic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective studies, led by device manufacturers and academic institutions, allow individuals to voluntarily share sensor and clinical data to address the crisis. Similar approaches have been used to track COVID-19 in large populations in Germany via the Corona Data Donation app.

The study by Dr. Quer and colleagues was funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported grants from Janssen and personal fees from Otsuka and Livongo outside of the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Snyder has ties to Personalis, Qbio, January, SensOmics, Protos, Mirvie, and Oralome.
 

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

A smartphone app that combines passively collected physiologic data from wearable devices, such as fitness trackers, and self-reported symptoms can discriminate between COVID-19–positive and –negative individuals among those who report symptoms, new data suggest.

LDProd/Getty Images

After analyzing data from more than 30,000 participants, researchers from the Digital Engagement and Tracking for Early Control and Treatment (DETECT) study concluded that adding individual changes in sensor data improves models based on symptoms alone for differentiating symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 positive and symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 negative.

The combination can potentially identify infection clusters before wider community spread occurs, Giorgio Quer, PhD, and colleagues report in an article published online Oct. 29 in Nature Medicine. DETECT investigators note that marrying participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and resting heart rate, resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.73-0.86) for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.

“By better characterizing each individual’s unique baseline, you can then identify changes that may indicate that someone has a viral illness,” said Dr. Quer, director of artificial intelligence at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. “In previous research, we found that the proportion of individuals with elevated resting heart rate and sleep duration compared with their normal could significantly improve real-time detection of influenza-like illness rates at the state level,” he said in an interview.

Thus, continuous passively captured data may be a useful adjunct to bricks-and-mortar site testing, which is generally a one-off or infrequent sampling assay and is not always easily accessible, he added. Furthermore, traditional screening with temperature and symptom reporting is inadequate. An elevation in temperature is not as common as frequently believed for people who test positive for COVID-19, Dr. Quer continued. “Early identification via sensor variables of those who are presymptomatic or even asymptomatic would be especially valuable, as people may potentially be infectious during this period, and early detection is the ultimate goal,” Dr. Quer said.

According to his group, adding these physiologic changes from baseline values significantly outperformed detection (P < .01) using a British model described in an earlier study by by Cristina Menni, PhD, and associates. That method, in which symptoms were considered alone, yielded an AUC of 0.71 (IQR, 0.63-0.79).

According to Dr. Quer, one in five Americans currently wear an electronic device. “If we could enroll even a small percentage of these individuals, we’d be able to potentially identify clusters before they have the opportunity to spread,” he said.
 

DETECT study details

During the period March 15 to June 7, 2020, the study enrolled 30,529 participants from all 50 states. They ranged in age from younger than 35 years (23.1%) to older than 65 years (12.8%); the majority (63.5%) were aged 35-65 years, and 62% were women. Sensor devices in use by the cohort included Fitbit activity trackers (78.4%) and Apple HealthKit (31.2%).

Participants downloaded an app called MyDataHelps, which collects smartwatch and activity tracker information, including self-reported symptoms and diagnostic testing results. The app also monitors changes from baseline in resting heart rate, sleep duration, and physical activity, as measured by steps.

Overall, 3,811 participants reported having at least one symptom of some kind (e.g., fatigue, cough, dyspnea, loss of taste or smell). Of these, 54 reported testing positive for COVID-19, and 279 reported testing negative.

Sleep and activity were significantly different for the positive and negative groups, with an AUC of 0.68 (IQR, 0.57-0.79) for the sleep metric and 0.69 (IQR, 0.61-0.77) for the activity metric, suggesting that these parameters were more affected in COVID-19–positive participants.

When the investigators combined resting heart rate, sleep, and activity into a single metric, predictive performance improved to an AUC of 0.72 (IQR, 0.64-0.80).

The next step, Dr. Quer said, is to include an alert to notify users of possible infection.
 

Alerting users to possible COVID-19 infection

In a similar study, an alert feature was already incorporated. The study, led by Michael P. Snyder, PhD, director of the Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, will soon be published online in Nature Biomedical Engineering. In that study, presymptomatic detection of COVID-19 was achieved in more than 80% of participants using resting heart rate.

“The median is 4 days prior to symptom formation,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We have an alarm system to notify people when their heart rate is elevated. So a positive signal from a smartwatch can be used to follow up by polymerase chain reaction [testing].”

Dr. Snyder said these approaches offer a roadmap to containing widespread infections. “Public health authorities need to be open to these technologies and begin incorporating them into their tracking,” he said. “Right now, people do temperature checks, which are of limited value. Resting heart rate is much better information.”

Although the DETECT researchers have not yet received feedback on their results, they believe public health authorities could recommend the use of such apps. “These are devices that people routinely wear for tracking their fitness and sleep, so it would be relatively easy to use the data for viral illness tracking,” said co–lead author Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps. “Testing resources are still limited and don’t allow for routine serial testing of individuals who may be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Wearables can offer a different way to routinely monitor and screen people for changes in their data that may indicate COVID-19.”

The marshaling of data through consumer digital platforms to fight the coronavirus is gaining ground. New York State and New Jersey are already embracing smartphone apps to alert individuals to possible exposure to the virus.

More than 710,000 New Yorkers have downloaded the COVID NY Alert app, launched in October to help protect individuals and communities from COVID-19 by sending alerts without compromising privacy or personal information. “Upon receiving a notification about a potential exposure, users are then able to self-quarantine, get tested, and reduce the potential exposure risk to family, friends, coworkers, and others,” Jonah Bruno, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health, said in an interview.

And recently the Mayo Clinic and Safe Health Systems launched a platform to store COVID-19 testing and vaccination data.

Both the Scripps and Stanford platforms are part of a global technologic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective studies, led by device manufacturers and academic institutions, allow individuals to voluntarily share sensor and clinical data to address the crisis. Similar approaches have been used to track COVID-19 in large populations in Germany via the Corona Data Donation app.

The study by Dr. Quer and colleagues was funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported grants from Janssen and personal fees from Otsuka and Livongo outside of the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Snyder has ties to Personalis, Qbio, January, SensOmics, Protos, Mirvie, and Oralome.
 

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

Combination afatinib and cetuximab did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) over afatinib alone in a phase 2 trial of treatment-naive patients with advanced EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

In addition, toxicity was greater with the afatinib/cetuximab combination, according to study author Sarah S. Goldberg, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Goldberg and colleagues reported these results, from the SWOG S1403 trial, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The authors noted that activating EGFR mutations are present in about 15% of patients with lung adenocarcinomas in Western populations and the mutations confer heightened sensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). EGFR-TKIs have been shown to improve clinical outcomes, quality of life, and toxicity when compared with chemotherapy.

Based on better outcomes over chemotherapy, the third-generation EGFR-TKI osimertinib is now the standard treatment for patients with T790M-mediated resistance, but osimertinib is not effective in TKI-resistant T790M-negative disease, the authors pointed out.

In a phase 1b trial of patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC with acquired resistance to first-generation agents, afatinib/cetuximab produced a response rate of 29% and comparable activity regardless of T790M status.

The aim of the SWOG S1403 study was to test whether adding cetuximab to afatinib would improve PFS over afatinib alone in patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutant NSCLC by preventing or delaying resistance.
 

Trial details

The phase 2, multicenter trial included 168 eligible patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC without prior treatment of advanced disease. The patients’ median age was 66 years (range, 27-93 years), and 66% were women.

The most common histology was adenocarcinoma (96%). EGFR exon 19 deletions were detected in 64% of patients and L858R point mutations in 36%.

Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive afatinib at 40 mg orally daily plus cetuximab at 500 mg/m² intravenously every 2 weeks or afatinib at 40 mg alone. Patients received diphenhydramine at 50 mg intravenously before the first dose of cetuximab to prevent hypersensitivity reaction, and it was recommended before subsequent doses.

Patients continued on treatment until disease progression, symptomatic deterioration, unacceptable toxicity, pregnancy, treatment delay greater than 28 days, or patient decision. The study’s primary endpoint was PFS.
 

Further accrual not supported

At the interim analysis, the SWOG data safety and monitoring committee decided there was insufficient evidence to support further accrual, and the trial was closed.

The primary endpoint analysis revealed a median PFS of 11.9 months in the afatinib/cetuximab group and 13.4 months in the afatinib-alone group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.43; P = .94). A subset analysis showed no PFS differences based on clinical or tumor characteristics.

Overall survival, time to response, and overall response rate were not improved in the afatinib/cetuximab arm.

PFS and overall survival were longer in patients with tumors harboring exon 19 deletions than in patients with L858R mutations. However, there were no mutation subtype–based PFS and overall survival differences between the treatment arms.

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the combination arm than in the monotherapy arm (72% and 40%, respectively; P < .0001).

The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (in the combination and monotherapy arms, respectively) were acneiform rash (27% and 2%), maculopapular rash (13% and 0%), and diarrhea (15% and 20%).

Patients receiving afatinib plus cetuximab required dose reductions more often (56.7% vs. 26.2%), and treatment discontinuation because of an adverse event was more frequent in the combination arm (14% vs. 11%).
 

Turn toward third-generation drug

“Treatment with a single-agent EGFR-TKI remains the standard of care for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC,” Dr. Goldberg and colleagues wrote.

Why the combination of afatinib and cetuximab, which has demonstrated activity in the resistance setting, failed in the first-line setting remains unclear, Dr. Goldberg observed in an interview.

She noted that about one-quarter of patients receiving the afatinib/cetuximab combination discontinued cetuximab because of toxicity.

“That’s a good amount. It could be part of the explanation,” Dr. Goldberg said.

Investigators are currently analyzing collected tissue and blood samples in an effort to identify biomarkers that could potentially predict subgroups receiving benefit.

“That’s our next step: looking at specific EGFR mutation types, comutation types, and amplification of other genes and of EGFR,” Dr. Goldberg said.

She noted that, because of a superior side-effect profile and possibly greater efficacy, osimertinib is being used in the first-line setting.

“So now the idea of combining an EGFR-TKI with an EGFR antibody is still an active area of research, but with osimertinib rather than a first- or second-generation drug,” she said.

This research was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, The Hope Foundation Career Development Award, and the SWOG and NIH Yale SPORE in Lung Cancer Grant. Dr. Goldberg and colleagues disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Goldberg SB et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01149.

Combination afatinib and cetuximab did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) over afatinib alone in a phase 2 trial of treatment-naive patients with advanced EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

In addition, toxicity was greater with the afatinib/cetuximab combination, according to study author Sarah S. Goldberg, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Goldberg and colleagues reported these results, from the SWOG S1403 trial, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The authors noted that activating EGFR mutations are present in about 15% of patients with lung adenocarcinomas in Western populations and the mutations confer heightened sensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). EGFR-TKIs have been shown to improve clinical outcomes, quality of life, and toxicity when compared with chemotherapy.

Based on better outcomes over chemotherapy, the third-generation EGFR-TKI osimertinib is now the standard treatment for patients with T790M-mediated resistance, but osimertinib is not effective in TKI-resistant T790M-negative disease, the authors pointed out.

In a phase 1b trial of patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC with acquired resistance to first-generation agents, afatinib/cetuximab produced a response rate of 29% and comparable activity regardless of T790M status.

The aim of the SWOG S1403 study was to test whether adding cetuximab to afatinib would improve PFS over afatinib alone in patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutant NSCLC by preventing or delaying resistance.
 

Trial details

The phase 2, multicenter trial included 168 eligible patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC without prior treatment of advanced disease. The patients’ median age was 66 years (range, 27-93 years), and 66% were women.

The most common histology was adenocarcinoma (96%). EGFR exon 19 deletions were detected in 64% of patients and L858R point mutations in 36%.

Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive afatinib at 40 mg orally daily plus cetuximab at 500 mg/m² intravenously every 2 weeks or afatinib at 40 mg alone. Patients received diphenhydramine at 50 mg intravenously before the first dose of cetuximab to prevent hypersensitivity reaction, and it was recommended before subsequent doses.

Patients continued on treatment until disease progression, symptomatic deterioration, unacceptable toxicity, pregnancy, treatment delay greater than 28 days, or patient decision. The study’s primary endpoint was PFS.
 

Further accrual not supported

At the interim analysis, the SWOG data safety and monitoring committee decided there was insufficient evidence to support further accrual, and the trial was closed.

The primary endpoint analysis revealed a median PFS of 11.9 months in the afatinib/cetuximab group and 13.4 months in the afatinib-alone group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.43; P = .94). A subset analysis showed no PFS differences based on clinical or tumor characteristics.

Overall survival, time to response, and overall response rate were not improved in the afatinib/cetuximab arm.

PFS and overall survival were longer in patients with tumors harboring exon 19 deletions than in patients with L858R mutations. However, there were no mutation subtype–based PFS and overall survival differences between the treatment arms.

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the combination arm than in the monotherapy arm (72% and 40%, respectively; P < .0001).

The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (in the combination and monotherapy arms, respectively) were acneiform rash (27% and 2%), maculopapular rash (13% and 0%), and diarrhea (15% and 20%).

Patients receiving afatinib plus cetuximab required dose reductions more often (56.7% vs. 26.2%), and treatment discontinuation because of an adverse event was more frequent in the combination arm (14% vs. 11%).
 

Turn toward third-generation drug

“Treatment with a single-agent EGFR-TKI remains the standard of care for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC,” Dr. Goldberg and colleagues wrote.

Why the combination of afatinib and cetuximab, which has demonstrated activity in the resistance setting, failed in the first-line setting remains unclear, Dr. Goldberg observed in an interview.

She noted that about one-quarter of patients receiving the afatinib/cetuximab combination discontinued cetuximab because of toxicity.

“That’s a good amount. It could be part of the explanation,” Dr. Goldberg said.

Investigators are currently analyzing collected tissue and blood samples in an effort to identify biomarkers that could potentially predict subgroups receiving benefit.

“That’s our next step: looking at specific EGFR mutation types, comutation types, and amplification of other genes and of EGFR,” Dr. Goldberg said.

She noted that, because of a superior side-effect profile and possibly greater efficacy, osimertinib is being used in the first-line setting.

“So now the idea of combining an EGFR-TKI with an EGFR antibody is still an active area of research, but with osimertinib rather than a first- or second-generation drug,” she said.

This research was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, The Hope Foundation Career Development Award, and the SWOG and NIH Yale SPORE in Lung Cancer Grant. Dr. Goldberg and colleagues disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Goldberg SB et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01149.

Combination afatinib and cetuximab did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) over afatinib alone in a phase 2 trial of treatment-naive patients with advanced EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

In addition, toxicity was greater with the afatinib/cetuximab combination, according to study author Sarah S. Goldberg, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Goldberg and colleagues reported these results, from the SWOG S1403 trial, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The authors noted that activating EGFR mutations are present in about 15% of patients with lung adenocarcinomas in Western populations and the mutations confer heightened sensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). EGFR-TKIs have been shown to improve clinical outcomes, quality of life, and toxicity when compared with chemotherapy.

Based on better outcomes over chemotherapy, the third-generation EGFR-TKI osimertinib is now the standard treatment for patients with T790M-mediated resistance, but osimertinib is not effective in TKI-resistant T790M-negative disease, the authors pointed out.

In a phase 1b trial of patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC with acquired resistance to first-generation agents, afatinib/cetuximab produced a response rate of 29% and comparable activity regardless of T790M status.

The aim of the SWOG S1403 study was to test whether adding cetuximab to afatinib would improve PFS over afatinib alone in patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutant NSCLC by preventing or delaying resistance.
 

Trial details

The phase 2, multicenter trial included 168 eligible patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC without prior treatment of advanced disease. The patients’ median age was 66 years (range, 27-93 years), and 66% were women.

The most common histology was adenocarcinoma (96%). EGFR exon 19 deletions were detected in 64% of patients and L858R point mutations in 36%.

Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive afatinib at 40 mg orally daily plus cetuximab at 500 mg/m² intravenously every 2 weeks or afatinib at 40 mg alone. Patients received diphenhydramine at 50 mg intravenously before the first dose of cetuximab to prevent hypersensitivity reaction, and it was recommended before subsequent doses.

Patients continued on treatment until disease progression, symptomatic deterioration, unacceptable toxicity, pregnancy, treatment delay greater than 28 days, or patient decision. The study’s primary endpoint was PFS.
 

Further accrual not supported

At the interim analysis, the SWOG data safety and monitoring committee decided there was insufficient evidence to support further accrual, and the trial was closed.

The primary endpoint analysis revealed a median PFS of 11.9 months in the afatinib/cetuximab group and 13.4 months in the afatinib-alone group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.43; P = .94). A subset analysis showed no PFS differences based on clinical or tumor characteristics.

Overall survival, time to response, and overall response rate were not improved in the afatinib/cetuximab arm.

PFS and overall survival were longer in patients with tumors harboring exon 19 deletions than in patients with L858R mutations. However, there were no mutation subtype–based PFS and overall survival differences between the treatment arms.

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the combination arm than in the monotherapy arm (72% and 40%, respectively; P < .0001).

The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (in the combination and monotherapy arms, respectively) were acneiform rash (27% and 2%), maculopapular rash (13% and 0%), and diarrhea (15% and 20%).

Patients receiving afatinib plus cetuximab required dose reductions more often (56.7% vs. 26.2%), and treatment discontinuation because of an adverse event was more frequent in the combination arm (14% vs. 11%).
 

Turn toward third-generation drug

“Treatment with a single-agent EGFR-TKI remains the standard of care for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC,” Dr. Goldberg and colleagues wrote.

Why the combination of afatinib and cetuximab, which has demonstrated activity in the resistance setting, failed in the first-line setting remains unclear, Dr. Goldberg observed in an interview.

She noted that about one-quarter of patients receiving the afatinib/cetuximab combination discontinued cetuximab because of toxicity.

“That’s a good amount. It could be part of the explanation,” Dr. Goldberg said.

Investigators are currently analyzing collected tissue and blood samples in an effort to identify biomarkers that could potentially predict subgroups receiving benefit.

“That’s our next step: looking at specific EGFR mutation types, comutation types, and amplification of other genes and of EGFR,” Dr. Goldberg said.

She noted that, because of a superior side-effect profile and possibly greater efficacy, osimertinib is being used in the first-line setting.

“So now the idea of combining an EGFR-TKI with an EGFR antibody is still an active area of research, but with osimertinib rather than a first- or second-generation drug,” she said.

This research was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, The Hope Foundation Career Development Award, and the SWOG and NIH Yale SPORE in Lung Cancer Grant. Dr. Goldberg and colleagues disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Goldberg SB et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01149.

Editors in chief at 10 leading family medicine journals have banded together to address systemic racism in research, health care, and the medical profession.

Sumi Sexton, MD, editor in chief of American Family Physician (AFP), said in an interview she had been working on changes at her journal that would answer the need for action that was made clear by this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests and realized the issue was much bigger than one journal. She proposed the collaboration with the other editors.

The editors wrote a joint statement explaining what they plan to do collectively. It was published online Oct. 15 ahead of print and will be published in all 10 journals at the beginning of the year.

Following the action by family medicine editors, the American College of Physicians issued a statement expressing commitment to being an antiracist organization. It calls on all doctors to speak out against hate and discrimination and to act against institutional and systemic racism. The statement also apologizes for the organization’s own past actions: “ACP acknowledges and regrets its own historical organizational injustices and inequities, and past racism, discrimination and exclusionary practices throughout its history, whether intentional or unintentional, by act or omission.”


 

Family medicine journals plan changes

Changes will differ at each family medicine publication, according to Sexton and other interviewees. Some specific changes at AFP, for example, include creating a medical editor role dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that content is not only accurate but also that more content addresses racism, Dr. Sexton said.

AFP is creating a Web page dedicated to diversity and will now capitalize the word “Black” in racial and cultural references. Recent calls for papers have included emphasis on finding authors from underrepresented groups and on mentoring new authors.

“We really need to enable our colleagues,” Dr. Sexton said.

The journals are also pooling their published research on topics of racism and inclusion and have established a joint bibliography.

The steps are important, Dr. Sexton said, because reform in research will start a “cascade of action” that will result in better patient care.

“Our mission is to care for the individual as a whole person,” Dr. Sexton said. “This is part of that mission.”
 

Increasing diversity on editorial boards

Family physician Kameron Leigh Matthews, MD, chief medical officer for the Veterans Health Administration, praised the journals’ plan.

She noted that the groups are addressing diversity on their editorial boards, as well as evaluating content. Effective change must also happen regarding the people reviewing the content, she said in an interview. “It has to be both.

“I’m very proud as a family physician that our editors came together and are giving the right response. It’s not enough to say we stand against racism. They’re actually offering concrete actions that they will take as editors, and that will influence health care,” she said.

Dr. Matthews pointed to an example of what can happen when the editorial process fails and racism is introduced in research.

She cited the retraction of an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association entitled, “Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce.” The article advocated for ending racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate and medical school admissions.

The American Heart Association said the article concluded “incorrectly that Black and Hispanic trainees in medicine are less qualified than White and Asian trainees.” The article had “rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions,” the AHA said, adding that it would launch an investigation into how the article came to be published.

Dr. Matthews says that’s why it’s so important that, in their statement, the family medicine editors vow to address not only the content but also the editing process to avoid similar systemic lapses.

Dr. Matthews added that, because the proportion of physicians from underrepresented groups is small – only 5% of physicians are Black and 6% are Hispanic – it is vital, as recommended in the editors’ statement, to mentor researchers from underrepresented groups and to reach out to students and residents to be coauthors.

“To sit back and say there’s not enough to recruit from is not sufficient,” Dr. Matthews said. “You need to recognize that you need to assist with expanding the pool.”

She also said she would like to see the journals focus more heavily on solutions to racial disparities in health care rather than on pointing them out.

At the Journal of Family Practice (JFP), Editor in Chief John Hickner, MD, said adding diversity to the editorial board is a top priority. He also reiterated that diversity in top leadership is a concern across all the journals, inasmuch as only 1 of the 10 editors in chief is a person of color.

As an editor, he said, he will personally, as well as through family medicine department chairs, be seeking authors who are members of underrepresented groups and that he will be assisting those who need help.

“I’m committed to giving them special attention in the editorial process,” he said.

Dr. Hickner said the 10 journals have also committed to periodically evaluate whether their approaches are making substantial changes. He said the editors have vowed to meet at least once a year to review progress “and hold each other accountable.”

Statement authors, in addition to Dr. Sexton and Dr. Hickner, include these editors in chief: Caroline R. Richardson, MD, Annals of Family Medicine; Sarina B. Schrager, MD, FPM; Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine; Christopher P. Morley, PhD, PRiMER; Nicholas Pimlott, MD, PhD, Canadian Family Physician; John W. Saultz, MD, Family Medicine; and Barry D. Weiss, MD, FP Essentials.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Journal of Family Practice is owned by the same news organization as this publication.
 

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

Editors in chief at 10 leading family medicine journals have banded together to address systemic racism in research, health care, and the medical profession.

Sumi Sexton, MD, editor in chief of American Family Physician (AFP), said in an interview she had been working on changes at her journal that would answer the need for action that was made clear by this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests and realized the issue was much bigger than one journal. She proposed the collaboration with the other editors.

The editors wrote a joint statement explaining what they plan to do collectively. It was published online Oct. 15 ahead of print and will be published in all 10 journals at the beginning of the year.

Following the action by family medicine editors, the American College of Physicians issued a statement expressing commitment to being an antiracist organization. It calls on all doctors to speak out against hate and discrimination and to act against institutional and systemic racism. The statement also apologizes for the organization’s own past actions: “ACP acknowledges and regrets its own historical organizational injustices and inequities, and past racism, discrimination and exclusionary practices throughout its history, whether intentional or unintentional, by act or omission.”


 

Family medicine journals plan changes

Changes will differ at each family medicine publication, according to Sexton and other interviewees. Some specific changes at AFP, for example, include creating a medical editor role dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that content is not only accurate but also that more content addresses racism, Dr. Sexton said.

AFP is creating a Web page dedicated to diversity and will now capitalize the word “Black” in racial and cultural references. Recent calls for papers have included emphasis on finding authors from underrepresented groups and on mentoring new authors.

“We really need to enable our colleagues,” Dr. Sexton said.

The journals are also pooling their published research on topics of racism and inclusion and have established a joint bibliography.

The steps are important, Dr. Sexton said, because reform in research will start a “cascade of action” that will result in better patient care.

“Our mission is to care for the individual as a whole person,” Dr. Sexton said. “This is part of that mission.”
 

Increasing diversity on editorial boards

Family physician Kameron Leigh Matthews, MD, chief medical officer for the Veterans Health Administration, praised the journals’ plan.

She noted that the groups are addressing diversity on their editorial boards, as well as evaluating content. Effective change must also happen regarding the people reviewing the content, she said in an interview. “It has to be both.

“I’m very proud as a family physician that our editors came together and are giving the right response. It’s not enough to say we stand against racism. They’re actually offering concrete actions that they will take as editors, and that will influence health care,” she said.

Dr. Matthews pointed to an example of what can happen when the editorial process fails and racism is introduced in research.

She cited the retraction of an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association entitled, “Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce.” The article advocated for ending racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate and medical school admissions.

The American Heart Association said the article concluded “incorrectly that Black and Hispanic trainees in medicine are less qualified than White and Asian trainees.” The article had “rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions,” the AHA said, adding that it would launch an investigation into how the article came to be published.

Dr. Matthews says that’s why it’s so important that, in their statement, the family medicine editors vow to address not only the content but also the editing process to avoid similar systemic lapses.

Dr. Matthews added that, because the proportion of physicians from underrepresented groups is small – only 5% of physicians are Black and 6% are Hispanic – it is vital, as recommended in the editors’ statement, to mentor researchers from underrepresented groups and to reach out to students and residents to be coauthors.

“To sit back and say there’s not enough to recruit from is not sufficient,” Dr. Matthews said. “You need to recognize that you need to assist with expanding the pool.”

She also said she would like to see the journals focus more heavily on solutions to racial disparities in health care rather than on pointing them out.

At the Journal of Family Practice (JFP), Editor in Chief John Hickner, MD, said adding diversity to the editorial board is a top priority. He also reiterated that diversity in top leadership is a concern across all the journals, inasmuch as only 1 of the 10 editors in chief is a person of color.

As an editor, he said, he will personally, as well as through family medicine department chairs, be seeking authors who are members of underrepresented groups and that he will be assisting those who need help.

“I’m committed to giving them special attention in the editorial process,” he said.

Dr. Hickner said the 10 journals have also committed to periodically evaluate whether their approaches are making substantial changes. He said the editors have vowed to meet at least once a year to review progress “and hold each other accountable.”

Statement authors, in addition to Dr. Sexton and Dr. Hickner, include these editors in chief: Caroline R. Richardson, MD, Annals of Family Medicine; Sarina B. Schrager, MD, FPM; Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine; Christopher P. Morley, PhD, PRiMER; Nicholas Pimlott, MD, PhD, Canadian Family Physician; John W. Saultz, MD, Family Medicine; and Barry D. Weiss, MD, FP Essentials.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Journal of Family Practice is owned by the same news organization as this publication.
 

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

Editors in chief at 10 leading family medicine journals have banded together to address systemic racism in research, health care, and the medical profession.

Sumi Sexton, MD, editor in chief of American Family Physician (AFP), said in an interview she had been working on changes at her journal that would answer the need for action that was made clear by this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests and realized the issue was much bigger than one journal. She proposed the collaboration with the other editors.

The editors wrote a joint statement explaining what they plan to do collectively. It was published online Oct. 15 ahead of print and will be published in all 10 journals at the beginning of the year.

Following the action by family medicine editors, the American College of Physicians issued a statement expressing commitment to being an antiracist organization. It calls on all doctors to speak out against hate and discrimination and to act against institutional and systemic racism. The statement also apologizes for the organization’s own past actions: “ACP acknowledges and regrets its own historical organizational injustices and inequities, and past racism, discrimination and exclusionary practices throughout its history, whether intentional or unintentional, by act or omission.”


 

Family medicine journals plan changes

Changes will differ at each family medicine publication, according to Sexton and other interviewees. Some specific changes at AFP, for example, include creating a medical editor role dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that content is not only accurate but also that more content addresses racism, Dr. Sexton said.

AFP is creating a Web page dedicated to diversity and will now capitalize the word “Black” in racial and cultural references. Recent calls for papers have included emphasis on finding authors from underrepresented groups and on mentoring new authors.

“We really need to enable our colleagues,” Dr. Sexton said.

The journals are also pooling their published research on topics of racism and inclusion and have established a joint bibliography.

The steps are important, Dr. Sexton said, because reform in research will start a “cascade of action” that will result in better patient care.

“Our mission is to care for the individual as a whole person,” Dr. Sexton said. “This is part of that mission.”
 

Increasing diversity on editorial boards

Family physician Kameron Leigh Matthews, MD, chief medical officer for the Veterans Health Administration, praised the journals’ plan.

She noted that the groups are addressing diversity on their editorial boards, as well as evaluating content. Effective change must also happen regarding the people reviewing the content, she said in an interview. “It has to be both.

“I’m very proud as a family physician that our editors came together and are giving the right response. It’s not enough to say we stand against racism. They’re actually offering concrete actions that they will take as editors, and that will influence health care,” she said.

Dr. Matthews pointed to an example of what can happen when the editorial process fails and racism is introduced in research.

She cited the retraction of an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association entitled, “Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce.” The article advocated for ending racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate and medical school admissions.

The American Heart Association said the article concluded “incorrectly that Black and Hispanic trainees in medicine are less qualified than White and Asian trainees.” The article had “rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions,” the AHA said, adding that it would launch an investigation into how the article came to be published.

Dr. Matthews says that’s why it’s so important that, in their statement, the family medicine editors vow to address not only the content but also the editing process to avoid similar systemic lapses.

Dr. Matthews added that, because the proportion of physicians from underrepresented groups is small – only 5% of physicians are Black and 6% are Hispanic – it is vital, as recommended in the editors’ statement, to mentor researchers from underrepresented groups and to reach out to students and residents to be coauthors.

“To sit back and say there’s not enough to recruit from is not sufficient,” Dr. Matthews said. “You need to recognize that you need to assist with expanding the pool.”

She also said she would like to see the journals focus more heavily on solutions to racial disparities in health care rather than on pointing them out.

At the Journal of Family Practice (JFP), Editor in Chief John Hickner, MD, said adding diversity to the editorial board is a top priority. He also reiterated that diversity in top leadership is a concern across all the journals, inasmuch as only 1 of the 10 editors in chief is a person of color.

As an editor, he said, he will personally, as well as through family medicine department chairs, be seeking authors who are members of underrepresented groups and that he will be assisting those who need help.

“I’m committed to giving them special attention in the editorial process,” he said.

Dr. Hickner said the 10 journals have also committed to periodically evaluate whether their approaches are making substantial changes. He said the editors have vowed to meet at least once a year to review progress “and hold each other accountable.”

Statement authors, in addition to Dr. Sexton and Dr. Hickner, include these editors in chief: Caroline R. Richardson, MD, Annals of Family Medicine; Sarina B. Schrager, MD, FPM; Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine; Christopher P. Morley, PhD, PRiMER; Nicholas Pimlott, MD, PhD, Canadian Family Physician; John W. Saultz, MD, Family Medicine; and Barry D. Weiss, MD, FP Essentials.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Journal of Family Practice is owned by the same news organization as this publication.
 

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