CHEST Physician

The use of immunotherapy for upper gastrointestinal tumors and renal cancer, ALK- and EGFR-targeted agents in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and the next step in personalized prostate cancer management will all be subjects of headlining presentations at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020.

The conference will, like so many other major events, be held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

John B. Haanen, PhD, ESMO 2020 scientific chair, who is from the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, told Medscape Medical News that, because the congress is being held online this year, fewer abstracts were submitted; nevertheless, “We were very happy to see ... that the quality was very good.”

The number of submissions was not the only problem the organizing committee had to face in transforming the ESMO Congress into a virtual meeting.

They were unable to fit the scientific and educational programs together and so have had to split them over two consecutive weekends. Moreover, many of the sessions were highly interactive and needed to be either adapted or omitted.

“So the program is somewhat different,” Haanen said. He noted that “the presentations were also made shorter, especially on the educational sessions, because...we can’t expect people to sit behind screens for hours listening to long presentations.”

He added: “That was out of the question.”

Haanen is nevertheless hopeful that the virtual meeting will be “very exciting.”

Solange Peters, MD, PhD, ESMO president, who is also affiliated with the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said in a press conference that it was a “sacrifice” to move ESMO 2020 online and that “there were very sad moments” when deciding on the content.

However, there were some benefits from the change.

She said that all of the ESMO meetings this year have seen “huge” increases in the number of attendees and the geographical span or reach of each of the conferences.

“So suddenly you also realize that, what is one of the missions of ESMO being to convey education globally ... was probably better reached, better achieved with the virtual format,” she commented.
 

Presidential symposia

Turning to the program, Haanen first picked out the third presidential symposium, which will be held on Monday, September 21. This will focus entirely on upper gastrointestinal tumors in both the adjuvant and metastatic setting.

He said that in recent years, “very little progress has been made” in this area, with treatment mostly consisting of chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy.

However, this year’s presentations will explore the addition of immunotherapy either to chemotherapy or as an adjuvant treatment following completion of standard-of-care treatment for local disease.

Haanen said that the results will be “very interesting ... and may change current practice,” something that “is very important for both doctors and their patients.”

On Saturday, September 19, the first presidential symposium will include two presentations on lung cancer that Haanen said will offer some “exciting new [results] that I am sure will change clinical practice.”

One will be on the CROWN phase 3 trial comparing lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.

The other will present results on central nervous system disease recurrence from the ADAURA phase 3 trial of osimertinib adjuvant therapy in patients with resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

The same session will also see new data in advanced renal cell carcinoma from CheckMate 9ER, in which the c-Met and VEGFR2 inhibitor cabozantinib (Cabometyx) was combined with nivolumab (Opdivo) and compared to sunitinib (Sutent) in untreated patients.

“Last year, there were already some exciting results of the combination of axitinib [Inlyta], either with pembrolizumab [Keytruda] or with avelumab [Bavencio]...in the first-line setting in metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer,” Hannen said.

“Clearly there was a survival advantage over the standard of care, sunitinib,” he added.

This year, not only will efficacy data from CheckMate 9ER be presented but also quality-of-life results.

“That’s very important, because what everybody is afraid of is that, by adding drugs, you always get more impact on the quality of life, but you will see that the quality-of-life results are very exciting,” he said.

The second presidential symposium will feature studies on prostate cancer, notably the phase 3 IPATential150 trial of abiraterone (Zytiga) plus either ipatasertib or placebo in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Ipatasertib targets Akt, and Haanen said that “by adding it to, let’s say, standard-of-care treatment ... the question of course of will be, Does that have a better outcome?”

He believes the results will be a “very nice illustration” that prostate cancer management is heading in the direction of personalized treatment.

Alongside the presidential symposia, there will be a number of proffered paper sessions on the latest results in all aspects of oncology, including results from the ASCENT trial in triple-negative breast cancer, as well as a dedicated COVID-19 track.

Haanen said that the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020, coming after the AACR and ASCO annual meetings, has the “advantage” of being able to present the latest outcomes of patients treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy against the backdrop of the pandemic.

This will include a study from the ESMO Resilience Task Force on the impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals both in terms of their personal distress and burnout and their job performance.

“I think that is very important,” Haanen said, “especially because the whole thing with COVID-19 is not yet over, and everybody is preparing for a second wave in the fall and winter.

“It may help us give us clues on how we can protect ourselves or each other to prevent burnout or other problems that we as healthcare caregivers face in this difficult period.”
 

Next year

For next year, Peters remains hopeful that the ESMO 2021 meeting will take place as planned in Paris.

She anticipates that, indeed, ESMO meetings will be able to take place from spring next year.

This will depend on a vaccine for COVID-19 becoming widely available, although oncologists in some countries may still not be able to travel.

This means “starting probably with hybrid formats, with some of the faculty being on site and some not, [and] the same thing for the attendees,” Peters said.

She suggested that, for ESMO Congress 2021 to work as an on-site meeting, it will require at least half or two-thirds of the originally anticipated number of attendees.

“I hope that Paris next year will happen,” Peters said, adding that it “will probably happen with less attendees – that’s fine, but [still] with a large number of faculty and attendees.”

The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The use of immunotherapy for upper gastrointestinal tumors and renal cancer, ALK- and EGFR-targeted agents in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and the next step in personalized prostate cancer management will all be subjects of headlining presentations at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020.

The conference will, like so many other major events, be held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

John B. Haanen, PhD, ESMO 2020 scientific chair, who is from the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, told Medscape Medical News that, because the congress is being held online this year, fewer abstracts were submitted; nevertheless, “We were very happy to see ... that the quality was very good.”

The number of submissions was not the only problem the organizing committee had to face in transforming the ESMO Congress into a virtual meeting.

They were unable to fit the scientific and educational programs together and so have had to split them over two consecutive weekends. Moreover, many of the sessions were highly interactive and needed to be either adapted or omitted.

“So the program is somewhat different,” Haanen said. He noted that “the presentations were also made shorter, especially on the educational sessions, because...we can’t expect people to sit behind screens for hours listening to long presentations.”

He added: “That was out of the question.”

Haanen is nevertheless hopeful that the virtual meeting will be “very exciting.”

Solange Peters, MD, PhD, ESMO president, who is also affiliated with the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said in a press conference that it was a “sacrifice” to move ESMO 2020 online and that “there were very sad moments” when deciding on the content.

However, there were some benefits from the change.

She said that all of the ESMO meetings this year have seen “huge” increases in the number of attendees and the geographical span or reach of each of the conferences.

“So suddenly you also realize that, what is one of the missions of ESMO being to convey education globally ... was probably better reached, better achieved with the virtual format,” she commented.
 

Presidential symposia

Turning to the program, Haanen first picked out the third presidential symposium, which will be held on Monday, September 21. This will focus entirely on upper gastrointestinal tumors in both the adjuvant and metastatic setting.

He said that in recent years, “very little progress has been made” in this area, with treatment mostly consisting of chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy.

However, this year’s presentations will explore the addition of immunotherapy either to chemotherapy or as an adjuvant treatment following completion of standard-of-care treatment for local disease.

Haanen said that the results will be “very interesting ... and may change current practice,” something that “is very important for both doctors and their patients.”

On Saturday, September 19, the first presidential symposium will include two presentations on lung cancer that Haanen said will offer some “exciting new [results] that I am sure will change clinical practice.”

One will be on the CROWN phase 3 trial comparing lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.

The other will present results on central nervous system disease recurrence from the ADAURA phase 3 trial of osimertinib adjuvant therapy in patients with resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

The same session will also see new data in advanced renal cell carcinoma from CheckMate 9ER, in which the c-Met and VEGFR2 inhibitor cabozantinib (Cabometyx) was combined with nivolumab (Opdivo) and compared to sunitinib (Sutent) in untreated patients.

“Last year, there were already some exciting results of the combination of axitinib [Inlyta], either with pembrolizumab [Keytruda] or with avelumab [Bavencio]...in the first-line setting in metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer,” Hannen said.

“Clearly there was a survival advantage over the standard of care, sunitinib,” he added.

This year, not only will efficacy data from CheckMate 9ER be presented but also quality-of-life results.

“That’s very important, because what everybody is afraid of is that, by adding drugs, you always get more impact on the quality of life, but you will see that the quality-of-life results are very exciting,” he said.

The second presidential symposium will feature studies on prostate cancer, notably the phase 3 IPATential150 trial of abiraterone (Zytiga) plus either ipatasertib or placebo in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Ipatasertib targets Akt, and Haanen said that “by adding it to, let’s say, standard-of-care treatment ... the question of course of will be, Does that have a better outcome?”

He believes the results will be a “very nice illustration” that prostate cancer management is heading in the direction of personalized treatment.

Alongside the presidential symposia, there will be a number of proffered paper sessions on the latest results in all aspects of oncology, including results from the ASCENT trial in triple-negative breast cancer, as well as a dedicated COVID-19 track.

Haanen said that the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020, coming after the AACR and ASCO annual meetings, has the “advantage” of being able to present the latest outcomes of patients treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy against the backdrop of the pandemic.

This will include a study from the ESMO Resilience Task Force on the impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals both in terms of their personal distress and burnout and their job performance.

“I think that is very important,” Haanen said, “especially because the whole thing with COVID-19 is not yet over, and everybody is preparing for a second wave in the fall and winter.

“It may help us give us clues on how we can protect ourselves or each other to prevent burnout or other problems that we as healthcare caregivers face in this difficult period.”
 

Next year

For next year, Peters remains hopeful that the ESMO 2021 meeting will take place as planned in Paris.

She anticipates that, indeed, ESMO meetings will be able to take place from spring next year.

This will depend on a vaccine for COVID-19 becoming widely available, although oncologists in some countries may still not be able to travel.

This means “starting probably with hybrid formats, with some of the faculty being on site and some not, [and] the same thing for the attendees,” Peters said.

She suggested that, for ESMO Congress 2021 to work as an on-site meeting, it will require at least half or two-thirds of the originally anticipated number of attendees.

“I hope that Paris next year will happen,” Peters said, adding that it “will probably happen with less attendees – that’s fine, but [still] with a large number of faculty and attendees.”

The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The use of immunotherapy for upper gastrointestinal tumors and renal cancer, ALK- and EGFR-targeted agents in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and the next step in personalized prostate cancer management will all be subjects of headlining presentations at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020.

The conference will, like so many other major events, be held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

John B. Haanen, PhD, ESMO 2020 scientific chair, who is from the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, told Medscape Medical News that, because the congress is being held online this year, fewer abstracts were submitted; nevertheless, “We were very happy to see ... that the quality was very good.”

The number of submissions was not the only problem the organizing committee had to face in transforming the ESMO Congress into a virtual meeting.

They were unable to fit the scientific and educational programs together and so have had to split them over two consecutive weekends. Moreover, many of the sessions were highly interactive and needed to be either adapted or omitted.

“So the program is somewhat different,” Haanen said. He noted that “the presentations were also made shorter, especially on the educational sessions, because...we can’t expect people to sit behind screens for hours listening to long presentations.”

He added: “That was out of the question.”

Haanen is nevertheless hopeful that the virtual meeting will be “very exciting.”

Solange Peters, MD, PhD, ESMO president, who is also affiliated with the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said in a press conference that it was a “sacrifice” to move ESMO 2020 online and that “there were very sad moments” when deciding on the content.

However, there were some benefits from the change.

She said that all of the ESMO meetings this year have seen “huge” increases in the number of attendees and the geographical span or reach of each of the conferences.

“So suddenly you also realize that, what is one of the missions of ESMO being to convey education globally ... was probably better reached, better achieved with the virtual format,” she commented.
 

Presidential symposia

Turning to the program, Haanen first picked out the third presidential symposium, which will be held on Monday, September 21. This will focus entirely on upper gastrointestinal tumors in both the adjuvant and metastatic setting.

He said that in recent years, “very little progress has been made” in this area, with treatment mostly consisting of chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy.

However, this year’s presentations will explore the addition of immunotherapy either to chemotherapy or as an adjuvant treatment following completion of standard-of-care treatment for local disease.

Haanen said that the results will be “very interesting ... and may change current practice,” something that “is very important for both doctors and their patients.”

On Saturday, September 19, the first presidential symposium will include two presentations on lung cancer that Haanen said will offer some “exciting new [results] that I am sure will change clinical practice.”

One will be on the CROWN phase 3 trial comparing lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.

The other will present results on central nervous system disease recurrence from the ADAURA phase 3 trial of osimertinib adjuvant therapy in patients with resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

The same session will also see new data in advanced renal cell carcinoma from CheckMate 9ER, in which the c-Met and VEGFR2 inhibitor cabozantinib (Cabometyx) was combined with nivolumab (Opdivo) and compared to sunitinib (Sutent) in untreated patients.

“Last year, there were already some exciting results of the combination of axitinib [Inlyta], either with pembrolizumab [Keytruda] or with avelumab [Bavencio]...in the first-line setting in metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer,” Hannen said.

“Clearly there was a survival advantage over the standard of care, sunitinib,” he added.

This year, not only will efficacy data from CheckMate 9ER be presented but also quality-of-life results.

“That’s very important, because what everybody is afraid of is that, by adding drugs, you always get more impact on the quality of life, but you will see that the quality-of-life results are very exciting,” he said.

The second presidential symposium will feature studies on prostate cancer, notably the phase 3 IPATential150 trial of abiraterone (Zytiga) plus either ipatasertib or placebo in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Ipatasertib targets Akt, and Haanen said that “by adding it to, let’s say, standard-of-care treatment ... the question of course of will be, Does that have a better outcome?”

He believes the results will be a “very nice illustration” that prostate cancer management is heading in the direction of personalized treatment.

Alongside the presidential symposia, there will be a number of proffered paper sessions on the latest results in all aspects of oncology, including results from the ASCENT trial in triple-negative breast cancer, as well as a dedicated COVID-19 track.

Haanen said that the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020, coming after the AACR and ASCO annual meetings, has the “advantage” of being able to present the latest outcomes of patients treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy against the backdrop of the pandemic.

This will include a study from the ESMO Resilience Task Force on the impact of COVID-19 on oncology professionals both in terms of their personal distress and burnout and their job performance.

“I think that is very important,” Haanen said, “especially because the whole thing with COVID-19 is not yet over, and everybody is preparing for a second wave in the fall and winter.

“It may help us give us clues on how we can protect ourselves or each other to prevent burnout or other problems that we as healthcare caregivers face in this difficult period.”
 

Next year

For next year, Peters remains hopeful that the ESMO 2021 meeting will take place as planned in Paris.

She anticipates that, indeed, ESMO meetings will be able to take place from spring next year.

This will depend on a vaccine for COVID-19 becoming widely available, although oncologists in some countries may still not be able to travel.

This means “starting probably with hybrid formats, with some of the faculty being on site and some not, [and] the same thing for the attendees,” Peters said.

She suggested that, for ESMO Congress 2021 to work as an on-site meeting, it will require at least half or two-thirds of the originally anticipated number of attendees.

“I hope that Paris next year will happen,” Peters said, adding that it “will probably happen with less attendees – that’s fine, but [still] with a large number of faculty and attendees.”

The commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The burden of community-acquired pneumonia requiring admission to an intensive care unit in the United States.By Dr. R. Cavallazzi, et al.



Practical considerations for the diagnosis and treatment of fibrotic interstitial lung disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. By Dr. C. J. Ryerson, et al.



Pulmonary hypertension by the method of Paul Wood. By Dr. J. Newman.



Patient vs clinician perspectives on communication about results of lung cancer screening: A Qualitative Study. By Dr. R. Wiener, et al.
 

The Use of Bronchoscopy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST/AABIP Guideline and Expert Panel Report. By Dr. M. Wahidi, et al.

The burden of community-acquired pneumonia requiring admission to an intensive care unit in the United States.By Dr. R. Cavallazzi, et al.



Practical considerations for the diagnosis and treatment of fibrotic interstitial lung disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. By Dr. C. J. Ryerson, et al.



Pulmonary hypertension by the method of Paul Wood. By Dr. J. Newman.



Patient vs clinician perspectives on communication about results of lung cancer screening: A Qualitative Study. By Dr. R. Wiener, et al.
 

The Use of Bronchoscopy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST/AABIP Guideline and Expert Panel Report. By Dr. M. Wahidi, et al.

The burden of community-acquired pneumonia requiring admission to an intensive care unit in the United States.By Dr. R. Cavallazzi, et al.



Practical considerations for the diagnosis and treatment of fibrotic interstitial lung disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. By Dr. C. J. Ryerson, et al.



Pulmonary hypertension by the method of Paul Wood. By Dr. J. Newman.



Patient vs clinician perspectives on communication about results of lung cancer screening: A Qualitative Study. By Dr. R. Wiener, et al.
 

The Use of Bronchoscopy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST/AABIP Guideline and Expert Panel Report. By Dr. M. Wahidi, et al.

Occupational and environmental health

Occupations at risk for COVID-19

As the COVID-19 pandemic has not yet ended, some occupational risks are faced day-to-day. Individuals have been practicing social distancing by working from home in recent months. While this arrangement can be a great way to reduce one’s exposure to COVID-19, it’s a luxury that’s available to just 29% of Americans. The situation for the remaining 71% is uncertain. The individuals on the front lines, whether they’re taking care of patients or stocking grocery shelves, may face a high risk of potential exposure to the virus (Baker et al. PLoS One. 2020; 15[4]:e0232452. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232452).The high risk of the occupations lies in the close contact with people, such as pulmonologists, dentists, and ENT doctors and nurses using tools to lavage during aerosol-generating procedures (She et al. Clin Transl Med. 2020;9(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s40169-020-00271-z). Also, barbers, teachers, beauticians, fitness coaches, stewardesses, kindergarten teachers, chefs, waiters, etc, are required to be in contact with others facing the threat of infection.

Raising awareness of the issues will help avoid occupational transmission of COVID-19. Medical masks, N95 respirators, and hand hygiene are evidenced for high-risk, aerosol or non-aerosol-generating procedures offer protection against viral respiratory infection exposure in the pandemic (She et al. and Bartoszko et al. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020;14(4):365. doi: 10.1111/irv.12745). In addition, using datasets to allow us to assign a more quantitative figure to each occupation’s level of risk to develop a protection strategy is imperative.

Mary Beth Scholand, MD, FCCP – Vice-Chair

Jun She, MD, PhD – Steering Committee Member

Palliative and end-of-life care

Palliative care and critical care mutualism: innovative support during the COVID-19 pandemic

The ICU is the epitome of a complex adaptive system (CAS), a highly organized and structured system that nonetheless is constantly evolving and adapting to changing needs and circumstances (Waldrom. Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. Simon & Schuster, New York. 1992). This has never been more apparent than during the current novel coronavirus pandemic. Previously, medical advances and quality improvement projects were carefully vetted, slowly designed, willingly implemented. Today, health systems and society must take rapid and radical leaps to iterate policies and procedures in real time. Deeply embedding and consulting specialized palliative care teams early and often for hospitalized COVID-19 patients is a best practice strategy that benefits patients, families, and staff, and allows critical care teams to function at the top of their expertise. As one of our critical care physician colleagues noted, “Palliative care needs rise with critical care needs – we must help each other innovate practices.”

Beyond complex symptom management and relief of suffering, palliative care’s foundation is providing support during times of uncertainty and ambiguity. This proficiency is now an imperative. Here are some highly relevant examples of current palliative care initiatives within the ICU:

• Encouraging values assessment and goals of care for alignment of treatment plans.
• Advanced care planning with identification of primary and secondary health-care proxies in the setting of potential concurrent infections within families.
• Facilitating multidisciplinary video family meetings and clinical updates.
• Supporting ICU staff to alleviate moral distress and fatigue.
• Developing and distributing bereavement programs and remembrance rituals.
• Training and education on COVID-specific communication tools.
• Expanding outreach to patients/families through telehealth volunteer programs.

This is an opportunity to strengthen the multidisciplinary model of care in the ICU. It may appear that there is an abyss at the edge of chaos, but palliative care is helping engineer and build enduring bridges to help us all cross safely to the other side (Bilder and Knudsen. Front Psychol. 2014 Sep 30. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01104).

Tara Coles, MD

Hunter Groninger, MD, Vice Chair

Cheryl Hughes, LICSW

Rachel Adams, MD

Respiratory care

Strategies and technology for safer mechanical ventilation

Clinicians often focus on safe practice as “vigilance in the moment” while interacting with patients and the health-care team and rightly so, especially with mechanical ventilation. New strategies for increasing safety include a more pre-emptive, technology-assisted approach. Alarm fatigue/flooding are serious concerns, and the ECRI found less than 15% of clinical alarms studied (including mechanical ventilation) were “clinically relevant” (eg, requiring some form of action) (ECRI Institute 2018; Plymouth Meeting, PA). Most alarms in health care are set to an “average” patient but as with tailored treatment in precision medicine, it is possible to tune alarm parameters to individual characteristics, including using patient trend data.

An excessive amount of alarms in a clinical environment is thought to be the largest contributing factor to alarm-related adverse events with rates sometimes exceeding 900 alarms per day (Graham et al. Am J Crit Care. 2010;19(1):28-34; quiz 35. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2010651). Human response to stimuli suggests response to alarms is closely matched to the perceived reliability of the alarm system. Instead of alarms based upon single physiological variables, the next generation of smart alarms is integrating much more information than previously possible to reduce false alarms and give more useful alerts. Trend data can better guide interpretation and activation of immediate alarm triggers. For example, a composite ventilation alarm could be created from the integration of trends of respiratory frequency, minute volume, oxygen saturation of hemoglobin, and end-tidal CO₂. Fewer nonactionable alarms can result in greater attention when alarms do occur.

Integrated monitoring of patient data trends can also prompt clinicians when a different ventilation mode or setting combination should be considered, especially when indicated by consensus guidelines. The human factor of no-fault, peer audits can improve alarm policy compliance and guide the refinement of alarm policies. Most ventilator manufacturers are developing smart, precise patient monitoring and alarms, and their potential needs to be converted to practice as quickly as possible.

Brian Walsh, PhD, RRT, NetWork Member

Jonathan Waugh, PhD, RRT, Steering Committee Member
 

Sleep medicine

Treatment-emergent central apnea may be a frequent cause of PAP nonadherence

Treatment-emergent central apnea (TECSA) refers to new onset central-disordered breathing events after initiating treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), such as with positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. The nature of the phenomenon is uncertain, but some theorize that in patients with ventilatory instability, CPAP intermittently lowers the partial pressure of PcCO2 below apneic threshold, causing a central apnea event (Gilmartin et al. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2005;11[6]:485).

TECSA develops in 3.5% to 19.8% of patients starting PAP therapy for OSA. Risk factors include high baseline apnea or arousal index, higher CPAP pressure, older age, male sex, low BMI, and presence of heart failure or ischemic heart disease (Moro et al. Nat Sci Sleep. 2016;8:259; Nigam et al. Ann Thorac Med. 2016;11[3]:202). Most cases resolve in weeks to months; however, an estimated 14.3% to 46.2% evolve into treatment persistent central sleep apnea. Up to 4.2% of patients develop delayed TECSA (D-TECSA) or the emergence of central events after at least a month of PAP therapy (Nigam et al. Ann Thorac Med. 2018;13[2]:86).


TESCA can lead to PAP intolerance (discomfort, gasping, fragmented sleep), lower usage of PAP, and increased likelihood of discontinuing PAP therapy in the first 90 days (Liu et al. Chest. 2017;152[4]:751). When a patient presents with initial or delayed PAP intolerance or persistent symptoms, sleep providers should consider TECSA as a potential etiology. The diagnosis may be made by reviewing data from the patient’s PAP device, or by repeat testing. When encountering persistent TECSA, one can consider lowering the PAP pressure, or performing polysomnography with the goal of titrating the patient to an alternative PAP modality, such as bilevel ST or Adapto Servo Ventilation, which can stabilize breathing in patients with compromised ventilatory control (Morgenthaler et al. Sleep. 2014;37[5]:927).

Kara Dupuy-McCauley, MD

Fellow-in-Training Member

Caroline Okorie, MD, MPH

Steering Committee Member
 

Thoracic oncology

Times, they are a-changing: Lung cancer outcomes improve and the time for nihilism is past

The American Cancer Society 2020 Facts and Figures reported the largest single year drop in overall cancer mortality ever: 2.2% from 2016 to 2017. This record decrease was driven by the decline in lung cancer deaths thanks to treatment advances such as immunotherapy and targeted drugs for specific lung cancer mutations, combined with declining smoking rates. Lung cancer 5-year survival rates are 19% now and should continue rising, especially if screening rates increase. Immunotherapy has shown a 5-fold increase in survival for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared with chemotherapy (13.4% vs 2.6%) and half of metastatic NSCLC patients treated with first-line pembrolizumab were alive after 2 years (vs 34% of chemotherapy patients). Targeted therapies (eg, crizotinib) are similarly encouraging with half of stage IV, ALK-positive NSCLC patients diagnosed after 2009 alive 6.8 years later, compared with just 2% of those diagnosed between 1995 and 2001. Pulmonologists have an important role to play in early detection (screening) and identification of candidates for targeted therapy (ordering mutational analysis on diagnostic specimens).

Exciting treatment advances compel us to more aggressively diagnose lung cancer with early detection and offer diagnostic procedures, even for patients presenting with advanced disease. In fact, improving outcomes are opening the door to curative-intent treatment of oligometastatic lung cancer. In addition to improved disease outcomes, most new therapies are much better tolerated by patients than traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy. No longer is the appropriate response to an ugly-looking lung mass to “get your affairs in order.”

Abbie Begnaud, MD

Steering Committee Member

Reading list

Pacheco JM, Gao D, Smith D, et al. Natural history and factors associated with overall survival in stage IV ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(4):691. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2018.12.014.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7. doi: 10.3322/caac.21590.

Silvestri GA, Carpenter MJ. Smoking trends and lung cancer mortality: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(10):721-722. doi: 10.7326/M18-2775.

Stephens SJ, Moravan MJ, Salama JK. Managing patients with oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2018;14(1):23. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2017.026500.

Studies report prolonged long-term survival with immunotherapy vs chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. ASCO Post October 10, 2019.

Occupational and environmental health

Occupations at risk for COVID-19

As the COVID-19 pandemic has not yet ended, some occupational risks are faced day-to-day. Individuals have been practicing social distancing by working from home in recent months. While this arrangement can be a great way to reduce one’s exposure to COVID-19, it’s a luxury that’s available to just 29% of Americans. The situation for the remaining 71% is uncertain. The individuals on the front lines, whether they’re taking care of patients or stocking grocery shelves, may face a high risk of potential exposure to the virus (Baker et al. PLoS One. 2020; 15[4]:e0232452. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232452).The high risk of the occupations lies in the close contact with people, such as pulmonologists, dentists, and ENT doctors and nurses using tools to lavage during aerosol-generating procedures (She et al. Clin Transl Med. 2020;9(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s40169-020-00271-z). Also, barbers, teachers, beauticians, fitness coaches, stewardesses, kindergarten teachers, chefs, waiters, etc, are required to be in contact with others facing the threat of infection.

Raising awareness of the issues will help avoid occupational transmission of COVID-19. Medical masks, N95 respirators, and hand hygiene are evidenced for high-risk, aerosol or non-aerosol-generating procedures offer protection against viral respiratory infection exposure in the pandemic (She et al. and Bartoszko et al. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020;14(4):365. doi: 10.1111/irv.12745). In addition, using datasets to allow us to assign a more quantitative figure to each occupation’s level of risk to develop a protection strategy is imperative.

Mary Beth Scholand, MD, FCCP – Vice-Chair

Jun She, MD, PhD – Steering Committee Member

Palliative and end-of-life care

Palliative care and critical care mutualism: innovative support during the COVID-19 pandemic

The ICU is the epitome of a complex adaptive system (CAS), a highly organized and structured system that nonetheless is constantly evolving and adapting to changing needs and circumstances (Waldrom. Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. Simon & Schuster, New York. 1992). This has never been more apparent than during the current novel coronavirus pandemic. Previously, medical advances and quality improvement projects were carefully vetted, slowly designed, willingly implemented. Today, health systems and society must take rapid and radical leaps to iterate policies and procedures in real time. Deeply embedding and consulting specialized palliative care teams early and often for hospitalized COVID-19 patients is a best practice strategy that benefits patients, families, and staff, and allows critical care teams to function at the top of their expertise. As one of our critical care physician colleagues noted, “Palliative care needs rise with critical care needs – we must help each other innovate practices.”

Beyond complex symptom management and relief of suffering, palliative care’s foundation is providing support during times of uncertainty and ambiguity. This proficiency is now an imperative. Here are some highly relevant examples of current palliative care initiatives within the ICU:

• Encouraging values assessment and goals of care for alignment of treatment plans.
• Advanced care planning with identification of primary and secondary health-care proxies in the setting of potential concurrent infections within families.
• Facilitating multidisciplinary video family meetings and clinical updates.
• Supporting ICU staff to alleviate moral distress and fatigue.
• Developing and distributing bereavement programs and remembrance rituals.
• Training and education on COVID-specific communication tools.
• Expanding outreach to patients/families through telehealth volunteer programs.

This is an opportunity to strengthen the multidisciplinary model of care in the ICU. It may appear that there is an abyss at the edge of chaos, but palliative care is helping engineer and build enduring bridges to help us all cross safely to the other side (Bilder and Knudsen. Front Psychol. 2014 Sep 30. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01104).

Tara Coles, MD

Hunter Groninger, MD, Vice Chair

Cheryl Hughes, LICSW

Rachel Adams, MD

Respiratory care

Strategies and technology for safer mechanical ventilation

Clinicians often focus on safe practice as “vigilance in the moment” while interacting with patients and the health-care team and rightly so, especially with mechanical ventilation. New strategies for increasing safety include a more pre-emptive, technology-assisted approach. Alarm fatigue/flooding are serious concerns, and the ECRI found less than 15% of clinical alarms studied (including mechanical ventilation) were “clinically relevant” (eg, requiring some form of action) (ECRI Institute 2018; Plymouth Meeting, PA). Most alarms in health care are set to an “average” patient but as with tailored treatment in precision medicine, it is possible to tune alarm parameters to individual characteristics, including using patient trend data.

An excessive amount of alarms in a clinical environment is thought to be the largest contributing factor to alarm-related adverse events with rates sometimes exceeding 900 alarms per day (Graham et al. Am J Crit Care. 2010;19(1):28-34; quiz 35. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2010651). Human response to stimuli suggests response to alarms is closely matched to the perceived reliability of the alarm system. Instead of alarms based upon single physiological variables, the next generation of smart alarms is integrating much more information than previously possible to reduce false alarms and give more useful alerts. Trend data can better guide interpretation and activation of immediate alarm triggers. For example, a composite ventilation alarm could be created from the integration of trends of respiratory frequency, minute volume, oxygen saturation of hemoglobin, and end-tidal CO₂. Fewer nonactionable alarms can result in greater attention when alarms do occur.

Integrated monitoring of patient data trends can also prompt clinicians when a different ventilation mode or setting combination should be considered, especially when indicated by consensus guidelines. The human factor of no-fault, peer audits can improve alarm policy compliance and guide the refinement of alarm policies. Most ventilator manufacturers are developing smart, precise patient monitoring and alarms, and their potential needs to be converted to practice as quickly as possible.

Brian Walsh, PhD, RRT, NetWork Member

Jonathan Waugh, PhD, RRT, Steering Committee Member
 

Sleep medicine

Treatment-emergent central apnea may be a frequent cause of PAP nonadherence

Treatment-emergent central apnea (TECSA) refers to new onset central-disordered breathing events after initiating treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), such as with positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. The nature of the phenomenon is uncertain, but some theorize that in patients with ventilatory instability, CPAP intermittently lowers the partial pressure of PcCO2 below apneic threshold, causing a central apnea event (Gilmartin et al. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2005;11[6]:485).

TECSA develops in 3.5% to 19.8% of patients starting PAP therapy for OSA. Risk factors include high baseline apnea or arousal index, higher CPAP pressure, older age, male sex, low BMI, and presence of heart failure or ischemic heart disease (Moro et al. Nat Sci Sleep. 2016;8:259; Nigam et al. Ann Thorac Med. 2016;11[3]:202). Most cases resolve in weeks to months; however, an estimated 14.3% to 46.2% evolve into treatment persistent central sleep apnea. Up to 4.2% of patients develop delayed TECSA (D-TECSA) or the emergence of central events after at least a month of PAP therapy (Nigam et al. Ann Thorac Med. 2018;13[2]:86).


TESCA can lead to PAP intolerance (discomfort, gasping, fragmented sleep), lower usage of PAP, and increased likelihood of discontinuing PAP therapy in the first 90 days (Liu et al. Chest. 2017;152[4]:751). When a patient presents with initial or delayed PAP intolerance or persistent symptoms, sleep providers should consider TECSA as a potential etiology. The diagnosis may be made by reviewing data from the patient’s PAP device, or by repeat testing. When encountering persistent TECSA, one can consider lowering the PAP pressure, or performing polysomnography with the goal of titrating the patient to an alternative PAP modality, such as bilevel ST or Adapto Servo Ventilation, which can stabilize breathing in patients with compromised ventilatory control (Morgenthaler et al. Sleep. 2014;37[5]:927).

Kara Dupuy-McCauley, MD

Fellow-in-Training Member

Caroline Okorie, MD, MPH

Steering Committee Member
 

Thoracic oncology

Times, they are a-changing: Lung cancer outcomes improve and the time for nihilism is past

The American Cancer Society 2020 Facts and Figures reported the largest single year drop in overall cancer mortality ever: 2.2% from 2016 to 2017. This record decrease was driven by the decline in lung cancer deaths thanks to treatment advances such as immunotherapy and targeted drugs for specific lung cancer mutations, combined with declining smoking rates. Lung cancer 5-year survival rates are 19% now and should continue rising, especially if screening rates increase. Immunotherapy has shown a 5-fold increase in survival for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared with chemotherapy (13.4% vs 2.6%) and half of metastatic NSCLC patients treated with first-line pembrolizumab were alive after 2 years (vs 34% of chemotherapy patients). Targeted therapies (eg, crizotinib) are similarly encouraging with half of stage IV, ALK-positive NSCLC patients diagnosed after 2009 alive 6.8 years later, compared with just 2% of those diagnosed between 1995 and 2001. Pulmonologists have an important role to play in early detection (screening) and identification of candidates for targeted therapy (ordering mutational analysis on diagnostic specimens).

Exciting treatment advances compel us to more aggressively diagnose lung cancer with early detection and offer diagnostic procedures, even for patients presenting with advanced disease. In fact, improving outcomes are opening the door to curative-intent treatment of oligometastatic lung cancer. In addition to improved disease outcomes, most new therapies are much better tolerated by patients than traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy. No longer is the appropriate response to an ugly-looking lung mass to “get your affairs in order.”

Abbie Begnaud, MD

Steering Committee Member

Reading list

Pacheco JM, Gao D, Smith D, et al. Natural history and factors associated with overall survival in stage IV ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(4):691. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2018.12.014.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7. doi: 10.3322/caac.21590.

Silvestri GA, Carpenter MJ. Smoking trends and lung cancer mortality: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(10):721-722. doi: 10.7326/M18-2775.

Stephens SJ, Moravan MJ, Salama JK. Managing patients with oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2018;14(1):23. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2017.026500.

Studies report prolonged long-term survival with immunotherapy vs chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. ASCO Post October 10, 2019.

Occupational and environmental health

Occupations at risk for COVID-19

As the COVID-19 pandemic has not yet ended, some occupational risks are faced day-to-day. Individuals have been practicing social distancing by working from home in recent months. While this arrangement can be a great way to reduce one’s exposure to COVID-19, it’s a luxury that’s available to just 29% of Americans. The situation for the remaining 71% is uncertain. The individuals on the front lines, whether they’re taking care of patients or stocking grocery shelves, may face a high risk of potential exposure to the virus (Baker et al. PLoS One. 2020; 15[4]:e0232452. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232452).The high risk of the occupations lies in the close contact with people, such as pulmonologists, dentists, and ENT doctors and nurses using tools to lavage during aerosol-generating procedures (She et al. Clin Transl Med. 2020;9(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s40169-020-00271-z). Also, barbers, teachers, beauticians, fitness coaches, stewardesses, kindergarten teachers, chefs, waiters, etc, are required to be in contact with others facing the threat of infection.

Raising awareness of the issues will help avoid occupational transmission of COVID-19. Medical masks, N95 respirators, and hand hygiene are evidenced for high-risk, aerosol or non-aerosol-generating procedures offer protection against viral respiratory infection exposure in the pandemic (She et al. and Bartoszko et al. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020;14(4):365. doi: 10.1111/irv.12745). In addition, using datasets to allow us to assign a more quantitative figure to each occupation’s level of risk to develop a protection strategy is imperative.

Mary Beth Scholand, MD, FCCP – Vice-Chair

Jun She, MD, PhD – Steering Committee Member

Palliative and end-of-life care

Palliative care and critical care mutualism: innovative support during the COVID-19 pandemic

The ICU is the epitome of a complex adaptive system (CAS), a highly organized and structured system that nonetheless is constantly evolving and adapting to changing needs and circumstances (Waldrom. Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. Simon & Schuster, New York. 1992). This has never been more apparent than during the current novel coronavirus pandemic. Previously, medical advances and quality improvement projects were carefully vetted, slowly designed, willingly implemented. Today, health systems and society must take rapid and radical leaps to iterate policies and procedures in real time. Deeply embedding and consulting specialized palliative care teams early and often for hospitalized COVID-19 patients is a best practice strategy that benefits patients, families, and staff, and allows critical care teams to function at the top of their expertise. As one of our critical care physician colleagues noted, “Palliative care needs rise with critical care needs – we must help each other innovate practices.”

Beyond complex symptom management and relief of suffering, palliative care’s foundation is providing support during times of uncertainty and ambiguity. This proficiency is now an imperative. Here are some highly relevant examples of current palliative care initiatives within the ICU:

• Encouraging values assessment and goals of care for alignment of treatment plans.
• Advanced care planning with identification of primary and secondary health-care proxies in the setting of potential concurrent infections within families.
• Facilitating multidisciplinary video family meetings and clinical updates.
• Supporting ICU staff to alleviate moral distress and fatigue.
• Developing and distributing bereavement programs and remembrance rituals.
• Training and education on COVID-specific communication tools.
• Expanding outreach to patients/families through telehealth volunteer programs.

This is an opportunity to strengthen the multidisciplinary model of care in the ICU. It may appear that there is an abyss at the edge of chaos, but palliative care is helping engineer and build enduring bridges to help us all cross safely to the other side (Bilder and Knudsen. Front Psychol. 2014 Sep 30. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01104).

Tara Coles, MD

Hunter Groninger, MD, Vice Chair

Cheryl Hughes, LICSW

Rachel Adams, MD

Respiratory care

Strategies and technology for safer mechanical ventilation

Clinicians often focus on safe practice as “vigilance in the moment” while interacting with patients and the health-care team and rightly so, especially with mechanical ventilation. New strategies for increasing safety include a more pre-emptive, technology-assisted approach. Alarm fatigue/flooding are serious concerns, and the ECRI found less than 15% of clinical alarms studied (including mechanical ventilation) were “clinically relevant” (eg, requiring some form of action) (ECRI Institute 2018; Plymouth Meeting, PA). Most alarms in health care are set to an “average” patient but as with tailored treatment in precision medicine, it is possible to tune alarm parameters to individual characteristics, including using patient trend data.

An excessive amount of alarms in a clinical environment is thought to be the largest contributing factor to alarm-related adverse events with rates sometimes exceeding 900 alarms per day (Graham et al. Am J Crit Care. 2010;19(1):28-34; quiz 35. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2010651). Human response to stimuli suggests response to alarms is closely matched to the perceived reliability of the alarm system. Instead of alarms based upon single physiological variables, the next generation of smart alarms is integrating much more information than previously possible to reduce false alarms and give more useful alerts. Trend data can better guide interpretation and activation of immediate alarm triggers. For example, a composite ventilation alarm could be created from the integration of trends of respiratory frequency, minute volume, oxygen saturation of hemoglobin, and end-tidal CO₂. Fewer nonactionable alarms can result in greater attention when alarms do occur.

Integrated monitoring of patient data trends can also prompt clinicians when a different ventilation mode or setting combination should be considered, especially when indicated by consensus guidelines. The human factor of no-fault, peer audits can improve alarm policy compliance and guide the refinement of alarm policies. Most ventilator manufacturers are developing smart, precise patient monitoring and alarms, and their potential needs to be converted to practice as quickly as possible.

Brian Walsh, PhD, RRT, NetWork Member

Jonathan Waugh, PhD, RRT, Steering Committee Member
 

Sleep medicine

Treatment-emergent central apnea may be a frequent cause of PAP nonadherence

Treatment-emergent central apnea (TECSA) refers to new onset central-disordered breathing events after initiating treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), such as with positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. The nature of the phenomenon is uncertain, but some theorize that in patients with ventilatory instability, CPAP intermittently lowers the partial pressure of PcCO2 below apneic threshold, causing a central apnea event (Gilmartin et al. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2005;11[6]:485).

TECSA develops in 3.5% to 19.8% of patients starting PAP therapy for OSA. Risk factors include high baseline apnea or arousal index, higher CPAP pressure, older age, male sex, low BMI, and presence of heart failure or ischemic heart disease (Moro et al. Nat Sci Sleep. 2016;8:259; Nigam et al. Ann Thorac Med. 2016;11[3]:202). Most cases resolve in weeks to months; however, an estimated 14.3% to 46.2% evolve into treatment persistent central sleep apnea. Up to 4.2% of patients develop delayed TECSA (D-TECSA) or the emergence of central events after at least a month of PAP therapy (Nigam et al. Ann Thorac Med. 2018;13[2]:86).


TESCA can lead to PAP intolerance (discomfort, gasping, fragmented sleep), lower usage of PAP, and increased likelihood of discontinuing PAP therapy in the first 90 days (Liu et al. Chest. 2017;152[4]:751). When a patient presents with initial or delayed PAP intolerance or persistent symptoms, sleep providers should consider TECSA as a potential etiology. The diagnosis may be made by reviewing data from the patient’s PAP device, or by repeat testing. When encountering persistent TECSA, one can consider lowering the PAP pressure, or performing polysomnography with the goal of titrating the patient to an alternative PAP modality, such as bilevel ST or Adapto Servo Ventilation, which can stabilize breathing in patients with compromised ventilatory control (Morgenthaler et al. Sleep. 2014;37[5]:927).

Kara Dupuy-McCauley, MD

Fellow-in-Training Member

Caroline Okorie, MD, MPH

Steering Committee Member
 

Thoracic oncology

Times, they are a-changing: Lung cancer outcomes improve and the time for nihilism is past

The American Cancer Society 2020 Facts and Figures reported the largest single year drop in overall cancer mortality ever: 2.2% from 2016 to 2017. This record decrease was driven by the decline in lung cancer deaths thanks to treatment advances such as immunotherapy and targeted drugs for specific lung cancer mutations, combined with declining smoking rates. Lung cancer 5-year survival rates are 19% now and should continue rising, especially if screening rates increase. Immunotherapy has shown a 5-fold increase in survival for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared with chemotherapy (13.4% vs 2.6%) and half of metastatic NSCLC patients treated with first-line pembrolizumab were alive after 2 years (vs 34% of chemotherapy patients). Targeted therapies (eg, crizotinib) are similarly encouraging with half of stage IV, ALK-positive NSCLC patients diagnosed after 2009 alive 6.8 years later, compared with just 2% of those diagnosed between 1995 and 2001. Pulmonologists have an important role to play in early detection (screening) and identification of candidates for targeted therapy (ordering mutational analysis on diagnostic specimens).

Exciting treatment advances compel us to more aggressively diagnose lung cancer with early detection and offer diagnostic procedures, even for patients presenting with advanced disease. In fact, improving outcomes are opening the door to curative-intent treatment of oligometastatic lung cancer. In addition to improved disease outcomes, most new therapies are much better tolerated by patients than traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy. No longer is the appropriate response to an ugly-looking lung mass to “get your affairs in order.”

Abbie Begnaud, MD

Steering Committee Member

Reading list

Pacheco JM, Gao D, Smith D, et al. Natural history and factors associated with overall survival in stage IV ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(4):691. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2018.12.014.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7. doi: 10.3322/caac.21590.

Silvestri GA, Carpenter MJ. Smoking trends and lung cancer mortality: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(10):721-722. doi: 10.7326/M18-2775.

Stephens SJ, Moravan MJ, Salama JK. Managing patients with oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2018;14(1):23. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2017.026500.

Studies report prolonged long-term survival with immunotherapy vs chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. ASCO Post October 10, 2019.

Greetings,

As the Program Chair of CHEST Annual Meeting 2020, I’m excited to finally share the good news with all of you – our premiere educational event, CHEST 2020, will be taking place October 18-21! As you might have guessed, we’re migrating the meeting onto a virtual platform - not only will this change ensure your safety, it will enable so many more of you to attend. Colleagues who may have been excluded due to geographical restrictions in the past will now have the opportunity to experience all that we have to offer!

As always, we’ll be bringing you the latest, most relevant clinical topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. From COVID-19 to cultural diversity, we’ve carefully curated sessions to explore the issues that you want to learn about. Not to mention, our speakers are all experts in their field – at the forefront of the pandemic – and will bring a level of knowledge and insight to the meeting that is truly unparalleled. Afterall, that’s what our annual meeting is known for. Regardless of where or how it is taking place, it’s still “the very best of CHEST.”

Other highlights will include over 88 live sessions, including panel and case-based discussions, original investigation presentations with new, unpublished research, and CHEST Games.

Of course, we will have several networking opportunities where you will be able to connect with so many more of your colleagues because of the virtual nature of the meeting. While you may be sitting worlds apart, you’ll be socializing in an intimate online space.

While this isn’t exactly what we imagined for our meeting, it’s what we had to reimagine. Sometimes being pushed out of your comfort zone can lead to something extraordinary, and, in this instance, we think it did.

In closing, I’d like to acknowledge how challenging these past several months have been. For all the long hours, the time spent away from family, and the stress that continues to pile on – this is your chance to unplug and unwind.

We all need an event to look forward to right now, and at CHEST, we’ve worked hard to bring you one. I hope you’ll visit chestmeeting.chestnet.org to register for CHEST 2020.

Best,

Victor Test, MD, FCCP

Greetings,

As the Program Chair of CHEST Annual Meeting 2020, I’m excited to finally share the good news with all of you – our premiere educational event, CHEST 2020, will be taking place October 18-21! As you might have guessed, we’re migrating the meeting onto a virtual platform - not only will this change ensure your safety, it will enable so many more of you to attend. Colleagues who may have been excluded due to geographical restrictions in the past will now have the opportunity to experience all that we have to offer!

As always, we’ll be bringing you the latest, most relevant clinical topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. From COVID-19 to cultural diversity, we’ve carefully curated sessions to explore the issues that you want to learn about. Not to mention, our speakers are all experts in their field – at the forefront of the pandemic – and will bring a level of knowledge and insight to the meeting that is truly unparalleled. Afterall, that’s what our annual meeting is known for. Regardless of where or how it is taking place, it’s still “the very best of CHEST.”

Other highlights will include over 88 live sessions, including panel and case-based discussions, original investigation presentations with new, unpublished research, and CHEST Games.

Of course, we will have several networking opportunities where you will be able to connect with so many more of your colleagues because of the virtual nature of the meeting. While you may be sitting worlds apart, you’ll be socializing in an intimate online space.

While this isn’t exactly what we imagined for our meeting, it’s what we had to reimagine. Sometimes being pushed out of your comfort zone can lead to something extraordinary, and, in this instance, we think it did.

In closing, I’d like to acknowledge how challenging these past several months have been. For all the long hours, the time spent away from family, and the stress that continues to pile on – this is your chance to unplug and unwind.

We all need an event to look forward to right now, and at CHEST, we’ve worked hard to bring you one. I hope you’ll visit chestmeeting.chestnet.org to register for CHEST 2020.

Best,

Victor Test, MD, FCCP

Greetings,

As the Program Chair of CHEST Annual Meeting 2020, I’m excited to finally share the good news with all of you – our premiere educational event, CHEST 2020, will be taking place October 18-21! As you might have guessed, we’re migrating the meeting onto a virtual platform - not only will this change ensure your safety, it will enable so many more of you to attend. Colleagues who may have been excluded due to geographical restrictions in the past will now have the opportunity to experience all that we have to offer!

As always, we’ll be bringing you the latest, most relevant clinical topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. From COVID-19 to cultural diversity, we’ve carefully curated sessions to explore the issues that you want to learn about. Not to mention, our speakers are all experts in their field – at the forefront of the pandemic – and will bring a level of knowledge and insight to the meeting that is truly unparalleled. Afterall, that’s what our annual meeting is known for. Regardless of where or how it is taking place, it’s still “the very best of CHEST.”

Other highlights will include over 88 live sessions, including panel and case-based discussions, original investigation presentations with new, unpublished research, and CHEST Games.

Of course, we will have several networking opportunities where you will be able to connect with so many more of your colleagues because of the virtual nature of the meeting. While you may be sitting worlds apart, you’ll be socializing in an intimate online space.

While this isn’t exactly what we imagined for our meeting, it’s what we had to reimagine. Sometimes being pushed out of your comfort zone can lead to something extraordinary, and, in this instance, we think it did.

In closing, I’d like to acknowledge how challenging these past several months have been. For all the long hours, the time spent away from family, and the stress that continues to pile on – this is your chance to unplug and unwind.

We all need an event to look forward to right now, and at CHEST, we’ve worked hard to bring you one. I hope you’ll visit chestmeeting.chestnet.org to register for CHEST 2020.

Best,

Victor Test, MD, FCCP

As the NetWorks Challenge draws to a close, CHEST Foundation staff want to thank every member who donated to support this year’s drive for our COVID-19 Community Grants. When the fund was established in April, we started with a pool of $60,000 to award to patient support groups and small community organizations providing resources and interventions for those most vulnerable to develop severe complications from COVID-19 – American’s living with chronic lung disease. Within 2 months, we’d awarded all available funds to 25 organizations and had several others still seeking funding. The lion’s share of these groups were providing direct service to medically fragile and isolated patients – purchasing PPE, cleaning supplies, pulse oximeters, and even groceries to patients who otherwise wouldn’t have access to these critical supplies.

Because of YOUR support of the NetWorks Challenge, we are proud to share that we are providing an additional $43,850 in support of COVID-19 Community Grants. Because of you – we can continue to provide vital funding to support group members who lives’ you’ve changed forever.

“Receiving the CHEST Foundation grant for COVID-19 support was a real boost to all of our spirits. Our staff have been working tirelessly to care for our residents 24/7, and there have been some trying and exhausting moments. When we received the community-based grant, it reminded us that there are still people in our community cheering us on, and it’s an acknowledgment that our clients matter just as much to the community as they do to us, personally.” –– Katherine A. Brown, St. Coletta’s of Illinois

As the NetWorks Challenge draws to a close, CHEST Foundation staff want to thank every member who donated to support this year’s drive for our COVID-19 Community Grants. When the fund was established in April, we started with a pool of $60,000 to award to patient support groups and small community organizations providing resources and interventions for those most vulnerable to develop severe complications from COVID-19 – American’s living with chronic lung disease. Within 2 months, we’d awarded all available funds to 25 organizations and had several others still seeking funding. The lion’s share of these groups were providing direct service to medically fragile and isolated patients – purchasing PPE, cleaning supplies, pulse oximeters, and even groceries to patients who otherwise wouldn’t have access to these critical supplies.

Because of YOUR support of the NetWorks Challenge, we are proud to share that we are providing an additional $43,850 in support of COVID-19 Community Grants. Because of you – we can continue to provide vital funding to support group members who lives’ you’ve changed forever.

“Receiving the CHEST Foundation grant for COVID-19 support was a real boost to all of our spirits. Our staff have been working tirelessly to care for our residents 24/7, and there have been some trying and exhausting moments. When we received the community-based grant, it reminded us that there are still people in our community cheering us on, and it’s an acknowledgment that our clients matter just as much to the community as they do to us, personally.” –– Katherine A. Brown, St. Coletta’s of Illinois

As the NetWorks Challenge draws to a close, CHEST Foundation staff want to thank every member who donated to support this year’s drive for our COVID-19 Community Grants. When the fund was established in April, we started with a pool of $60,000 to award to patient support groups and small community organizations providing resources and interventions for those most vulnerable to develop severe complications from COVID-19 – American’s living with chronic lung disease. Within 2 months, we’d awarded all available funds to 25 organizations and had several others still seeking funding. The lion’s share of these groups were providing direct service to medically fragile and isolated patients – purchasing PPE, cleaning supplies, pulse oximeters, and even groceries to patients who otherwise wouldn’t have access to these critical supplies.

Because of YOUR support of the NetWorks Challenge, we are proud to share that we are providing an additional $43,850 in support of COVID-19 Community Grants. Because of you – we can continue to provide vital funding to support group members who lives’ you’ve changed forever.

“Receiving the CHEST Foundation grant for COVID-19 support was a real boost to all of our spirits. Our staff have been working tirelessly to care for our residents 24/7, and there have been some trying and exhausting moments. When we received the community-based grant, it reminded us that there are still people in our community cheering us on, and it’s an acknowledgment that our clients matter just as much to the community as they do to us, personally.” –– Katherine A. Brown, St. Coletta’s of Illinois

For the first time, researchers detected active and prolonged infection of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the gastrointestinal (GI) tracts of people with confirmed COVID-19. Stool tests were positive among people with no GI symptoms, and in some cases up to 6 days after nasopharyngeal swabs yielded negative results.

The small pilot study suggests a quiescent but active infection in the gut. Stool testing revealed genomic evidence of active infection in 7 of the 15 participants tested in one of two hospitals in Hong Kong.

“We found active and prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection in the stool of patients with COVID-19, even after recovery, suggesting that coronavirus could remain in the gut of asymptomatic carriers,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“Due to the potential threat of fecal-oral transmission, it is important to maintain long-term coronavirus and health surveillance,” said Ng, Associate Director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK).

“Discharged patients and their caretakers should remain vigilant and observe strict personal and toileting hygiene,” she added.

The prospective, observational study was published online July 20 in Gut.
 

Ramping up COVID-19 testing

As a follow-up to these and other findings – including the testing of more than 2,000 stool samples in children and the needy arriving at Hong Kong airports starting March 29 – the same investigators are establishing a CUHK Coronavirus Testing Center.

As of Aug. 31, the detection rate in tested children was 0.28%. The Center plans to offer as many as 2,000 COVID-19 tests daily going forward to help identify asymptomatic carriers, the investigators announced in a Sept. 7 news release.

In contrast to nasopharyngeal sampling, stool specimens are “more convenient, safe and non-invasive to collect in the pediatric population,” professor Paul Chan, chairman of the Department of Microbiology, CU Medicine, said in the release. “This makes the stool test a better option for COVID-19 screening in babies, young children and those whose respiratory samples are difficult to collect.”

Even though previous researchers identified SARS-CoV-2 in the stool, the activity and infectivity of the virus in the gastrointestinal tract during and after COVID-19 respiratory positivity remained largely unknown.
 

Active infection detected in stool

This prospective study involved 15 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April. Participants were a median 55 years old (range, 22-71 years) and all presented with respiratory symptoms. Only one patient had concurrent GI symptoms at admission. Median length of stay was 21 days.

Investigators collected fecal samples serially until discharge. They extracted viral DNA to test for transcriptional genetic evidence of active infection, which they detected in 7 of 15 patients. The patient with GI symptoms was not in this positive group.

The findings suggest a “quiescent but active GI infection,” the researchers note.

Three of the seven patients continued to test positive for active infection in their stool up to 6 days after respiratory clearance of SARS-CoV-2.
 

Microbiome matters

The investigators also extracted, amplified, and sequenced DNA from the stool samples. Their “metagenomic” profile revealed the type and amounts of bacterial strains in each patient’s gut microbiome.

Interestingly, bacterial strains differed between people with high SARS-CoV-2 infectivity versus participants with low to no evidence of active infection.

“Stool with high viral activity had higher abundance of pathogenic bacteria,” Ng said. In contrast, people with low or no infectivity had more beneficial bacterial strains, including bacteria that play critical roles in boosting host immunity.

Each patient’s microbiome composition changed during the course of the study. Whether the microbiome alters the course of COVID-19 or COVID-19 alters the composition of the microbiome requires further study, the authors note.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and officials in other countries have contacted the Hong Kong investigators for more details on their stool testing strategy, professor Francis K.L. Chan, dean of the faculty of medicine and director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at CUHK, stated in the news release.

Further research into revealing the infectivity and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in the GI tract is warranted. The value of modulating the human gut microbiome in this patient population could be worthwhile to investigate as well, the researchers said.
 

Novel finding

“Some of it is not-so-new news and some is new,” David A. Johnson, MD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

For example, previous researchers have detected SARS-CoV-2 virus in the stool. However, this study takes it a step further and shows that the virus present in stool can remain infectious on the basis of metagenomic signatures.

Furthermore, the virus can remain infectious in the gut even after a patient tests negative for COVID-19 through nasopharyngeal sampling – in this report up to 6 days later, said Johnson, professor of medicine, chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va.

The study carries important implications for people who currently test negative following active COVID-19 infection, he added. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria clear a person as negative after two nasopharyngeal swabs at least 24 hours apart.

People in this category could believe they are no longer infectious and might return to a setting where they could infect others, Johnson said.

One potential means for spreading SARS-CoV-2 from the gut is from a toilet plume, as Johnson previously highlighted in a video report for Medscape Medical News.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Johnson serves as an adviser to WebMD/Medscape.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, researchers detected active and prolonged infection of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the gastrointestinal (GI) tracts of people with confirmed COVID-19. Stool tests were positive among people with no GI symptoms, and in some cases up to 6 days after nasopharyngeal swabs yielded negative results.

The small pilot study suggests a quiescent but active infection in the gut. Stool testing revealed genomic evidence of active infection in 7 of the 15 participants tested in one of two hospitals in Hong Kong.

“We found active and prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection in the stool of patients with COVID-19, even after recovery, suggesting that coronavirus could remain in the gut of asymptomatic carriers,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“Due to the potential threat of fecal-oral transmission, it is important to maintain long-term coronavirus and health surveillance,” said Ng, Associate Director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK).

“Discharged patients and their caretakers should remain vigilant and observe strict personal and toileting hygiene,” she added.

The prospective, observational study was published online July 20 in Gut.
 

Ramping up COVID-19 testing

As a follow-up to these and other findings – including the testing of more than 2,000 stool samples in children and the needy arriving at Hong Kong airports starting March 29 – the same investigators are establishing a CUHK Coronavirus Testing Center.

As of Aug. 31, the detection rate in tested children was 0.28%. The Center plans to offer as many as 2,000 COVID-19 tests daily going forward to help identify asymptomatic carriers, the investigators announced in a Sept. 7 news release.

In contrast to nasopharyngeal sampling, stool specimens are “more convenient, safe and non-invasive to collect in the pediatric population,” professor Paul Chan, chairman of the Department of Microbiology, CU Medicine, said in the release. “This makes the stool test a better option for COVID-19 screening in babies, young children and those whose respiratory samples are difficult to collect.”

Even though previous researchers identified SARS-CoV-2 in the stool, the activity and infectivity of the virus in the gastrointestinal tract during and after COVID-19 respiratory positivity remained largely unknown.
 

Active infection detected in stool

This prospective study involved 15 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April. Participants were a median 55 years old (range, 22-71 years) and all presented with respiratory symptoms. Only one patient had concurrent GI symptoms at admission. Median length of stay was 21 days.

Investigators collected fecal samples serially until discharge. They extracted viral DNA to test for transcriptional genetic evidence of active infection, which they detected in 7 of 15 patients. The patient with GI symptoms was not in this positive group.

The findings suggest a “quiescent but active GI infection,” the researchers note.

Three of the seven patients continued to test positive for active infection in their stool up to 6 days after respiratory clearance of SARS-CoV-2.
 

Microbiome matters

The investigators also extracted, amplified, and sequenced DNA from the stool samples. Their “metagenomic” profile revealed the type and amounts of bacterial strains in each patient’s gut microbiome.

Interestingly, bacterial strains differed between people with high SARS-CoV-2 infectivity versus participants with low to no evidence of active infection.

“Stool with high viral activity had higher abundance of pathogenic bacteria,” Ng said. In contrast, people with low or no infectivity had more beneficial bacterial strains, including bacteria that play critical roles in boosting host immunity.

Each patient’s microbiome composition changed during the course of the study. Whether the microbiome alters the course of COVID-19 or COVID-19 alters the composition of the microbiome requires further study, the authors note.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and officials in other countries have contacted the Hong Kong investigators for more details on their stool testing strategy, professor Francis K.L. Chan, dean of the faculty of medicine and director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at CUHK, stated in the news release.

Further research into revealing the infectivity and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in the GI tract is warranted. The value of modulating the human gut microbiome in this patient population could be worthwhile to investigate as well, the researchers said.
 

Novel finding

“Some of it is not-so-new news and some is new,” David A. Johnson, MD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

For example, previous researchers have detected SARS-CoV-2 virus in the stool. However, this study takes it a step further and shows that the virus present in stool can remain infectious on the basis of metagenomic signatures.

Furthermore, the virus can remain infectious in the gut even after a patient tests negative for COVID-19 through nasopharyngeal sampling – in this report up to 6 days later, said Johnson, professor of medicine, chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va.

The study carries important implications for people who currently test negative following active COVID-19 infection, he added. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria clear a person as negative after two nasopharyngeal swabs at least 24 hours apart.

People in this category could believe they are no longer infectious and might return to a setting where they could infect others, Johnson said.

One potential means for spreading SARS-CoV-2 from the gut is from a toilet plume, as Johnson previously highlighted in a video report for Medscape Medical News.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Johnson serves as an adviser to WebMD/Medscape.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, researchers detected active and prolonged infection of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the gastrointestinal (GI) tracts of people with confirmed COVID-19. Stool tests were positive among people with no GI symptoms, and in some cases up to 6 days after nasopharyngeal swabs yielded negative results.

The small pilot study suggests a quiescent but active infection in the gut. Stool testing revealed genomic evidence of active infection in 7 of the 15 participants tested in one of two hospitals in Hong Kong.

“We found active and prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection in the stool of patients with COVID-19, even after recovery, suggesting that coronavirus could remain in the gut of asymptomatic carriers,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“Due to the potential threat of fecal-oral transmission, it is important to maintain long-term coronavirus and health surveillance,” said Ng, Associate Director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK).

“Discharged patients and their caretakers should remain vigilant and observe strict personal and toileting hygiene,” she added.

The prospective, observational study was published online July 20 in Gut.
 

Ramping up COVID-19 testing

As a follow-up to these and other findings – including the testing of more than 2,000 stool samples in children and the needy arriving at Hong Kong airports starting March 29 – the same investigators are establishing a CUHK Coronavirus Testing Center.

As of Aug. 31, the detection rate in tested children was 0.28%. The Center plans to offer as many as 2,000 COVID-19 tests daily going forward to help identify asymptomatic carriers, the investigators announced in a Sept. 7 news release.

In contrast to nasopharyngeal sampling, stool specimens are “more convenient, safe and non-invasive to collect in the pediatric population,” professor Paul Chan, chairman of the Department of Microbiology, CU Medicine, said in the release. “This makes the stool test a better option for COVID-19 screening in babies, young children and those whose respiratory samples are difficult to collect.”

Even though previous researchers identified SARS-CoV-2 in the stool, the activity and infectivity of the virus in the gastrointestinal tract during and after COVID-19 respiratory positivity remained largely unknown.
 

Active infection detected in stool

This prospective study involved 15 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April. Participants were a median 55 years old (range, 22-71 years) and all presented with respiratory symptoms. Only one patient had concurrent GI symptoms at admission. Median length of stay was 21 days.

Investigators collected fecal samples serially until discharge. They extracted viral DNA to test for transcriptional genetic evidence of active infection, which they detected in 7 of 15 patients. The patient with GI symptoms was not in this positive group.

The findings suggest a “quiescent but active GI infection,” the researchers note.

Three of the seven patients continued to test positive for active infection in their stool up to 6 days after respiratory clearance of SARS-CoV-2.
 

Microbiome matters

The investigators also extracted, amplified, and sequenced DNA from the stool samples. Their “metagenomic” profile revealed the type and amounts of bacterial strains in each patient’s gut microbiome.

Interestingly, bacterial strains differed between people with high SARS-CoV-2 infectivity versus participants with low to no evidence of active infection.

“Stool with high viral activity had higher abundance of pathogenic bacteria,” Ng said. In contrast, people with low or no infectivity had more beneficial bacterial strains, including bacteria that play critical roles in boosting host immunity.

Each patient’s microbiome composition changed during the course of the study. Whether the microbiome alters the course of COVID-19 or COVID-19 alters the composition of the microbiome requires further study, the authors note.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and officials in other countries have contacted the Hong Kong investigators for more details on their stool testing strategy, professor Francis K.L. Chan, dean of the faculty of medicine and director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at CUHK, stated in the news release.

Further research into revealing the infectivity and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in the GI tract is warranted. The value of modulating the human gut microbiome in this patient population could be worthwhile to investigate as well, the researchers said.
 

Novel finding

“Some of it is not-so-new news and some is new,” David A. Johnson, MD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

For example, previous researchers have detected SARS-CoV-2 virus in the stool. However, this study takes it a step further and shows that the virus present in stool can remain infectious on the basis of metagenomic signatures.

Furthermore, the virus can remain infectious in the gut even after a patient tests negative for COVID-19 through nasopharyngeal sampling – in this report up to 6 days later, said Johnson, professor of medicine, chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va.

The study carries important implications for people who currently test negative following active COVID-19 infection, he added. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria clear a person as negative after two nasopharyngeal swabs at least 24 hours apart.

People in this category could believe they are no longer infectious and might return to a setting where they could infect others, Johnson said.

One potential means for spreading SARS-CoV-2 from the gut is from a toilet plume, as Johnson previously highlighted in a video report for Medscape Medical News.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Johnson serves as an adviser to WebMD/Medscape.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.

Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.

Interactive platform

“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.

“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.

Tend and befriend

Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).

After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).

Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.

Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).

On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).

Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.

Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.

The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”

This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
 

Demographic biases

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”

Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.

“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.

Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.

E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.

Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.

Interactive platform

“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.

“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.

Tend and befriend

Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).

After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).

Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.

Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).

On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).

Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.

Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.

The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”

This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
 

Demographic biases

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”

Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.

“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.

Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.

E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.

Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.

Interactive platform

“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.

“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.

Tend and befriend

Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).

After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).

Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.

Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).

On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).

Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.

Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.

The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”

This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
 

Demographic biases

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”

Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.

“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.

Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.

E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The earlier the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine is initiated after a myocardial infarction (MI) the greater the benefit, a new COLCOT analysis suggests.

The parent trial was conducted in patients with a recent MI because of the intense inflammation present at that time, and added colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care within 30 days following MI.

As previously reported, colchicine significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring revascularization – by 23% compared with placebo.

This new analysis shows the risk was reduced by 48% in patients receiving colchicine within 3 days of an MI (4.3% vs. 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.84, P = .007).

Risk of a secondary efficacy end point – CV death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, or stroke – was reduced by 45% over an average follow up of 22.7 months (3.3% vs 6.1%; adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95, P = .031).

“We believe that our results support an early, in-hospital initiation of adjunctive colchicine for post-MI prevention,” Nadia Bouabdallaoui, MD, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, said during an online session devoted to colchicine at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

Session moderator Massimo Imazio, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, said the improved outcomes suggest that earlier treatment is better – a finding that parallels his own experience using colchicine in patients with pericarditis.

“This substudy is very important because this is probably also the year in cardiovascular applications [that] early use of the drug could improve outcomes,” he said.

Positive data have been accumulating for colchicine from COLCOT, LoDoCo, and, most recently, the LoDoCo2 trial, even as another anti-inflammatory drug, methotrexate, flamed out as secondary prevention in the CIRT trial.

The new COLCOT substudy included 4,661 of the 4,745 original patients and examined treatment initiation using three strata: within 0-3 days (n = 1,193), 4-7 days (n = 720), and 8-30 days (n = 2,748). Patients who received treatment within 3 days were slightly younger, more likely to be smokers, and to have a shorter time from MI to randomization (2.1 days vs 5.1 days vs. 20.8 days, respectively).

In the subset receiving treatment within 3 days, those assigned to colchicine had the same number of cardiac deaths as those given placebo (2 vs. 2) but fewer resuscitated cardiac arrests (1 vs. 3), MIs (17 vs. 29), strokes (1 vs. 5), and urgent hospitalizations for angina requiring revascularization (6 vs. 17).

“A larger trial might have allowed for a better assessment of individual endpoints and subgroups,” observed Bouabdallaoui.

Although there is growing support for colchicine, experts caution that the drug many not be for everyone. In COLCOT, 1 in 10 patients were unable to tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal (GI) issues.
 

Pharmacogenomics substudy

A second COLCOT substudy aimed to identify genetic markers predictive of colchicine response and to gain insights into the mechanisms behind this response. It included 767 patients treated with colchicine and another 755 treated with placebo – or about one-third the patients in the original trial.

A genome-wide association study did not find a significant association for the primary CV endpoint, although a prespecified subgroup analysis in men identified an interesting region on chromosome 9 (variant: rs10811106), which just missed reaching genomewide significance, said Marie-Pierre Dubé, PhD, director of the Université de Montréal Beaulieu-Saucier Pharmacogenomics Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute.

In addition, the genomewide analysis found two significant regions for GI events: one on chromosome 6 (variant: rs6916345) and one on chromosome 10 (variant: rs74795203).

For each of the identified regions, the researchers then tested the effect of the allele in the placebo group and the interaction between the genetic variant and treatment with colchicine. For the chromosome 9 region in males, there was no effect in the placebo group and a significant interaction in the colchicine group.

For the significant GI event findings, there was a small effect for the chromosome 6 region in the placebo group and a very significant interaction with colchicine, Dubé said. Similarly, there was no effect for the chromosome 10 region in the placebo group and a significant interaction with colchicine.

Additional analyses in stratified patient populations showed that males with the protective allele (CC) for the chromosome 9 region represented 83% of the population. The primary CV endpoint occurred in 3.2% of these men treated with colchicine and 6.3% treated with placebo (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 - 0.86).

For the gastrointestinal events, 25% of patients carried the risk allele (AA) for the chromosome 6 region and 36.9% of these had GI events when treated with colchicine versus 18.6% when treated with placebo (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.57-3.72).

Similarly, 13% of individuals carried one or two copies of the risk allele (AG+GG) for the chromosome 10 region and the risk of GI events in these was nearly four times higher with colchicine (47.1% vs. 18.9%; HR, 3.98; 95% CI 2.24-7.07).

Functional genomic analyses of the identified regions were also performed and showed that the chromosome 9 locus overlaps with the SAXO1 gene, a stabilizer of axonemal microtubules 1.

“The leading variant at this locus (rs10811106 C allele) correlated with the expression of the HAUS6 gene, which is involved in microtubule generation from existing microtubules, and may interact with the effect of colchicine, which is known to inhibit microtubule formation,” observed Dubé. 

Also, the chromosome 6 locus associated with gastrointestinal events was colocalizing with the Crohn’s disease locus, adding further support for this region.

“The results support potential personalized approaches to inflammation reduction for cardiovascular prevention,” Dubé said.

This is a post hoc subgroup analysis, however, and replication is necessary, ideally in prospective randomized trials, she noted.

The substudy is important because it provides further insights into the link between colchicine and microtubule polymerization, affecting the activation of the inflammasome, session moderator Imazio said.

“Second, it is important because pharmacogenomics can help us to better understand the optimal responder to colchicine and colchicine resistance,” he said. “So it can be useful for personalized medicine, leading to the proper use of the drug for the proper patient.”

COLCOT was supported by the government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Bouabdallaoui has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dubé reported grants from the government of Quebec; personal fees from DalCor and GlaxoSmithKline; research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi; and minor equity interest in DalCor. Dubé is also coauthor of patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, and pharmacogenomics markers of response to colchicine.  

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The earlier the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine is initiated after a myocardial infarction (MI) the greater the benefit, a new COLCOT analysis suggests.

The parent trial was conducted in patients with a recent MI because of the intense inflammation present at that time, and added colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care within 30 days following MI.

As previously reported, colchicine significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring revascularization – by 23% compared with placebo.

This new analysis shows the risk was reduced by 48% in patients receiving colchicine within 3 days of an MI (4.3% vs. 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.84, P = .007).

Risk of a secondary efficacy end point – CV death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, or stroke – was reduced by 45% over an average follow up of 22.7 months (3.3% vs 6.1%; adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95, P = .031).

“We believe that our results support an early, in-hospital initiation of adjunctive colchicine for post-MI prevention,” Nadia Bouabdallaoui, MD, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, said during an online session devoted to colchicine at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

Session moderator Massimo Imazio, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, said the improved outcomes suggest that earlier treatment is better – a finding that parallels his own experience using colchicine in patients with pericarditis.

“This substudy is very important because this is probably also the year in cardiovascular applications [that] early use of the drug could improve outcomes,” he said.

Positive data have been accumulating for colchicine from COLCOT, LoDoCo, and, most recently, the LoDoCo2 trial, even as another anti-inflammatory drug, methotrexate, flamed out as secondary prevention in the CIRT trial.

The new COLCOT substudy included 4,661 of the 4,745 original patients and examined treatment initiation using three strata: within 0-3 days (n = 1,193), 4-7 days (n = 720), and 8-30 days (n = 2,748). Patients who received treatment within 3 days were slightly younger, more likely to be smokers, and to have a shorter time from MI to randomization (2.1 days vs 5.1 days vs. 20.8 days, respectively).

In the subset receiving treatment within 3 days, those assigned to colchicine had the same number of cardiac deaths as those given placebo (2 vs. 2) but fewer resuscitated cardiac arrests (1 vs. 3), MIs (17 vs. 29), strokes (1 vs. 5), and urgent hospitalizations for angina requiring revascularization (6 vs. 17).

“A larger trial might have allowed for a better assessment of individual endpoints and subgroups,” observed Bouabdallaoui.

Although there is growing support for colchicine, experts caution that the drug many not be for everyone. In COLCOT, 1 in 10 patients were unable to tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal (GI) issues.
 

Pharmacogenomics substudy

A second COLCOT substudy aimed to identify genetic markers predictive of colchicine response and to gain insights into the mechanisms behind this response. It included 767 patients treated with colchicine and another 755 treated with placebo – or about one-third the patients in the original trial.

A genome-wide association study did not find a significant association for the primary CV endpoint, although a prespecified subgroup analysis in men identified an interesting region on chromosome 9 (variant: rs10811106), which just missed reaching genomewide significance, said Marie-Pierre Dubé, PhD, director of the Université de Montréal Beaulieu-Saucier Pharmacogenomics Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute.

In addition, the genomewide analysis found two significant regions for GI events: one on chromosome 6 (variant: rs6916345) and one on chromosome 10 (variant: rs74795203).

For each of the identified regions, the researchers then tested the effect of the allele in the placebo group and the interaction between the genetic variant and treatment with colchicine. For the chromosome 9 region in males, there was no effect in the placebo group and a significant interaction in the colchicine group.

For the significant GI event findings, there was a small effect for the chromosome 6 region in the placebo group and a very significant interaction with colchicine, Dubé said. Similarly, there was no effect for the chromosome 10 region in the placebo group and a significant interaction with colchicine.

Additional analyses in stratified patient populations showed that males with the protective allele (CC) for the chromosome 9 region represented 83% of the population. The primary CV endpoint occurred in 3.2% of these men treated with colchicine and 6.3% treated with placebo (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 - 0.86).

For the gastrointestinal events, 25% of patients carried the risk allele (AA) for the chromosome 6 region and 36.9% of these had GI events when treated with colchicine versus 18.6% when treated with placebo (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.57-3.72).

Similarly, 13% of individuals carried one or two copies of the risk allele (AG+GG) for the chromosome 10 region and the risk of GI events in these was nearly four times higher with colchicine (47.1% vs. 18.9%; HR, 3.98; 95% CI 2.24-7.07).

Functional genomic analyses of the identified regions were also performed and showed that the chromosome 9 locus overlaps with the SAXO1 gene, a stabilizer of axonemal microtubules 1.

“The leading variant at this locus (rs10811106 C allele) correlated with the expression of the HAUS6 gene, which is involved in microtubule generation from existing microtubules, and may interact with the effect of colchicine, which is known to inhibit microtubule formation,” observed Dubé. 

Also, the chromosome 6 locus associated with gastrointestinal events was colocalizing with the Crohn’s disease locus, adding further support for this region.

“The results support potential personalized approaches to inflammation reduction for cardiovascular prevention,” Dubé said.

This is a post hoc subgroup analysis, however, and replication is necessary, ideally in prospective randomized trials, she noted.

The substudy is important because it provides further insights into the link between colchicine and microtubule polymerization, affecting the activation of the inflammasome, session moderator Imazio said.

“Second, it is important because pharmacogenomics can help us to better understand the optimal responder to colchicine and colchicine resistance,” he said. “So it can be useful for personalized medicine, leading to the proper use of the drug for the proper patient.”

COLCOT was supported by the government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Bouabdallaoui has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dubé reported grants from the government of Quebec; personal fees from DalCor and GlaxoSmithKline; research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi; and minor equity interest in DalCor. Dubé is also coauthor of patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, and pharmacogenomics markers of response to colchicine.  

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The earlier the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine is initiated after a myocardial infarction (MI) the greater the benefit, a new COLCOT analysis suggests.

The parent trial was conducted in patients with a recent MI because of the intense inflammation present at that time, and added colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care within 30 days following MI.

As previously reported, colchicine significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring revascularization – by 23% compared with placebo.

This new analysis shows the risk was reduced by 48% in patients receiving colchicine within 3 days of an MI (4.3% vs. 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.84, P = .007).

Risk of a secondary efficacy end point – CV death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, or stroke – was reduced by 45% over an average follow up of 22.7 months (3.3% vs 6.1%; adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95, P = .031).

“We believe that our results support an early, in-hospital initiation of adjunctive colchicine for post-MI prevention,” Nadia Bouabdallaoui, MD, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, said during an online session devoted to colchicine at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

Session moderator Massimo Imazio, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, said the improved outcomes suggest that earlier treatment is better – a finding that parallels his own experience using colchicine in patients with pericarditis.

“This substudy is very important because this is probably also the year in cardiovascular applications [that] early use of the drug could improve outcomes,” he said.

Positive data have been accumulating for colchicine from COLCOT, LoDoCo, and, most recently, the LoDoCo2 trial, even as another anti-inflammatory drug, methotrexate, flamed out as secondary prevention in the CIRT trial.

The new COLCOT substudy included 4,661 of the 4,745 original patients and examined treatment initiation using three strata: within 0-3 days (n = 1,193), 4-7 days (n = 720), and 8-30 days (n = 2,748). Patients who received treatment within 3 days were slightly younger, more likely to be smokers, and to have a shorter time from MI to randomization (2.1 days vs 5.1 days vs. 20.8 days, respectively).

In the subset receiving treatment within 3 days, those assigned to colchicine had the same number of cardiac deaths as those given placebo (2 vs. 2) but fewer resuscitated cardiac arrests (1 vs. 3), MIs (17 vs. 29), strokes (1 vs. 5), and urgent hospitalizations for angina requiring revascularization (6 vs. 17).

“A larger trial might have allowed for a better assessment of individual endpoints and subgroups,” observed Bouabdallaoui.

Although there is growing support for colchicine, experts caution that the drug many not be for everyone. In COLCOT, 1 in 10 patients were unable to tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal (GI) issues.
 

Pharmacogenomics substudy

A second COLCOT substudy aimed to identify genetic markers predictive of colchicine response and to gain insights into the mechanisms behind this response. It included 767 patients treated with colchicine and another 755 treated with placebo – or about one-third the patients in the original trial.

A genome-wide association study did not find a significant association for the primary CV endpoint, although a prespecified subgroup analysis in men identified an interesting region on chromosome 9 (variant: rs10811106), which just missed reaching genomewide significance, said Marie-Pierre Dubé, PhD, director of the Université de Montréal Beaulieu-Saucier Pharmacogenomics Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute.

In addition, the genomewide analysis found two significant regions for GI events: one on chromosome 6 (variant: rs6916345) and one on chromosome 10 (variant: rs74795203).

For each of the identified regions, the researchers then tested the effect of the allele in the placebo group and the interaction between the genetic variant and treatment with colchicine. For the chromosome 9 region in males, there was no effect in the placebo group and a significant interaction in the colchicine group.

For the significant GI event findings, there was a small effect for the chromosome 6 region in the placebo group and a very significant interaction with colchicine, Dubé said. Similarly, there was no effect for the chromosome 10 region in the placebo group and a significant interaction with colchicine.

Additional analyses in stratified patient populations showed that males with the protective allele (CC) for the chromosome 9 region represented 83% of the population. The primary CV endpoint occurred in 3.2% of these men treated with colchicine and 6.3% treated with placebo (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 - 0.86).

For the gastrointestinal events, 25% of patients carried the risk allele (AA) for the chromosome 6 region and 36.9% of these had GI events when treated with colchicine versus 18.6% when treated with placebo (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.57-3.72).

Similarly, 13% of individuals carried one or two copies of the risk allele (AG+GG) for the chromosome 10 region and the risk of GI events in these was nearly four times higher with colchicine (47.1% vs. 18.9%; HR, 3.98; 95% CI 2.24-7.07).

Functional genomic analyses of the identified regions were also performed and showed that the chromosome 9 locus overlaps with the SAXO1 gene, a stabilizer of axonemal microtubules 1.

“The leading variant at this locus (rs10811106 C allele) correlated with the expression of the HAUS6 gene, which is involved in microtubule generation from existing microtubules, and may interact with the effect of colchicine, which is known to inhibit microtubule formation,” observed Dubé. 

Also, the chromosome 6 locus associated with gastrointestinal events was colocalizing with the Crohn’s disease locus, adding further support for this region.

“The results support potential personalized approaches to inflammation reduction for cardiovascular prevention,” Dubé said.

This is a post hoc subgroup analysis, however, and replication is necessary, ideally in prospective randomized trials, she noted.

The substudy is important because it provides further insights into the link between colchicine and microtubule polymerization, affecting the activation of the inflammasome, session moderator Imazio said.

“Second, it is important because pharmacogenomics can help us to better understand the optimal responder to colchicine and colchicine resistance,” he said. “So it can be useful for personalized medicine, leading to the proper use of the drug for the proper patient.”

COLCOT was supported by the government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Bouabdallaoui has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dubé reported grants from the government of Quebec; personal fees from DalCor and GlaxoSmithKline; research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi; and minor equity interest in DalCor. Dubé is also coauthor of patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, and pharmacogenomics markers of response to colchicine.  

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A change in rapid eye movement sleeping pattern as measured by quantitative EEG in patients with major depressive disorder after just a single week on a first-line antidepressant predicts eventual clinical response or nonresponse to the medication weeks later, Thorsten Mikoteit, MD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

This finding from a small, randomized, controlled trial opens the door to a novel biomarker-based treatment strategy: namely, an immediate switch to a different antidepressant in predicted nonresponders to the first agent. The goal is to improve the final treatment response rate while collapsing the time required to get there, explained Dr. Mikoteit, a psychiatrist affiliated with the University of Basel (Switzerland).

“In real terms, it means that patients, often in the depths of despair, might not need to wait weeks to see if their therapy is working before modifying their treatment,” he observed.

There is a huge unmet need for a biomarker predictive of response to antidepressant medication in patients with major depression, the psychiatrist added. At present, the treatment response rate is unsatisfactory. Moreover, clinical improvement takes a long time to achieve, often requiring several rounds of therapeutic trials during which patients are exposed to weeks of unpleasant side effects of drugs that are ultimately switched out for lack of efficacy or poor tolerance.

The quantitative EEG biomarker under investigation is prefrontal theta cordance (PTC) during REM sleep. It is computed from the absolute and relative theta power in tonic REM sleep. PTC has been shown to correlate with frontocingulate brain activity and cerebral blood perfusion. In an earlier pilot study, Dr. Mikoteit and coinvestigators demonstrated in 33 patients who were experiencing a depressive episode that an increase in PTC after their first week on an antidepressant was associated a significantly increased treatment response rate at the end of the fourth week on the drug, while nonresponders failed to show such increase (J Psychiatr Res. 2017 Sep;92:64-73).

At ECNP 2020, Dr. Mikoteit presented preliminary results from an ongoing randomized, controlled trial including 37 patients hospitalized for major depressive disorder. All underwent baseline evaluation using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and were placed on the first-line antidepressant of their psychiatrist’s choice. After 1 week of therapy, participants underwent polysomnography with PTC measurement during tonic REM sleep.

Twenty-two patients were randomized to the intervention arm, in which investigators informed treating psychiatrists of the PTC results. The clinicians were instructed to change to another antidepressant if the biomarker predicted nonresponse or stay the course if the PTC results were favorable. Polysomnography was repeated 1 week later in the intervention arm, and the second-line antidepressant was either continued or switched out depending on the PTC findings. In the control arm, psychiatrists weren’t informed of the PTC results and patients continued on their initial antidepressant. The intervention and control groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, and severity of depression, with an average baseline HAMD score of 22.

A treatment response was defined as at least a 50% reduction in HAMD score from baseline to week 5. About 86% of patients who switched antidepressants based upon their 1-week quantitative EEG findings were categorized as treatment responders at week 5, compared with 20% of controls.

The overall 5-week response rate in the intervention group was 73%, compared with 60% in the control arm. This favorable trend didn’t achieve statistical significance, presumably because of the study’s sample size; however, the study is continuing to enroll participants in order to achieve a definitive result.

Dr. Mikoteit noted that the cost and inconvenience of spending a night in a sleep laboratory would be worthwhile if it resulted in the ability to give effective treatment much sooner. This would be particularly advantageous in patients at increased risk for suicide.

“If this is confirmed to be effective, it will save lives,” he said.
 

Study could have “enormous implications”

Of note, in the landmark National Institute of Mental Health–sponsored Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study, slightly less than half of patients with major depressive disorder achieved a treatment response to their first-line antidepressant, and it took an average of 6 weeks of therapy to do. About one in four nonresponders who chose to switch to a different antidepressant got better.

“The STAR*D trial is still the gold standard for understanding antidepressant response, and so being able to see if an antidepressant works within 1 week would be a real breakthrough,” Catherine Harmer, DPhil, said in an interview.

“Most of the time, patients need to wait for around 4 weeks before they can tell if they are responding to a particular antidepressant or not. This is a hugely disabling and lengthy process, and often a different treatment then needs to be started,” added Dr. Harmer, professor of cognitive neuroscience and director of the Psychopharmacology and Emotional Research Lab at the University of Oxford (England).

“If the study results presented by Dr. Mikoteit are replicated in a larger blinded study, then it would have enormous implications for the future treatment of individuals with depression,” according to Dr. Harmer, who was not involved in the study and has no conflicts of interest related to it.

Dr. Mikoteit reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the Psychiatric University Hospital of Basel.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mikoteit T et al. ECNP 2020, Abstract P.733.

A change in rapid eye movement sleeping pattern as measured by quantitative EEG in patients with major depressive disorder after just a single week on a first-line antidepressant predicts eventual clinical response or nonresponse to the medication weeks later, Thorsten Mikoteit, MD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

This finding from a small, randomized, controlled trial opens the door to a novel biomarker-based treatment strategy: namely, an immediate switch to a different antidepressant in predicted nonresponders to the first agent. The goal is to improve the final treatment response rate while collapsing the time required to get there, explained Dr. Mikoteit, a psychiatrist affiliated with the University of Basel (Switzerland).

“In real terms, it means that patients, often in the depths of despair, might not need to wait weeks to see if their therapy is working before modifying their treatment,” he observed.

There is a huge unmet need for a biomarker predictive of response to antidepressant medication in patients with major depression, the psychiatrist added. At present, the treatment response rate is unsatisfactory. Moreover, clinical improvement takes a long time to achieve, often requiring several rounds of therapeutic trials during which patients are exposed to weeks of unpleasant side effects of drugs that are ultimately switched out for lack of efficacy or poor tolerance.

The quantitative EEG biomarker under investigation is prefrontal theta cordance (PTC) during REM sleep. It is computed from the absolute and relative theta power in tonic REM sleep. PTC has been shown to correlate with frontocingulate brain activity and cerebral blood perfusion. In an earlier pilot study, Dr. Mikoteit and coinvestigators demonstrated in 33 patients who were experiencing a depressive episode that an increase in PTC after their first week on an antidepressant was associated a significantly increased treatment response rate at the end of the fourth week on the drug, while nonresponders failed to show such increase (J Psychiatr Res. 2017 Sep;92:64-73).

At ECNP 2020, Dr. Mikoteit presented preliminary results from an ongoing randomized, controlled trial including 37 patients hospitalized for major depressive disorder. All underwent baseline evaluation using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and were placed on the first-line antidepressant of their psychiatrist’s choice. After 1 week of therapy, participants underwent polysomnography with PTC measurement during tonic REM sleep.

Twenty-two patients were randomized to the intervention arm, in which investigators informed treating psychiatrists of the PTC results. The clinicians were instructed to change to another antidepressant if the biomarker predicted nonresponse or stay the course if the PTC results were favorable. Polysomnography was repeated 1 week later in the intervention arm, and the second-line antidepressant was either continued or switched out depending on the PTC findings. In the control arm, psychiatrists weren’t informed of the PTC results and patients continued on their initial antidepressant. The intervention and control groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, and severity of depression, with an average baseline HAMD score of 22.

A treatment response was defined as at least a 50% reduction in HAMD score from baseline to week 5. About 86% of patients who switched antidepressants based upon their 1-week quantitative EEG findings were categorized as treatment responders at week 5, compared with 20% of controls.

The overall 5-week response rate in the intervention group was 73%, compared with 60% in the control arm. This favorable trend didn’t achieve statistical significance, presumably because of the study’s sample size; however, the study is continuing to enroll participants in order to achieve a definitive result.

Dr. Mikoteit noted that the cost and inconvenience of spending a night in a sleep laboratory would be worthwhile if it resulted in the ability to give effective treatment much sooner. This would be particularly advantageous in patients at increased risk for suicide.

“If this is confirmed to be effective, it will save lives,” he said.
 

Study could have “enormous implications”

Of note, in the landmark National Institute of Mental Health–sponsored Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study, slightly less than half of patients with major depressive disorder achieved a treatment response to their first-line antidepressant, and it took an average of 6 weeks of therapy to do. About one in four nonresponders who chose to switch to a different antidepressant got better.

“The STAR*D trial is still the gold standard for understanding antidepressant response, and so being able to see if an antidepressant works within 1 week would be a real breakthrough,” Catherine Harmer, DPhil, said in an interview.

“Most of the time, patients need to wait for around 4 weeks before they can tell if they are responding to a particular antidepressant or not. This is a hugely disabling and lengthy process, and often a different treatment then needs to be started,” added Dr. Harmer, professor of cognitive neuroscience and director of the Psychopharmacology and Emotional Research Lab at the University of Oxford (England).

“If the study results presented by Dr. Mikoteit are replicated in a larger blinded study, then it would have enormous implications for the future treatment of individuals with depression,” according to Dr. Harmer, who was not involved in the study and has no conflicts of interest related to it.

Dr. Mikoteit reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the Psychiatric University Hospital of Basel.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mikoteit T et al. ECNP 2020, Abstract P.733.

A change in rapid eye movement sleeping pattern as measured by quantitative EEG in patients with major depressive disorder after just a single week on a first-line antidepressant predicts eventual clinical response or nonresponse to the medication weeks later, Thorsten Mikoteit, MD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

This finding from a small, randomized, controlled trial opens the door to a novel biomarker-based treatment strategy: namely, an immediate switch to a different antidepressant in predicted nonresponders to the first agent. The goal is to improve the final treatment response rate while collapsing the time required to get there, explained Dr. Mikoteit, a psychiatrist affiliated with the University of Basel (Switzerland).

“In real terms, it means that patients, often in the depths of despair, might not need to wait weeks to see if their therapy is working before modifying their treatment,” he observed.

There is a huge unmet need for a biomarker predictive of response to antidepressant medication in patients with major depression, the psychiatrist added. At present, the treatment response rate is unsatisfactory. Moreover, clinical improvement takes a long time to achieve, often requiring several rounds of therapeutic trials during which patients are exposed to weeks of unpleasant side effects of drugs that are ultimately switched out for lack of efficacy or poor tolerance.

The quantitative EEG biomarker under investigation is prefrontal theta cordance (PTC) during REM sleep. It is computed from the absolute and relative theta power in tonic REM sleep. PTC has been shown to correlate with frontocingulate brain activity and cerebral blood perfusion. In an earlier pilot study, Dr. Mikoteit and coinvestigators demonstrated in 33 patients who were experiencing a depressive episode that an increase in PTC after their first week on an antidepressant was associated a significantly increased treatment response rate at the end of the fourth week on the drug, while nonresponders failed to show such increase (J Psychiatr Res. 2017 Sep;92:64-73).

At ECNP 2020, Dr. Mikoteit presented preliminary results from an ongoing randomized, controlled trial including 37 patients hospitalized for major depressive disorder. All underwent baseline evaluation using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and were placed on the first-line antidepressant of their psychiatrist’s choice. After 1 week of therapy, participants underwent polysomnography with PTC measurement during tonic REM sleep.

Twenty-two patients were randomized to the intervention arm, in which investigators informed treating psychiatrists of the PTC results. The clinicians were instructed to change to another antidepressant if the biomarker predicted nonresponse or stay the course if the PTC results were favorable. Polysomnography was repeated 1 week later in the intervention arm, and the second-line antidepressant was either continued or switched out depending on the PTC findings. In the control arm, psychiatrists weren’t informed of the PTC results and patients continued on their initial antidepressant. The intervention and control groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, and severity of depression, with an average baseline HAMD score of 22.

A treatment response was defined as at least a 50% reduction in HAMD score from baseline to week 5. About 86% of patients who switched antidepressants based upon their 1-week quantitative EEG findings were categorized as treatment responders at week 5, compared with 20% of controls.

The overall 5-week response rate in the intervention group was 73%, compared with 60% in the control arm. This favorable trend didn’t achieve statistical significance, presumably because of the study’s sample size; however, the study is continuing to enroll participants in order to achieve a definitive result.

Dr. Mikoteit noted that the cost and inconvenience of spending a night in a sleep laboratory would be worthwhile if it resulted in the ability to give effective treatment much sooner. This would be particularly advantageous in patients at increased risk for suicide.

“If this is confirmed to be effective, it will save lives,” he said.
 

Study could have “enormous implications”

Of note, in the landmark National Institute of Mental Health–sponsored Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study, slightly less than half of patients with major depressive disorder achieved a treatment response to their first-line antidepressant, and it took an average of 6 weeks of therapy to do. About one in four nonresponders who chose to switch to a different antidepressant got better.

“The STAR*D trial is still the gold standard for understanding antidepressant response, and so being able to see if an antidepressant works within 1 week would be a real breakthrough,” Catherine Harmer, DPhil, said in an interview.

“Most of the time, patients need to wait for around 4 weeks before they can tell if they are responding to a particular antidepressant or not. This is a hugely disabling and lengthy process, and often a different treatment then needs to be started,” added Dr. Harmer, professor of cognitive neuroscience and director of the Psychopharmacology and Emotional Research Lab at the University of Oxford (England).

“If the study results presented by Dr. Mikoteit are replicated in a larger blinded study, then it would have enormous implications for the future treatment of individuals with depression,” according to Dr. Harmer, who was not involved in the study and has no conflicts of interest related to it.

Dr. Mikoteit reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the Psychiatric University Hospital of Basel.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mikoteit T et al. ECNP 2020, Abstract P.733.

Two important lessons about managing patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and COVID-19 have emerged from a hospital clinic in Madrid that managed COVID-infected patients with MS through the peak of the pandemic: Combined polymeric chain reaction and serology testing helped avoid disease reactivation in asymptomatic carriers during the pandemic peak, although after the peak PCR alone proved just as effective; and infected MS patients could stay on their MS medications while being treated for COVID-19, as fewer than one in five required hospitalization.

Virginia Meca-Lallana, MD, a neurologist and coordinator of the demyelinating diseases unit at the Hospital of the University of the Princess in Madrid, and colleagues presented their findings in two posters at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis-Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“MS treatments don’t seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said in an interview. “MS treatments prevent the patients’ disability, and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

The results arose from a multidisciplinary safety protocol involving neurology, microbiology, and preventive medicine that the University of Princess physicians developed to keep MS stable in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers obtained 152 PCR nasopharyngeal swabs and 140 serology tests in 90 patients with MS over 3 months before starting a variety of MS treatments: Natalizumab (96 tests), ocrelizumab (36), rituximab (3), methylprednisolone (7), cladribine (4), and dimethyl fumarate (3). The protocol identified 7 asymptomatic carriers—7.8% of the total population—5 of whom had positive immunoglobulin M and G serology. The study also confirmed 5 patients with positive IgM+IgG serology post-infection, but no COVID-19 reactivations were detected after implementation of the protocol.

“The safety protocol reached its objective of avoiding disease reactivation and clinical activation in asymptomatic carriers,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said.

The second poster she presented reported on the real-world experience with SARS-CoV-2 in the MS unit at her hospital. The observational, prospective study included 41 cases, 38 of which were relapsing-remitting MS and the remainder progressive MS. The patients had MS for an average of 9 years.

“We need more patients to draw more robust conclusions, but in our patients, MS treatments seem safe in this situation,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “We did not discontinue treatments, and after our first results, we only delayed treatments in patients with any additional comorbidity or when coming to the hospital was not safe.”

A total of 39 patients were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs): 46.3% with oral agents, 39% with monoclonal antibodies, and 10% with injectable agents; 27 patients were previously treated with other DMTs. The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was 2.5, and 11 patients had clinical activity the previous year. Eighteen cases were confirmed by PCR or serology, or both, and 23 were diagnosed clinically.

Among the patients with MS and COVID-19, 17% were admitted to the hospital. Six patients had pneumonia, but none required admission to the intensive care unit, and no deaths occurred. Three patients had other comorbidities. Admitted patients tended to be older and had higher EDSS scores, although the difference was not statistically significant. MS worsened in 7 patients, and 10 patients stopped or paused DMTs because of the infection.

“Multiple sclerosis is a weakening illness,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “MS treatments do not seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors.”

The SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to result in a more aggressive form of the disease in MS patients, and selective immunosuppression may improve their outcomes, she noted.

“MS treatments avoid the patient’s disability,” the investigator added, “and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

Dr. Meca-Lallana had no relevant financial disclosures.

Two important lessons about managing patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and COVID-19 have emerged from a hospital clinic in Madrid that managed COVID-infected patients with MS through the peak of the pandemic: Combined polymeric chain reaction and serology testing helped avoid disease reactivation in asymptomatic carriers during the pandemic peak, although after the peak PCR alone proved just as effective; and infected MS patients could stay on their MS medications while being treated for COVID-19, as fewer than one in five required hospitalization.

Virginia Meca-Lallana, MD, a neurologist and coordinator of the demyelinating diseases unit at the Hospital of the University of the Princess in Madrid, and colleagues presented their findings in two posters at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis-Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“MS treatments don’t seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said in an interview. “MS treatments prevent the patients’ disability, and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

The results arose from a multidisciplinary safety protocol involving neurology, microbiology, and preventive medicine that the University of Princess physicians developed to keep MS stable in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers obtained 152 PCR nasopharyngeal swabs and 140 serology tests in 90 patients with MS over 3 months before starting a variety of MS treatments: Natalizumab (96 tests), ocrelizumab (36), rituximab (3), methylprednisolone (7), cladribine (4), and dimethyl fumarate (3). The protocol identified 7 asymptomatic carriers—7.8% of the total population—5 of whom had positive immunoglobulin M and G serology. The study also confirmed 5 patients with positive IgM+IgG serology post-infection, but no COVID-19 reactivations were detected after implementation of the protocol.

“The safety protocol reached its objective of avoiding disease reactivation and clinical activation in asymptomatic carriers,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said.

The second poster she presented reported on the real-world experience with SARS-CoV-2 in the MS unit at her hospital. The observational, prospective study included 41 cases, 38 of which were relapsing-remitting MS and the remainder progressive MS. The patients had MS for an average of 9 years.

“We need more patients to draw more robust conclusions, but in our patients, MS treatments seem safe in this situation,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “We did not discontinue treatments, and after our first results, we only delayed treatments in patients with any additional comorbidity or when coming to the hospital was not safe.”

A total of 39 patients were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs): 46.3% with oral agents, 39% with monoclonal antibodies, and 10% with injectable agents; 27 patients were previously treated with other DMTs. The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was 2.5, and 11 patients had clinical activity the previous year. Eighteen cases were confirmed by PCR or serology, or both, and 23 were diagnosed clinically.

Among the patients with MS and COVID-19, 17% were admitted to the hospital. Six patients had pneumonia, but none required admission to the intensive care unit, and no deaths occurred. Three patients had other comorbidities. Admitted patients tended to be older and had higher EDSS scores, although the difference was not statistically significant. MS worsened in 7 patients, and 10 patients stopped or paused DMTs because of the infection.

“Multiple sclerosis is a weakening illness,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “MS treatments do not seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors.”

The SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to result in a more aggressive form of the disease in MS patients, and selective immunosuppression may improve their outcomes, she noted.

“MS treatments avoid the patient’s disability,” the investigator added, “and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

Dr. Meca-Lallana had no relevant financial disclosures.

Two important lessons about managing patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and COVID-19 have emerged from a hospital clinic in Madrid that managed COVID-infected patients with MS through the peak of the pandemic: Combined polymeric chain reaction and serology testing helped avoid disease reactivation in asymptomatic carriers during the pandemic peak, although after the peak PCR alone proved just as effective; and infected MS patients could stay on their MS medications while being treated for COVID-19, as fewer than one in five required hospitalization.

Virginia Meca-Lallana, MD, a neurologist and coordinator of the demyelinating diseases unit at the Hospital of the University of the Princess in Madrid, and colleagues presented their findings in two posters at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis-Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“MS treatments don’t seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said in an interview. “MS treatments prevent the patients’ disability, and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

The results arose from a multidisciplinary safety protocol involving neurology, microbiology, and preventive medicine that the University of Princess physicians developed to keep MS stable in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers obtained 152 PCR nasopharyngeal swabs and 140 serology tests in 90 patients with MS over 3 months before starting a variety of MS treatments: Natalizumab (96 tests), ocrelizumab (36), rituximab (3), methylprednisolone (7), cladribine (4), and dimethyl fumarate (3). The protocol identified 7 asymptomatic carriers—7.8% of the total population—5 of whom had positive immunoglobulin M and G serology. The study also confirmed 5 patients with positive IgM+IgG serology post-infection, but no COVID-19 reactivations were detected after implementation of the protocol.

“The safety protocol reached its objective of avoiding disease reactivation and clinical activation in asymptomatic carriers,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said.

The second poster she presented reported on the real-world experience with SARS-CoV-2 in the MS unit at her hospital. The observational, prospective study included 41 cases, 38 of which were relapsing-remitting MS and the remainder progressive MS. The patients had MS for an average of 9 years.

“We need more patients to draw more robust conclusions, but in our patients, MS treatments seem safe in this situation,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “We did not discontinue treatments, and after our first results, we only delayed treatments in patients with any additional comorbidity or when coming to the hospital was not safe.”

A total of 39 patients were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs): 46.3% with oral agents, 39% with monoclonal antibodies, and 10% with injectable agents; 27 patients were previously treated with other DMTs. The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was 2.5, and 11 patients had clinical activity the previous year. Eighteen cases were confirmed by PCR or serology, or both, and 23 were diagnosed clinically.

Among the patients with MS and COVID-19, 17% were admitted to the hospital. Six patients had pneumonia, but none required admission to the intensive care unit, and no deaths occurred. Three patients had other comorbidities. Admitted patients tended to be older and had higher EDSS scores, although the difference was not statistically significant. MS worsened in 7 patients, and 10 patients stopped or paused DMTs because of the infection.

“Multiple sclerosis is a weakening illness,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “MS treatments do not seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors.”

The SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to result in a more aggressive form of the disease in MS patients, and selective immunosuppression may improve their outcomes, she noted.

“MS treatments avoid the patient’s disability,” the investigator added, “and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

Dr. Meca-Lallana had no relevant financial disclosures.