Cardiology News

Autopsies on patients who died from COVID-19 are providing important clues on how to treat the disease. In an analysis of 40 hearts from COVID-19 patients who died early in the pandemic, myocyte necrosis was seen in 14 hearts, or 35%.

In the majority of these hearts, pathologists found both small areas of focal necrosis and cardiac thrombi, most of which were microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular cells.

In an interview, senior author Aloke V. Finn, MD, CVPath Institute, Gaithersburg, Md., stressed the importance of understanding what they saw, but also what they didn’t see.

“What we saw in the majority of patients with myocardial injury were these small areas of infarct and microthrombi in small vessels. What we didn’t see was any evidence of myocarditis and or huge infarcts in, like, the LAD artery,” he said.

“What we’re seeing here is not clinically detectable. ... There is no test that will tell you there are microthrombi and no imaging tests that will show these focal areas of necrosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there,” he added.

The finding of myocyte necrosis in about one-third of samples is consistent with another study that showed that 30%-40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have elevated troponins, noted Dr. Finn. The investigators were unable to obtain troponin levels on their patients, which could limit the clinical translation of myocardial necrosis detected at autopsy.

Dr. Finn and colleagues, including first author Dario Pellegrini, MD, from Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy, published their findings online in Circulation on Jan. 22, 2020.

The report is a follow-up to another just published by Dr. Finn’s group in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which showed that myocarditis is a very rare finding in COVID-19 autopsies.

Only three of 14 individuals (21.4%) with evidence of myocyte necrosis showed evidence of acute MI, which Dr. Finn and colleagues define as an area of necrosis at least 1 cm² in size. The remaining 11 (78.6%) had only discrete areas of myocyte necrosis (>20 necrotic myocytes with an area of ≥0.05 mm², but <1 cm²).

“This makes sense when we saw what type of thrombus there was in these cases; it wasn’t thrombus in major epicardial vessels but microthombi in small vessels,” said Dr. Finn.

In those with necrosis, cardiac thrombi were present in 11 of 14 (78.6%) cases, with 2 of 14 (14.2%) having epicardial coronary artery thrombi and 0 of 14 (64.3%) having microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular arteries.

Further supporting the role of COVID-19–related hypercoagulability as the cause of myocardial injury in many patients, the investigators noted that the incidence of severe coronary artery disease (defined as >75% cross sectional narrowing) did not differ significantly between those with and without necrosis.
 

COVID-19 vs. non–COVID-19 thrombi

Going one step further, Dr. Finn’s team compared cardiac microthrombi from their COVID-19–positive autopsy cases with intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19 cases. They also compared the samples with aspirated thrombi obtained during primary percutaneous coronary intervention from uninfected and COVID-19–infected patients presenting with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).

The autopsy-obtained microthrombi had significantly more fibrin and terminal complement C5b-9 immunostaining than intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19–negative subjects and than aspirated thrombi from either COVID-positive or COVID-negative STEMI patients.

“Basically, what we’re seeing in these thrombi is evidence of an immune-mediated reaction,” said Dr. Finn, explaining that complement C5b-9 is an innate immune system protein that circulates in the blood in response to any kind of activation of the immune system. “It is nonspecific but can also lead to coagulation problems,” he said.
 

Anticoagulation, yes, but dose unclear

These findings clearly support the use of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID patients, said Jeffrey Weitz, MD, director of the Thrombosis & Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But the details of how much anticoagulation, what kind, and for whom are still a moving target.

“I think what we can say at this point is that these autopsy findings fit with previous studies that have shown microthrombi in the lungs and thrombi in the legs and gut, and support the notion that these patients should receive prophylactic doses of anticoagulants if they’re sick enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. Weitz.

“But it’s not as simple as to say that this study shows clots form in the heart of COVID patients and therefore more anticoagulation is going to be better than less anticoagulation,” he said in an interview.

Recent top-line findings from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – show that full-dose anticoagulation was beneficial in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation.

Moderately ill patients are those not in intensive care and who did not require organ support, such as mechanical ventilation, at the time of enrollment.

However, the same group reported findings in December that showed that routine use of full-dose anticoagulation when started in the ICU in critically ill patients was not beneficial and possibly harmful.

Dr. Weitz was only a little bit surprised by this finding of potential harm in the sickest patients. “I figured everybody should get prophylaxis but I wasn’t sure that everybody should get intensified anticoagulant. But my assumption was that if anybody is going to benefit from it, it would be the ICU patients.”

It was notable, said Dr. Weitz, that levels of D-dimer, a fibrin degradation product, were not associated with outcomes. “So, it doesn’t seem to be that patients with evidence of more clotting are more likely to benefit, which might indicate that it’s not the anticoagulant effect of the heparin that’s helping, but maybe the anti-inflammatory effect. At this point, we just don’t know.”

All three studies have paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup, but are continuing to enroll patients with moderate illness and expect to publish results in the coming months, according to previous coverage from this news organization.

The study was funded by CVPath, a nonprofit institute that receives funding from a number of different industry entities. Dr. Finn and Dr. Weitz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Autopsies on patients who died from COVID-19 are providing important clues on how to treat the disease. In an analysis of 40 hearts from COVID-19 patients who died early in the pandemic, myocyte necrosis was seen in 14 hearts, or 35%.

In the majority of these hearts, pathologists found both small areas of focal necrosis and cardiac thrombi, most of which were microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular cells.

In an interview, senior author Aloke V. Finn, MD, CVPath Institute, Gaithersburg, Md., stressed the importance of understanding what they saw, but also what they didn’t see.

“What we saw in the majority of patients with myocardial injury were these small areas of infarct and microthrombi in small vessels. What we didn’t see was any evidence of myocarditis and or huge infarcts in, like, the LAD artery,” he said.

“What we’re seeing here is not clinically detectable. ... There is no test that will tell you there are microthrombi and no imaging tests that will show these focal areas of necrosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there,” he added.

The finding of myocyte necrosis in about one-third of samples is consistent with another study that showed that 30%-40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have elevated troponins, noted Dr. Finn. The investigators were unable to obtain troponin levels on their patients, which could limit the clinical translation of myocardial necrosis detected at autopsy.

Dr. Finn and colleagues, including first author Dario Pellegrini, MD, from Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy, published their findings online in Circulation on Jan. 22, 2020.

The report is a follow-up to another just published by Dr. Finn’s group in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which showed that myocarditis is a very rare finding in COVID-19 autopsies.

Only three of 14 individuals (21.4%) with evidence of myocyte necrosis showed evidence of acute MI, which Dr. Finn and colleagues define as an area of necrosis at least 1 cm² in size. The remaining 11 (78.6%) had only discrete areas of myocyte necrosis (>20 necrotic myocytes with an area of ≥0.05 mm², but <1 cm²).

“This makes sense when we saw what type of thrombus there was in these cases; it wasn’t thrombus in major epicardial vessels but microthombi in small vessels,” said Dr. Finn.

In those with necrosis, cardiac thrombi were present in 11 of 14 (78.6%) cases, with 2 of 14 (14.2%) having epicardial coronary artery thrombi and 0 of 14 (64.3%) having microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular arteries.

Further supporting the role of COVID-19–related hypercoagulability as the cause of myocardial injury in many patients, the investigators noted that the incidence of severe coronary artery disease (defined as >75% cross sectional narrowing) did not differ significantly between those with and without necrosis.
 

COVID-19 vs. non–COVID-19 thrombi

Going one step further, Dr. Finn’s team compared cardiac microthrombi from their COVID-19–positive autopsy cases with intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19 cases. They also compared the samples with aspirated thrombi obtained during primary percutaneous coronary intervention from uninfected and COVID-19–infected patients presenting with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).

The autopsy-obtained microthrombi had significantly more fibrin and terminal complement C5b-9 immunostaining than intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19–negative subjects and than aspirated thrombi from either COVID-positive or COVID-negative STEMI patients.

“Basically, what we’re seeing in these thrombi is evidence of an immune-mediated reaction,” said Dr. Finn, explaining that complement C5b-9 is an innate immune system protein that circulates in the blood in response to any kind of activation of the immune system. “It is nonspecific but can also lead to coagulation problems,” he said.
 

Anticoagulation, yes, but dose unclear

These findings clearly support the use of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID patients, said Jeffrey Weitz, MD, director of the Thrombosis & Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But the details of how much anticoagulation, what kind, and for whom are still a moving target.

“I think what we can say at this point is that these autopsy findings fit with previous studies that have shown microthrombi in the lungs and thrombi in the legs and gut, and support the notion that these patients should receive prophylactic doses of anticoagulants if they’re sick enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. Weitz.

“But it’s not as simple as to say that this study shows clots form in the heart of COVID patients and therefore more anticoagulation is going to be better than less anticoagulation,” he said in an interview.

Recent top-line findings from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – show that full-dose anticoagulation was beneficial in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation.

Moderately ill patients are those not in intensive care and who did not require organ support, such as mechanical ventilation, at the time of enrollment.

However, the same group reported findings in December that showed that routine use of full-dose anticoagulation when started in the ICU in critically ill patients was not beneficial and possibly harmful.

Dr. Weitz was only a little bit surprised by this finding of potential harm in the sickest patients. “I figured everybody should get prophylaxis but I wasn’t sure that everybody should get intensified anticoagulant. But my assumption was that if anybody is going to benefit from it, it would be the ICU patients.”

It was notable, said Dr. Weitz, that levels of D-dimer, a fibrin degradation product, were not associated with outcomes. “So, it doesn’t seem to be that patients with evidence of more clotting are more likely to benefit, which might indicate that it’s not the anticoagulant effect of the heparin that’s helping, but maybe the anti-inflammatory effect. At this point, we just don’t know.”

All three studies have paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup, but are continuing to enroll patients with moderate illness and expect to publish results in the coming months, according to previous coverage from this news organization.

The study was funded by CVPath, a nonprofit institute that receives funding from a number of different industry entities. Dr. Finn and Dr. Weitz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Autopsies on patients who died from COVID-19 are providing important clues on how to treat the disease. In an analysis of 40 hearts from COVID-19 patients who died early in the pandemic, myocyte necrosis was seen in 14 hearts, or 35%.

In the majority of these hearts, pathologists found both small areas of focal necrosis and cardiac thrombi, most of which were microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular cells.

In an interview, senior author Aloke V. Finn, MD, CVPath Institute, Gaithersburg, Md., stressed the importance of understanding what they saw, but also what they didn’t see.

“What we saw in the majority of patients with myocardial injury were these small areas of infarct and microthrombi in small vessels. What we didn’t see was any evidence of myocarditis and or huge infarcts in, like, the LAD artery,” he said.

“What we’re seeing here is not clinically detectable. ... There is no test that will tell you there are microthrombi and no imaging tests that will show these focal areas of necrosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there,” he added.

The finding of myocyte necrosis in about one-third of samples is consistent with another study that showed that 30%-40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have elevated troponins, noted Dr. Finn. The investigators were unable to obtain troponin levels on their patients, which could limit the clinical translation of myocardial necrosis detected at autopsy.

Dr. Finn and colleagues, including first author Dario Pellegrini, MD, from Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy, published their findings online in Circulation on Jan. 22, 2020.

The report is a follow-up to another just published by Dr. Finn’s group in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which showed that myocarditis is a very rare finding in COVID-19 autopsies.

Only three of 14 individuals (21.4%) with evidence of myocyte necrosis showed evidence of acute MI, which Dr. Finn and colleagues define as an area of necrosis at least 1 cm² in size. The remaining 11 (78.6%) had only discrete areas of myocyte necrosis (>20 necrotic myocytes with an area of ≥0.05 mm², but <1 cm²).

“This makes sense when we saw what type of thrombus there was in these cases; it wasn’t thrombus in major epicardial vessels but microthombi in small vessels,” said Dr. Finn.

In those with necrosis, cardiac thrombi were present in 11 of 14 (78.6%) cases, with 2 of 14 (14.2%) having epicardial coronary artery thrombi and 0 of 14 (64.3%) having microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular arteries.

Further supporting the role of COVID-19–related hypercoagulability as the cause of myocardial injury in many patients, the investigators noted that the incidence of severe coronary artery disease (defined as >75% cross sectional narrowing) did not differ significantly between those with and without necrosis.
 

COVID-19 vs. non–COVID-19 thrombi

Going one step further, Dr. Finn’s team compared cardiac microthrombi from their COVID-19–positive autopsy cases with intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19 cases. They also compared the samples with aspirated thrombi obtained during primary percutaneous coronary intervention from uninfected and COVID-19–infected patients presenting with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).

The autopsy-obtained microthrombi had significantly more fibrin and terminal complement C5b-9 immunostaining than intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19–negative subjects and than aspirated thrombi from either COVID-positive or COVID-negative STEMI patients.

“Basically, what we’re seeing in these thrombi is evidence of an immune-mediated reaction,” said Dr. Finn, explaining that complement C5b-9 is an innate immune system protein that circulates in the blood in response to any kind of activation of the immune system. “It is nonspecific but can also lead to coagulation problems,” he said.
 

Anticoagulation, yes, but dose unclear

These findings clearly support the use of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID patients, said Jeffrey Weitz, MD, director of the Thrombosis & Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But the details of how much anticoagulation, what kind, and for whom are still a moving target.

“I think what we can say at this point is that these autopsy findings fit with previous studies that have shown microthrombi in the lungs and thrombi in the legs and gut, and support the notion that these patients should receive prophylactic doses of anticoagulants if they’re sick enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. Weitz.

“But it’s not as simple as to say that this study shows clots form in the heart of COVID patients and therefore more anticoagulation is going to be better than less anticoagulation,” he said in an interview.

Recent top-line findings from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – show that full-dose anticoagulation was beneficial in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation.

Moderately ill patients are those not in intensive care and who did not require organ support, such as mechanical ventilation, at the time of enrollment.

However, the same group reported findings in December that showed that routine use of full-dose anticoagulation when started in the ICU in critically ill patients was not beneficial and possibly harmful.

Dr. Weitz was only a little bit surprised by this finding of potential harm in the sickest patients. “I figured everybody should get prophylaxis but I wasn’t sure that everybody should get intensified anticoagulant. But my assumption was that if anybody is going to benefit from it, it would be the ICU patients.”

It was notable, said Dr. Weitz, that levels of D-dimer, a fibrin degradation product, were not associated with outcomes. “So, it doesn’t seem to be that patients with evidence of more clotting are more likely to benefit, which might indicate that it’s not the anticoagulant effect of the heparin that’s helping, but maybe the anti-inflammatory effect. At this point, we just don’t know.”

All three studies have paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup, but are continuing to enroll patients with moderate illness and expect to publish results in the coming months, according to previous coverage from this news organization.

The study was funded by CVPath, a nonprofit institute that receives funding from a number of different industry entities. Dr. Finn and Dr. Weitz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The National Institutes of Health has launched a database to track COVID-19–related neurologic symptoms, complications, and outcomes as well as the effects of the virus on preexisting neurologic conditions.

“We know COVID-19 can disrupt multiple body systems, but the effects of the virus and the body’s response to COVID-19 infection on the brain, spinal cord, nerves, and muscle can be particularly devastating and contribute to persistence of disability even after the virus is cleared,” said Barbara Karp, MD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

“There is an urgent need to understand COVID-19–related neurological problems, which not uncommonly include headaches, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, stroke, pain, and sleep disorders as well as some very rare complications of serious infections,” said Dr. Karp.

The COVID-19 NeuroDatabank/BioBank (NeuroCOVID) is funded by the NINDS. It was created and will be maintained by researchers at NYU Langone Health in New York.

The project is led by Andrea Troxel, ScD, professor of population health, and Eva Petkova, PhD, professor of population health and child and adolescent psychiatry, both at New York University.

“We’ve built a pretty comprehensive database that will accept deidentified patient information about new neurological issues that coincide with their COVID disease or worsening of preexisting neurological problems,” said Dr. Troxel. “In addition, we have a bio repository that will accept almost any kind of biological sample, such as blood, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue,” she said.

“Neuroimages are very difficult to store because the files are so enormous, but we’ve had some questions about that, and we’re looking into whether we can accommodate neuroimages,” Dr. Troxel noted.

Dr. Troxel said a “blast of information and invitations” has gone out in an effort to acquire data and biospecimens. “We’ve been really pleased with the amount of interest already, interest not only from large academic medical centers, as you might expect, but also from some smaller stand-alone clinics and even some individuals who have either experienced some of these neurological problems of COVID or know those who have and are really eager to try to provide information,” she added.

Researchers interested in using data and biosamples from the database may submit requests to the NeuroCOVID Steering Committee. More information is available online on the NeuroCOVID website.

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

The National Institutes of Health has launched a database to track COVID-19–related neurologic symptoms, complications, and outcomes as well as the effects of the virus on preexisting neurologic conditions.

“We know COVID-19 can disrupt multiple body systems, but the effects of the virus and the body’s response to COVID-19 infection on the brain, spinal cord, nerves, and muscle can be particularly devastating and contribute to persistence of disability even after the virus is cleared,” said Barbara Karp, MD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

“There is an urgent need to understand COVID-19–related neurological problems, which not uncommonly include headaches, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, stroke, pain, and sleep disorders as well as some very rare complications of serious infections,” said Dr. Karp.

The COVID-19 NeuroDatabank/BioBank (NeuroCOVID) is funded by the NINDS. It was created and will be maintained by researchers at NYU Langone Health in New York.

The project is led by Andrea Troxel, ScD, professor of population health, and Eva Petkova, PhD, professor of population health and child and adolescent psychiatry, both at New York University.

“We’ve built a pretty comprehensive database that will accept deidentified patient information about new neurological issues that coincide with their COVID disease or worsening of preexisting neurological problems,” said Dr. Troxel. “In addition, we have a bio repository that will accept almost any kind of biological sample, such as blood, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue,” she said.

“Neuroimages are very difficult to store because the files are so enormous, but we’ve had some questions about that, and we’re looking into whether we can accommodate neuroimages,” Dr. Troxel noted.

Dr. Troxel said a “blast of information and invitations” has gone out in an effort to acquire data and biospecimens. “We’ve been really pleased with the amount of interest already, interest not only from large academic medical centers, as you might expect, but also from some smaller stand-alone clinics and even some individuals who have either experienced some of these neurological problems of COVID or know those who have and are really eager to try to provide information,” she added.

Researchers interested in using data and biosamples from the database may submit requests to the NeuroCOVID Steering Committee. More information is available online on the NeuroCOVID website.

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

The National Institutes of Health has launched a database to track COVID-19–related neurologic symptoms, complications, and outcomes as well as the effects of the virus on preexisting neurologic conditions.

“We know COVID-19 can disrupt multiple body systems, but the effects of the virus and the body’s response to COVID-19 infection on the brain, spinal cord, nerves, and muscle can be particularly devastating and contribute to persistence of disability even after the virus is cleared,” said Barbara Karp, MD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

“There is an urgent need to understand COVID-19–related neurological problems, which not uncommonly include headaches, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, stroke, pain, and sleep disorders as well as some very rare complications of serious infections,” said Dr. Karp.

The COVID-19 NeuroDatabank/BioBank (NeuroCOVID) is funded by the NINDS. It was created and will be maintained by researchers at NYU Langone Health in New York.

The project is led by Andrea Troxel, ScD, professor of population health, and Eva Petkova, PhD, professor of population health and child and adolescent psychiatry, both at New York University.

“We’ve built a pretty comprehensive database that will accept deidentified patient information about new neurological issues that coincide with their COVID disease or worsening of preexisting neurological problems,” said Dr. Troxel. “In addition, we have a bio repository that will accept almost any kind of biological sample, such as blood, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue,” she said.

“Neuroimages are very difficult to store because the files are so enormous, but we’ve had some questions about that, and we’re looking into whether we can accommodate neuroimages,” Dr. Troxel noted.

Dr. Troxel said a “blast of information and invitations” has gone out in an effort to acquire data and biospecimens. “We’ve been really pleased with the amount of interest already, interest not only from large academic medical centers, as you might expect, but also from some smaller stand-alone clinics and even some individuals who have either experienced some of these neurological problems of COVID or know those who have and are really eager to try to provide information,” she added.

Researchers interested in using data and biosamples from the database may submit requests to the NeuroCOVID Steering Committee. More information is available online on the NeuroCOVID website.

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

Cardiovascular disease and related risk factors can be common among male breast cancer patients, suggests a small study in this rare malignancy.

Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.

Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.

Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.

“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.

The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.

Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.

To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.

Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.

Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.

A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.

Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.

The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.

In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.

Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.

In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.

“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular disease and related risk factors can be common among male breast cancer patients, suggests a small study in this rare malignancy.

Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.

Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.

Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.

“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.

The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.

Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.

To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.

Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.

Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.

A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.

Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.

The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.

In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.

Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.

In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.

“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular disease and related risk factors can be common among male breast cancer patients, suggests a small study in this rare malignancy.

Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.

Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.

Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.

“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.

The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.

Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.

To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.

Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.

Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.

A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.

Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.

The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.

In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.

Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.

In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.

“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For appetite control, a low-fat, plant-based diet has advantages over a low-carbohydrate, animal-based ketogenic diet, although the keto diet wins when it comes to keeping post-meal glucose and insulin levels in check, new research suggests.

In a highly controlled crossover study conducted at the National Institutes of Health, people consumed fewer daily calories when on a low-fat, plant-based diet, but their insulin and blood glucose levels were higher than when they followed a low-carbohydrate, animal-based diet.

“There is this somewhat-outdated idea now that higher-fat diets, because they have more calories per gram, tend to make people overeat – something called the passive overconsumption model,” senior investigator Kevin Hall, PhD, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, said in an interview.

The other more popular model these days, he explained, is the carbohydrate-insulin model, which holds that following a diet high in carbohydrates and sugar that causes insulin levels to spike will increase hunger and cause a person to overeat.

In this study, Dr. Hall and colleagues tested these two hypotheses head to head.

“The short answer is that we got exactly the opposite predictions from the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity. In other words, instead of making people eat more and gaining weight and body fat, they actually ended up eating less on that diet and losing body fat compared to the higher-fat diet,” Dr. Hall said.

“Yet, the passive overconsumption model also failed, because despite them eating a very energy-dense diet and high fat, they didn’t gain weight and gain body fat. And so both of these models of why people overeat and gain weight seem to be inadequate in our study,” he said. “This suggests that things are a little bit more complicated.”

The study was published online Jan. 21, 2021 in Nature Medicine.
 

Pros and cons to both diets

For the study, the researchers housed 20 healthy adults who did not have diabetes for 4 continuous weeks at the NIH Clinical Center. The mean age of the participants was 29.9 years, and the mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m².

The participants were randomly allocated to consume ad libitum either a plant-based, low-fat diet (10.3% fat, 75.2% carbohydrate) with low-energy density (about 1 kcal/g⁻¹), or an animal-based, ketogenic, low-carbohydrate diet (75.8% fat, 10.0% carbohydrate) with high energy density (about 2 kcal/g⁻¹) for 2 weeks. They then crossed over to the alternate diet for 2 weeks.

Both diets contained about 14% protein and were matched for total calories, although the low-carb diet had twice as many calories per gram of food than the low-fat diet. Participants could eat what and however much they chose of the meals they were given.

One participant withdrew, owing to hypoglycemia during the low-carbohydrate diet phase. For the primary outcome, the researchers compared mean daily ad libitum energy intake between each 2-week diet period.

They found that energy intake from the low-fat diet was reduced by approximately 550-700 kcal/d⁻¹, compared with the low-carbohydrate keto diet. Yet, despite the large differences in calorie intake, participants reported no differences in hunger, enjoyment of meals, or fullness between the two diets.

Participants lost weight on both diets (about 1-2 kg on average), but only the low-fat diet led to a significant loss of body fat.

“Interestingly, our findings suggest benefits to both diets, at least in the short term,” Dr. Hall said in a news release.

“While the low-fat, plant-based diet helps curb appetite, the animal-based, low-carb diet resulted in lower and more steady insulin and glucose levels. We don’t yet know if these differences would be sustained over the long term,” he said.

Dr. Hall added that it’s important to note that the study was not designed to make diet recommendations for weight loss, and the results might have been different had the participants been actively trying to lose weight.

“In fact, they didn’t even know what the study was about; we just said we want you to eat the two diets, and we’re going to see what happens in your body either as you eat as much or as little as you want,” he said.

“It’s a bit of a mixed bag in terms of which diet might be better for an individual. I think you can interpret this study as that there are positives and negatives for both diets,” Dr. Hall said.
 

Diet ‘tribes’

In a comment, Taylor Wallace, PhD, adjunct professor, department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said it’s important to note that “a ‘low-carb diet’ has yet to be defined, and many definitions exist.

“We really need a standard definition of what constitutes ‘low-carb’ so that studies can be designed and evaluated in a consistent manner. It’s problematic because, without a standard definition, the ‘diet tribe’ researchers (keto versus plant-based) always seem to find the answer that is in their own favor,” Dr. Wallace said. “This study does seem to use less than 20 grams of carbs per day, which in my mind is pretty low carb.”

Perhaps the most important caveat, he added, is that, in the real world, “most people don’t adhere to these very strict diets – not even for 2 weeks.”

The study was supported by the NIDDK Intramural Research Program, with additional NIH support from a National Institute of Nursing Research grant. One author has received reimbursement for speaking at conferences sponsored by companies selling nutritional products, serves on the scientific advisory council for Kerry Taste and Nutrition, and is part of an academic consortium that has received research funding from Abbott Nutrition, Nestec, and Danone. Dr. Hall and the other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of the Think Healthy Group, editor of the Journal of Dietary Supplements, and deputy editor of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

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

For appetite control, a low-fat, plant-based diet has advantages over a low-carbohydrate, animal-based ketogenic diet, although the keto diet wins when it comes to keeping post-meal glucose and insulin levels in check, new research suggests.

In a highly controlled crossover study conducted at the National Institutes of Health, people consumed fewer daily calories when on a low-fat, plant-based diet, but their insulin and blood glucose levels were higher than when they followed a low-carbohydrate, animal-based diet.

“There is this somewhat-outdated idea now that higher-fat diets, because they have more calories per gram, tend to make people overeat – something called the passive overconsumption model,” senior investigator Kevin Hall, PhD, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, said in an interview.

The other more popular model these days, he explained, is the carbohydrate-insulin model, which holds that following a diet high in carbohydrates and sugar that causes insulin levels to spike will increase hunger and cause a person to overeat.

In this study, Dr. Hall and colleagues tested these two hypotheses head to head.

“The short answer is that we got exactly the opposite predictions from the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity. In other words, instead of making people eat more and gaining weight and body fat, they actually ended up eating less on that diet and losing body fat compared to the higher-fat diet,” Dr. Hall said.

“Yet, the passive overconsumption model also failed, because despite them eating a very energy-dense diet and high fat, they didn’t gain weight and gain body fat. And so both of these models of why people overeat and gain weight seem to be inadequate in our study,” he said. “This suggests that things are a little bit more complicated.”

The study was published online Jan. 21, 2021 in Nature Medicine.
 

Pros and cons to both diets

For the study, the researchers housed 20 healthy adults who did not have diabetes for 4 continuous weeks at the NIH Clinical Center. The mean age of the participants was 29.9 years, and the mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m².

The participants were randomly allocated to consume ad libitum either a plant-based, low-fat diet (10.3% fat, 75.2% carbohydrate) with low-energy density (about 1 kcal/g⁻¹), or an animal-based, ketogenic, low-carbohydrate diet (75.8% fat, 10.0% carbohydrate) with high energy density (about 2 kcal/g⁻¹) for 2 weeks. They then crossed over to the alternate diet for 2 weeks.

Both diets contained about 14% protein and were matched for total calories, although the low-carb diet had twice as many calories per gram of food than the low-fat diet. Participants could eat what and however much they chose of the meals they were given.

One participant withdrew, owing to hypoglycemia during the low-carbohydrate diet phase. For the primary outcome, the researchers compared mean daily ad libitum energy intake between each 2-week diet period.

They found that energy intake from the low-fat diet was reduced by approximately 550-700 kcal/d⁻¹, compared with the low-carbohydrate keto diet. Yet, despite the large differences in calorie intake, participants reported no differences in hunger, enjoyment of meals, or fullness between the two diets.

Participants lost weight on both diets (about 1-2 kg on average), but only the low-fat diet led to a significant loss of body fat.

“Interestingly, our findings suggest benefits to both diets, at least in the short term,” Dr. Hall said in a news release.

“While the low-fat, plant-based diet helps curb appetite, the animal-based, low-carb diet resulted in lower and more steady insulin and glucose levels. We don’t yet know if these differences would be sustained over the long term,” he said.

Dr. Hall added that it’s important to note that the study was not designed to make diet recommendations for weight loss, and the results might have been different had the participants been actively trying to lose weight.

“In fact, they didn’t even know what the study was about; we just said we want you to eat the two diets, and we’re going to see what happens in your body either as you eat as much or as little as you want,” he said.

“It’s a bit of a mixed bag in terms of which diet might be better for an individual. I think you can interpret this study as that there are positives and negatives for both diets,” Dr. Hall said.
 

Diet ‘tribes’

In a comment, Taylor Wallace, PhD, adjunct professor, department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said it’s important to note that “a ‘low-carb diet’ has yet to be defined, and many definitions exist.

“We really need a standard definition of what constitutes ‘low-carb’ so that studies can be designed and evaluated in a consistent manner. It’s problematic because, without a standard definition, the ‘diet tribe’ researchers (keto versus plant-based) always seem to find the answer that is in their own favor,” Dr. Wallace said. “This study does seem to use less than 20 grams of carbs per day, which in my mind is pretty low carb.”

Perhaps the most important caveat, he added, is that, in the real world, “most people don’t adhere to these very strict diets – not even for 2 weeks.”

The study was supported by the NIDDK Intramural Research Program, with additional NIH support from a National Institute of Nursing Research grant. One author has received reimbursement for speaking at conferences sponsored by companies selling nutritional products, serves on the scientific advisory council for Kerry Taste and Nutrition, and is part of an academic consortium that has received research funding from Abbott Nutrition, Nestec, and Danone. Dr. Hall and the other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of the Think Healthy Group, editor of the Journal of Dietary Supplements, and deputy editor of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

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

For appetite control, a low-fat, plant-based diet has advantages over a low-carbohydrate, animal-based ketogenic diet, although the keto diet wins when it comes to keeping post-meal glucose and insulin levels in check, new research suggests.

In a highly controlled crossover study conducted at the National Institutes of Health, people consumed fewer daily calories when on a low-fat, plant-based diet, but their insulin and blood glucose levels were higher than when they followed a low-carbohydrate, animal-based diet.

“There is this somewhat-outdated idea now that higher-fat diets, because they have more calories per gram, tend to make people overeat – something called the passive overconsumption model,” senior investigator Kevin Hall, PhD, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, said in an interview.

The other more popular model these days, he explained, is the carbohydrate-insulin model, which holds that following a diet high in carbohydrates and sugar that causes insulin levels to spike will increase hunger and cause a person to overeat.

In this study, Dr. Hall and colleagues tested these two hypotheses head to head.

“The short answer is that we got exactly the opposite predictions from the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity. In other words, instead of making people eat more and gaining weight and body fat, they actually ended up eating less on that diet and losing body fat compared to the higher-fat diet,” Dr. Hall said.

“Yet, the passive overconsumption model also failed, because despite them eating a very energy-dense diet and high fat, they didn’t gain weight and gain body fat. And so both of these models of why people overeat and gain weight seem to be inadequate in our study,” he said. “This suggests that things are a little bit more complicated.”

The study was published online Jan. 21, 2021 in Nature Medicine.
 

Pros and cons to both diets

For the study, the researchers housed 20 healthy adults who did not have diabetes for 4 continuous weeks at the NIH Clinical Center. The mean age of the participants was 29.9 years, and the mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m².

The participants were randomly allocated to consume ad libitum either a plant-based, low-fat diet (10.3% fat, 75.2% carbohydrate) with low-energy density (about 1 kcal/g⁻¹), or an animal-based, ketogenic, low-carbohydrate diet (75.8% fat, 10.0% carbohydrate) with high energy density (about 2 kcal/g⁻¹) for 2 weeks. They then crossed over to the alternate diet for 2 weeks.

Both diets contained about 14% protein and were matched for total calories, although the low-carb diet had twice as many calories per gram of food than the low-fat diet. Participants could eat what and however much they chose of the meals they were given.

One participant withdrew, owing to hypoglycemia during the low-carbohydrate diet phase. For the primary outcome, the researchers compared mean daily ad libitum energy intake between each 2-week diet period.

They found that energy intake from the low-fat diet was reduced by approximately 550-700 kcal/d⁻¹, compared with the low-carbohydrate keto diet. Yet, despite the large differences in calorie intake, participants reported no differences in hunger, enjoyment of meals, or fullness between the two diets.

Participants lost weight on both diets (about 1-2 kg on average), but only the low-fat diet led to a significant loss of body fat.

“Interestingly, our findings suggest benefits to both diets, at least in the short term,” Dr. Hall said in a news release.

“While the low-fat, plant-based diet helps curb appetite, the animal-based, low-carb diet resulted in lower and more steady insulin and glucose levels. We don’t yet know if these differences would be sustained over the long term,” he said.

Dr. Hall added that it’s important to note that the study was not designed to make diet recommendations for weight loss, and the results might have been different had the participants been actively trying to lose weight.

“In fact, they didn’t even know what the study was about; we just said we want you to eat the two diets, and we’re going to see what happens in your body either as you eat as much or as little as you want,” he said.

“It’s a bit of a mixed bag in terms of which diet might be better for an individual. I think you can interpret this study as that there are positives and negatives for both diets,” Dr. Hall said.
 

Diet ‘tribes’

In a comment, Taylor Wallace, PhD, adjunct professor, department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said it’s important to note that “a ‘low-carb diet’ has yet to be defined, and many definitions exist.

“We really need a standard definition of what constitutes ‘low-carb’ so that studies can be designed and evaluated in a consistent manner. It’s problematic because, without a standard definition, the ‘diet tribe’ researchers (keto versus plant-based) always seem to find the answer that is in their own favor,” Dr. Wallace said. “This study does seem to use less than 20 grams of carbs per day, which in my mind is pretty low carb.”

Perhaps the most important caveat, he added, is that, in the real world, “most people don’t adhere to these very strict diets – not even for 2 weeks.”

The study was supported by the NIDDK Intramural Research Program, with additional NIH support from a National Institute of Nursing Research grant. One author has received reimbursement for speaking at conferences sponsored by companies selling nutritional products, serves on the scientific advisory council for Kerry Taste and Nutrition, and is part of an academic consortium that has received research funding from Abbott Nutrition, Nestec, and Danone. Dr. Hall and the other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of the Think Healthy Group, editor of the Journal of Dietary Supplements, and deputy editor of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

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

Use of a semiautonomous algorithm to initiate treatment for hypertension emergencies in pregnancy significantly increased the number of individuals treated promptly, based on data from 959 obstetric patients.

Data show poor compliance with the current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for treatment of acute severe hypertension with no more than 30-60 minutes’ delay; low compliance may be caused by “multiple factors including lack of intravenous access, inadequate health care practitioner or nursing availability, and implicit racial biases,” wrote Courtney Martin, DO, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University School of Medicine and colleagues.

Semiautomated treatment algorithms have been used to improve timely treatment of conditions including myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, and asthma, but their use in obstetrics to date has been limited, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified pregnant and postpartum women treated for severe hypertension at a single center between January 2017 and March 2020. A semiautonomous treatment algorithm was implemented between May 2018 and March 2019. The algorithm included vital sign monitoring, blood pressure thresholds for diagnosis of severe hypertension, and automated order sets for recommended first-line antihypertensive therapy. The primary outcomes were treatment with antihypertensive therapy within 15, 30, and 60 minutes of diagnosis. “Severe hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg or higher or diastolic blood pressure 110 mm Hg or higher,” the researchers said.

The study population was divided into three groups; a preimplementation group (373 patients) managed between January 2017 and April 2018, a during-implementation group (334 patients) managed between May 2018 and March 2019, and a postimplementation group (252 patients) managed between April 2019 and March 2020. Patient demographics were similar among all three groups.
 

Timely treatment improves with algorithm

Overall, treatment of severe hypertension within 15 minutes of diagnosis was 36.5% preimplementation, 45.8% during implementation, and 55.6% postimplementation. Severe hypertension treatment within 30 minutes of diagnosis was 65.9% preimplementation, 77.8% during implementation, and 79.0% post implementation. Differences were significant between pre- and post implementation for 15 minutes and 30 minutes, but no significant differences occurred in the patients treated within 60 minutes before and after implementation of the algorithm.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to separate peer-to-peer education and other training from the impact of the algorithm, as well as a lack of data on the effect of the algorithm on maternal or neonatal outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of a semiautonomous algorithm to significantly improve adherence to the recommended treatment guidelines for severe hypertension in pregnancy and post partum, they said. Given the expected increase in hypertensive disorders in pregnancy because of the trends in older age and higher obesity rates in pregnant women, “Integration of semiautonomous treatment algorithms similar to ours into routine obstetric practices could help reduce the health care burden and improve clinical outcomes, especially in areas with limited health care resources,” they concluded.
 

Algorithm may reduce disparities

The overall rise in maternal mortality in the United States remains a concern, but “Even more concerning are the disturbing racial disparities that persist across socioeconomic strata,” wrote Alisse Hauspurg, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh in an accompanying editorial. “There is clear evidence that expeditious treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergency reduces the risk of severe morbidities including stroke, eclampsia, and maternal death,” she emphasized, but compliance with the ACOG recommendations to treat severe hypertension within 30-60 minutes of confirmation remains low, she said.

In this study, not only did use of the algorithm reduce time to antihypertensive therapy, but more than 50% of patients were treated for severe hypertension within 15 minutes, and more than 90% within 60 minutes, “which was sustained after the implementation phase,” and aligns with the ACOG recommendations, Dr. Hauspurg said. “Although Martin et al.’s algorithm was limited to the initial management of obstetric hypertensive emergency, it could readily be expanded to follow the full ACOG algorithm for management of hypertension in pregnancy,” she noted.

In addition, Black women are more frequently diagnosed with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including severe hypertension, and the algorithm might improve disparities, she said.

“It is plausible that widespread implementation of such a semiautonomous algorithm at hospitals across the country could reduce delays in treatment and prevent hypertension-related morbidities,” said Dr. Hauspurg. “The use of innovative approaches to management of severe hypertension and other obstetric emergencies has the potential to allow provision of more equitable care by overcoming health care practitioner and system biases, which could meaningfully reduce disparities in care and change the trajectory of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she emphasized.
 

Need to create culture of safety

“Maternal mortality in the United States is the highest among developed nations, and shocking disparities exist in outcomes for non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native women,” said Lisa Hollier, MD, of Texas Children’s Health Plan in Bellaire. “In a California review of maternal deaths, the greatest quality improvement opportunities were missed diagnosis and ineffective treatment of preeclampsia and related diseases, which occurred in 65% of the cases where women died of preeclampsia/eclampsia,” she said.

The current study “is very timely as more and more states across the nation are participating in the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) programs to prevent pregnancy-related mortality,” Dr. Hollier noted.

“This study demonstrated a significant association between implementation of the algorithm and an increased percentage of treatment of severe hypertension within 30 minutes,” Dr. Hollier said. “With the implementation of a comprehensive program that included treatment algorithms, the Illinois Perinatal Quality Collaborative improved timely treatment for women with severe high blood pressure, increasing the percentage of patients treated within 60 minutes from 41% at baseline to 79% in the first year of the project.”

The take-home message is that “implementation of the semiautonomous treatment algorithm can address important clinical variation, including delays in appropriate treatment of severe hypertension,” said Dr. Hollier. However, “One of the potential barriers [to use of an algorithm] is the need for accurate, real-time clinical assessment. Resources must be available to ensure appropriate monitoring,” Dr. Hollier noted. “Collaboration and support of implementation of these treatment algorithms must extend through the nursing staff, the physicians, and advanced-practice providers. Medical staff and administrative leaders are essential in creating a culture of safety and continuous process improvement,” she said.

In addition, “long-term follow-up on the implementation of broader quality improvement programs is essential,” Dr. Hollier said. “While implementation of an algorithm can, and did, result in process improvements, assessment of broader implementation of evidence-based bundles, combined with a systematic approach to redesign of multiple related processes needs to occur and include outcomes of severe maternal morbidity and mortality,” she explained.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Neither Dr. Hauspurg nor Dr. Hollier had financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of a semiautonomous algorithm to initiate treatment for hypertension emergencies in pregnancy significantly increased the number of individuals treated promptly, based on data from 959 obstetric patients.

Data show poor compliance with the current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for treatment of acute severe hypertension with no more than 30-60 minutes’ delay; low compliance may be caused by “multiple factors including lack of intravenous access, inadequate health care practitioner or nursing availability, and implicit racial biases,” wrote Courtney Martin, DO, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University School of Medicine and colleagues.

Semiautomated treatment algorithms have been used to improve timely treatment of conditions including myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, and asthma, but their use in obstetrics to date has been limited, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified pregnant and postpartum women treated for severe hypertension at a single center between January 2017 and March 2020. A semiautonomous treatment algorithm was implemented between May 2018 and March 2019. The algorithm included vital sign monitoring, blood pressure thresholds for diagnosis of severe hypertension, and automated order sets for recommended first-line antihypertensive therapy. The primary outcomes were treatment with antihypertensive therapy within 15, 30, and 60 minutes of diagnosis. “Severe hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg or higher or diastolic blood pressure 110 mm Hg or higher,” the researchers said.

The study population was divided into three groups; a preimplementation group (373 patients) managed between January 2017 and April 2018, a during-implementation group (334 patients) managed between May 2018 and March 2019, and a postimplementation group (252 patients) managed between April 2019 and March 2020. Patient demographics were similar among all three groups.
 

Timely treatment improves with algorithm

Overall, treatment of severe hypertension within 15 minutes of diagnosis was 36.5% preimplementation, 45.8% during implementation, and 55.6% postimplementation. Severe hypertension treatment within 30 minutes of diagnosis was 65.9% preimplementation, 77.8% during implementation, and 79.0% post implementation. Differences were significant between pre- and post implementation for 15 minutes and 30 minutes, but no significant differences occurred in the patients treated within 60 minutes before and after implementation of the algorithm.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to separate peer-to-peer education and other training from the impact of the algorithm, as well as a lack of data on the effect of the algorithm on maternal or neonatal outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of a semiautonomous algorithm to significantly improve adherence to the recommended treatment guidelines for severe hypertension in pregnancy and post partum, they said. Given the expected increase in hypertensive disorders in pregnancy because of the trends in older age and higher obesity rates in pregnant women, “Integration of semiautonomous treatment algorithms similar to ours into routine obstetric practices could help reduce the health care burden and improve clinical outcomes, especially in areas with limited health care resources,” they concluded.
 

Algorithm may reduce disparities

The overall rise in maternal mortality in the United States remains a concern, but “Even more concerning are the disturbing racial disparities that persist across socioeconomic strata,” wrote Alisse Hauspurg, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh in an accompanying editorial. “There is clear evidence that expeditious treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergency reduces the risk of severe morbidities including stroke, eclampsia, and maternal death,” she emphasized, but compliance with the ACOG recommendations to treat severe hypertension within 30-60 minutes of confirmation remains low, she said.

In this study, not only did use of the algorithm reduce time to antihypertensive therapy, but more than 50% of patients were treated for severe hypertension within 15 minutes, and more than 90% within 60 minutes, “which was sustained after the implementation phase,” and aligns with the ACOG recommendations, Dr. Hauspurg said. “Although Martin et al.’s algorithm was limited to the initial management of obstetric hypertensive emergency, it could readily be expanded to follow the full ACOG algorithm for management of hypertension in pregnancy,” she noted.

In addition, Black women are more frequently diagnosed with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including severe hypertension, and the algorithm might improve disparities, she said.

“It is plausible that widespread implementation of such a semiautonomous algorithm at hospitals across the country could reduce delays in treatment and prevent hypertension-related morbidities,” said Dr. Hauspurg. “The use of innovative approaches to management of severe hypertension and other obstetric emergencies has the potential to allow provision of more equitable care by overcoming health care practitioner and system biases, which could meaningfully reduce disparities in care and change the trajectory of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she emphasized.
 

Need to create culture of safety

“Maternal mortality in the United States is the highest among developed nations, and shocking disparities exist in outcomes for non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native women,” said Lisa Hollier, MD, of Texas Children’s Health Plan in Bellaire. “In a California review of maternal deaths, the greatest quality improvement opportunities were missed diagnosis and ineffective treatment of preeclampsia and related diseases, which occurred in 65% of the cases where women died of preeclampsia/eclampsia,” she said.

The current study “is very timely as more and more states across the nation are participating in the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) programs to prevent pregnancy-related mortality,” Dr. Hollier noted.

“This study demonstrated a significant association between implementation of the algorithm and an increased percentage of treatment of severe hypertension within 30 minutes,” Dr. Hollier said. “With the implementation of a comprehensive program that included treatment algorithms, the Illinois Perinatal Quality Collaborative improved timely treatment for women with severe high blood pressure, increasing the percentage of patients treated within 60 minutes from 41% at baseline to 79% in the first year of the project.”

The take-home message is that “implementation of the semiautonomous treatment algorithm can address important clinical variation, including delays in appropriate treatment of severe hypertension,” said Dr. Hollier. However, “One of the potential barriers [to use of an algorithm] is the need for accurate, real-time clinical assessment. Resources must be available to ensure appropriate monitoring,” Dr. Hollier noted. “Collaboration and support of implementation of these treatment algorithms must extend through the nursing staff, the physicians, and advanced-practice providers. Medical staff and administrative leaders are essential in creating a culture of safety and continuous process improvement,” she said.

In addition, “long-term follow-up on the implementation of broader quality improvement programs is essential,” Dr. Hollier said. “While implementation of an algorithm can, and did, result in process improvements, assessment of broader implementation of evidence-based bundles, combined with a systematic approach to redesign of multiple related processes needs to occur and include outcomes of severe maternal morbidity and mortality,” she explained.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Neither Dr. Hauspurg nor Dr. Hollier had financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of a semiautonomous algorithm to initiate treatment for hypertension emergencies in pregnancy significantly increased the number of individuals treated promptly, based on data from 959 obstetric patients.

Data show poor compliance with the current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for treatment of acute severe hypertension with no more than 30-60 minutes’ delay; low compliance may be caused by “multiple factors including lack of intravenous access, inadequate health care practitioner or nursing availability, and implicit racial biases,” wrote Courtney Martin, DO, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University School of Medicine and colleagues.

Semiautomated treatment algorithms have been used to improve timely treatment of conditions including myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, and asthma, but their use in obstetrics to date has been limited, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified pregnant and postpartum women treated for severe hypertension at a single center between January 2017 and March 2020. A semiautonomous treatment algorithm was implemented between May 2018 and March 2019. The algorithm included vital sign monitoring, blood pressure thresholds for diagnosis of severe hypertension, and automated order sets for recommended first-line antihypertensive therapy. The primary outcomes were treatment with antihypertensive therapy within 15, 30, and 60 minutes of diagnosis. “Severe hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg or higher or diastolic blood pressure 110 mm Hg or higher,” the researchers said.

The study population was divided into three groups; a preimplementation group (373 patients) managed between January 2017 and April 2018, a during-implementation group (334 patients) managed between May 2018 and March 2019, and a postimplementation group (252 patients) managed between April 2019 and March 2020. Patient demographics were similar among all three groups.
 

Timely treatment improves with algorithm

Overall, treatment of severe hypertension within 15 minutes of diagnosis was 36.5% preimplementation, 45.8% during implementation, and 55.6% postimplementation. Severe hypertension treatment within 30 minutes of diagnosis was 65.9% preimplementation, 77.8% during implementation, and 79.0% post implementation. Differences were significant between pre- and post implementation for 15 minutes and 30 minutes, but no significant differences occurred in the patients treated within 60 minutes before and after implementation of the algorithm.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to separate peer-to-peer education and other training from the impact of the algorithm, as well as a lack of data on the effect of the algorithm on maternal or neonatal outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of a semiautonomous algorithm to significantly improve adherence to the recommended treatment guidelines for severe hypertension in pregnancy and post partum, they said. Given the expected increase in hypertensive disorders in pregnancy because of the trends in older age and higher obesity rates in pregnant women, “Integration of semiautonomous treatment algorithms similar to ours into routine obstetric practices could help reduce the health care burden and improve clinical outcomes, especially in areas with limited health care resources,” they concluded.
 

Algorithm may reduce disparities

The overall rise in maternal mortality in the United States remains a concern, but “Even more concerning are the disturbing racial disparities that persist across socioeconomic strata,” wrote Alisse Hauspurg, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh in an accompanying editorial. “There is clear evidence that expeditious treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergency reduces the risk of severe morbidities including stroke, eclampsia, and maternal death,” she emphasized, but compliance with the ACOG recommendations to treat severe hypertension within 30-60 minutes of confirmation remains low, she said.

In this study, not only did use of the algorithm reduce time to antihypertensive therapy, but more than 50% of patients were treated for severe hypertension within 15 minutes, and more than 90% within 60 minutes, “which was sustained after the implementation phase,” and aligns with the ACOG recommendations, Dr. Hauspurg said. “Although Martin et al.’s algorithm was limited to the initial management of obstetric hypertensive emergency, it could readily be expanded to follow the full ACOG algorithm for management of hypertension in pregnancy,” she noted.

In addition, Black women are more frequently diagnosed with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including severe hypertension, and the algorithm might improve disparities, she said.

“It is plausible that widespread implementation of such a semiautonomous algorithm at hospitals across the country could reduce delays in treatment and prevent hypertension-related morbidities,” said Dr. Hauspurg. “The use of innovative approaches to management of severe hypertension and other obstetric emergencies has the potential to allow provision of more equitable care by overcoming health care practitioner and system biases, which could meaningfully reduce disparities in care and change the trajectory of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she emphasized.
 

Need to create culture of safety

“Maternal mortality in the United States is the highest among developed nations, and shocking disparities exist in outcomes for non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native women,” said Lisa Hollier, MD, of Texas Children’s Health Plan in Bellaire. “In a California review of maternal deaths, the greatest quality improvement opportunities were missed diagnosis and ineffective treatment of preeclampsia and related diseases, which occurred in 65% of the cases where women died of preeclampsia/eclampsia,” she said.

The current study “is very timely as more and more states across the nation are participating in the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) programs to prevent pregnancy-related mortality,” Dr. Hollier noted.

“This study demonstrated a significant association between implementation of the algorithm and an increased percentage of treatment of severe hypertension within 30 minutes,” Dr. Hollier said. “With the implementation of a comprehensive program that included treatment algorithms, the Illinois Perinatal Quality Collaborative improved timely treatment for women with severe high blood pressure, increasing the percentage of patients treated within 60 minutes from 41% at baseline to 79% in the first year of the project.”

The take-home message is that “implementation of the semiautonomous treatment algorithm can address important clinical variation, including delays in appropriate treatment of severe hypertension,” said Dr. Hollier. However, “One of the potential barriers [to use of an algorithm] is the need for accurate, real-time clinical assessment. Resources must be available to ensure appropriate monitoring,” Dr. Hollier noted. “Collaboration and support of implementation of these treatment algorithms must extend through the nursing staff, the physicians, and advanced-practice providers. Medical staff and administrative leaders are essential in creating a culture of safety and continuous process improvement,” she said.

In addition, “long-term follow-up on the implementation of broader quality improvement programs is essential,” Dr. Hollier said. “While implementation of an algorithm can, and did, result in process improvements, assessment of broader implementation of evidence-based bundles, combined with a systematic approach to redesign of multiple related processes needs to occur and include outcomes of severe maternal morbidity and mortality,” she explained.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Neither Dr. Hauspurg nor Dr. Hollier had financial conflicts to disclose.

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be warned that some newer models of smartphones equipped with magnets, such as the iPhone 12, can disable their device, inhibiting its lifesaving functions, according to investigators who tested and confirmed this effect.

SL/Getty Images

“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted which persisted for the duration of the test,” reported the investigating team led by Joshua C. Greenberg, MD, who is an electrophysiology fellow at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The results were published in Heart Rhythm.

The American Heart Association has already cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for ICDs and pacemakers. On the AHA website, there is a list of devices and their potential for functional interference, but cell phones and other common devices are identified as posing a low risk.

The most recent iPhone and perhaps other advanced smartphones appear to be different. According to the authors of a study that tested the iPhone 12, this model has a circular array of magnets around a central charging coil. This array interacts with Apple’s proprietary MagSafe technology, which accelerates charging. The magnets also serve to orient the phone on the charger and enable other MagSafe accessories.

The authors of the new study were concerned that this array of magnets might be sufficiently strong to interfere with ICDs or other devices at risk. In a previously published study, the strength of a magnetic field sufficient to interfere with implantable cardiac devices was estimated to be at least 10 gauss.

Tests were performed on a patient wearing a Medtronic ICD.

“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted,” according to the authors of the study. The functional loss of the ICS persisted for the duration of proximity. It was reproduced multiple times and with multiple phone positions.

Previous studies have provided evidence that earlier models do not share this risk. In a study testing the iPhone 6 and an Apple Watch in 148 patients with various types of implantable electronic devices, including pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, resynchronization defibrillators, and resynchronization pacemakers, only one instance of interference was observed in 1,352 tests.

With wand telemetry, iPhone-induced interferences could be detected with the iPhone 6 in 14% of the patients, but these did not appear to be clinically meaningful, and this type of interference could not be detected with the Apple Watch, according to the report. The single observed interaction, which was between an iPhone 6 and a dual-chamber pacemaker, suggested device-device interactions are uncommon.

More recently, a woman with a single-chamber Medtronic ICD who went to sleep wearing an Apple Watch was awoken by warning beeps from her cardiac device, according to a case report published online. The Apple watch became the prime suspect in causing the ICD warning when proximity of the watch reproduced the warning during clinical examination. However, the magnetic interference was ultimately found to be emanating from the wristband, not the watch.

This case prompted additional studies with Fitbit and other Apple Watch wristbands. Both wristbands contain magnets used to track heart rate. Both were found capable of deactivating ICDs at distances of approximately 2 cm. On the basis of these results, the authors concluded that patients should be counseled about the risk posed by wristbands used in fitness tracking, concluding that they should be kept at least 6 inches away from ICDs and not worn while sleeping.

On their website, Apple maintains a page that specifically warns about the potential for interactions between iPhone 12s and medical devices . Although there is an acknowledgment that the iPhone12 contains more magnets than prior iPhone models, it is stated that iPhone 12 models are “not expected to pose a greater risk of magnetic interference to medical devices than prior iPhone models.” Nevertheless, the Apple instructions advise keeping the iPhone and MagSafe accessories more than 6 inches away from medical devices.

Dr. Greenberg and coinvestigators concluded that the iPhone 12 does pose a greater risk to the dysfunction of ICDs and other medical devices because of the more powerful magnets. As a result, the study brings forward “an important public health issue concerning the newer generation iPhone 12.”

Well aware of this issue and this study, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, director of cardiac pacing and tachyarrhythmia devices, Cleveland Clinic, agreed. He said the focus should not be restricted to the iPhone 12 series but other wearable devices as alluded to in the study.

“Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are designed to respond to magnets for important reasons, but magnets have many common uses,” he said. These can change the function of the implantable cardiac devise, but “it is temporary and only when placed in close proximity.”

The solution is simple. “Patients should be careful to avoid locating these objects near these devices,” Dr. Wilkoff said.

However, the first step is awareness. According to the study authors, devices with magnets powerful enough to impair function of implantable devices, such as the iPhone 12 “can potentially inhibit lifesaving therapy.”

Patients should be counseled and provided with practical steps, according to the authors. This includes keeping these devices out of pockets near implantable devices. They called for more noise from makers of smartphones and other devices with strong enough magnets to alter pacemaker and ICD function, and they advised physicians to draw awareness to this issue.

Dr. Greenberg reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be warned that some newer models of smartphones equipped with magnets, such as the iPhone 12, can disable their device, inhibiting its lifesaving functions, according to investigators who tested and confirmed this effect.

SL/Getty Images

“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted which persisted for the duration of the test,” reported the investigating team led by Joshua C. Greenberg, MD, who is an electrophysiology fellow at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The results were published in Heart Rhythm.

The American Heart Association has already cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for ICDs and pacemakers. On the AHA website, there is a list of devices and their potential for functional interference, but cell phones and other common devices are identified as posing a low risk.

The most recent iPhone and perhaps other advanced smartphones appear to be different. According to the authors of a study that tested the iPhone 12, this model has a circular array of magnets around a central charging coil. This array interacts with Apple’s proprietary MagSafe technology, which accelerates charging. The magnets also serve to orient the phone on the charger and enable other MagSafe accessories.

The authors of the new study were concerned that this array of magnets might be sufficiently strong to interfere with ICDs or other devices at risk. In a previously published study, the strength of a magnetic field sufficient to interfere with implantable cardiac devices was estimated to be at least 10 gauss.

Tests were performed on a patient wearing a Medtronic ICD.

“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted,” according to the authors of the study. The functional loss of the ICS persisted for the duration of proximity. It was reproduced multiple times and with multiple phone positions.

Previous studies have provided evidence that earlier models do not share this risk. In a study testing the iPhone 6 and an Apple Watch in 148 patients with various types of implantable electronic devices, including pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, resynchronization defibrillators, and resynchronization pacemakers, only one instance of interference was observed in 1,352 tests.

With wand telemetry, iPhone-induced interferences could be detected with the iPhone 6 in 14% of the patients, but these did not appear to be clinically meaningful, and this type of interference could not be detected with the Apple Watch, according to the report. The single observed interaction, which was between an iPhone 6 and a dual-chamber pacemaker, suggested device-device interactions are uncommon.

More recently, a woman with a single-chamber Medtronic ICD who went to sleep wearing an Apple Watch was awoken by warning beeps from her cardiac device, according to a case report published online. The Apple watch became the prime suspect in causing the ICD warning when proximity of the watch reproduced the warning during clinical examination. However, the magnetic interference was ultimately found to be emanating from the wristband, not the watch.

This case prompted additional studies with Fitbit and other Apple Watch wristbands. Both wristbands contain magnets used to track heart rate. Both were found capable of deactivating ICDs at distances of approximately 2 cm. On the basis of these results, the authors concluded that patients should be counseled about the risk posed by wristbands used in fitness tracking, concluding that they should be kept at least 6 inches away from ICDs and not worn while sleeping.

On their website, Apple maintains a page that specifically warns about the potential for interactions between iPhone 12s and medical devices . Although there is an acknowledgment that the iPhone12 contains more magnets than prior iPhone models, it is stated that iPhone 12 models are “not expected to pose a greater risk of magnetic interference to medical devices than prior iPhone models.” Nevertheless, the Apple instructions advise keeping the iPhone and MagSafe accessories more than 6 inches away from medical devices.

Dr. Greenberg and coinvestigators concluded that the iPhone 12 does pose a greater risk to the dysfunction of ICDs and other medical devices because of the more powerful magnets. As a result, the study brings forward “an important public health issue concerning the newer generation iPhone 12.”

Well aware of this issue and this study, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, director of cardiac pacing and tachyarrhythmia devices, Cleveland Clinic, agreed. He said the focus should not be restricted to the iPhone 12 series but other wearable devices as alluded to in the study.

“Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are designed to respond to magnets for important reasons, but magnets have many common uses,” he said. These can change the function of the implantable cardiac devise, but “it is temporary and only when placed in close proximity.”

The solution is simple. “Patients should be careful to avoid locating these objects near these devices,” Dr. Wilkoff said.

However, the first step is awareness. According to the study authors, devices with magnets powerful enough to impair function of implantable devices, such as the iPhone 12 “can potentially inhibit lifesaving therapy.”

Patients should be counseled and provided with practical steps, according to the authors. This includes keeping these devices out of pockets near implantable devices. They called for more noise from makers of smartphones and other devices with strong enough magnets to alter pacemaker and ICD function, and they advised physicians to draw awareness to this issue.

Dr. Greenberg reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be warned that some newer models of smartphones equipped with magnets, such as the iPhone 12, can disable their device, inhibiting its lifesaving functions, according to investigators who tested and confirmed this effect.

SL/Getty Images

“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted which persisted for the duration of the test,” reported the investigating team led by Joshua C. Greenberg, MD, who is an electrophysiology fellow at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The results were published in Heart Rhythm.

The American Heart Association has already cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for ICDs and pacemakers. On the AHA website, there is a list of devices and their potential for functional interference, but cell phones and other common devices are identified as posing a low risk.

The most recent iPhone and perhaps other advanced smartphones appear to be different. According to the authors of a study that tested the iPhone 12, this model has a circular array of magnets around a central charging coil. This array interacts with Apple’s proprietary MagSafe technology, which accelerates charging. The magnets also serve to orient the phone on the charger and enable other MagSafe accessories.

The authors of the new study were concerned that this array of magnets might be sufficiently strong to interfere with ICDs or other devices at risk. In a previously published study, the strength of a magnetic field sufficient to interfere with implantable cardiac devices was estimated to be at least 10 gauss.

Tests were performed on a patient wearing a Medtronic ICD.

“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted,” according to the authors of the study. The functional loss of the ICS persisted for the duration of proximity. It was reproduced multiple times and with multiple phone positions.

Previous studies have provided evidence that earlier models do not share this risk. In a study testing the iPhone 6 and an Apple Watch in 148 patients with various types of implantable electronic devices, including pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, resynchronization defibrillators, and resynchronization pacemakers, only one instance of interference was observed in 1,352 tests.

With wand telemetry, iPhone-induced interferences could be detected with the iPhone 6 in 14% of the patients, but these did not appear to be clinically meaningful, and this type of interference could not be detected with the Apple Watch, according to the report. The single observed interaction, which was between an iPhone 6 and a dual-chamber pacemaker, suggested device-device interactions are uncommon.

More recently, a woman with a single-chamber Medtronic ICD who went to sleep wearing an Apple Watch was awoken by warning beeps from her cardiac device, according to a case report published online. The Apple watch became the prime suspect in causing the ICD warning when proximity of the watch reproduced the warning during clinical examination. However, the magnetic interference was ultimately found to be emanating from the wristband, not the watch.

This case prompted additional studies with Fitbit and other Apple Watch wristbands. Both wristbands contain magnets used to track heart rate. Both were found capable of deactivating ICDs at distances of approximately 2 cm. On the basis of these results, the authors concluded that patients should be counseled about the risk posed by wristbands used in fitness tracking, concluding that they should be kept at least 6 inches away from ICDs and not worn while sleeping.

On their website, Apple maintains a page that specifically warns about the potential for interactions between iPhone 12s and medical devices . Although there is an acknowledgment that the iPhone12 contains more magnets than prior iPhone models, it is stated that iPhone 12 models are “not expected to pose a greater risk of magnetic interference to medical devices than prior iPhone models.” Nevertheless, the Apple instructions advise keeping the iPhone and MagSafe accessories more than 6 inches away from medical devices.

Dr. Greenberg and coinvestigators concluded that the iPhone 12 does pose a greater risk to the dysfunction of ICDs and other medical devices because of the more powerful magnets. As a result, the study brings forward “an important public health issue concerning the newer generation iPhone 12.”

Well aware of this issue and this study, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, director of cardiac pacing and tachyarrhythmia devices, Cleveland Clinic, agreed. He said the focus should not be restricted to the iPhone 12 series but other wearable devices as alluded to in the study.

“Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are designed to respond to magnets for important reasons, but magnets have many common uses,” he said. These can change the function of the implantable cardiac devise, but “it is temporary and only when placed in close proximity.”

The solution is simple. “Patients should be careful to avoid locating these objects near these devices,” Dr. Wilkoff said.

However, the first step is awareness. According to the study authors, devices with magnets powerful enough to impair function of implantable devices, such as the iPhone 12 “can potentially inhibit lifesaving therapy.”

Patients should be counseled and provided with practical steps, according to the authors. This includes keeping these devices out of pockets near implantable devices. They called for more noise from makers of smartphones and other devices with strong enough magnets to alter pacemaker and ICD function, and they advised physicians to draw awareness to this issue.

Dr. Greenberg reported no potential conflicts of interest.

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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