Federal Practitioner

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

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

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

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

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee recommended on December 12 the recently authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people age 16 and over in the United States, stating they found it was safe and effective.

The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.

CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.

The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.

ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.

The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.

Allergies, pregnant women?

ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.

The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.

The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.

She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.

“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.

ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.

“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”

A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.

On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.

The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.

Should teens be a special population?

At least one ACIP panel member — Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, FAAP — said he was concerned that backing use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds was a leap of faith, given that Pfizer had extremely limited data on this cohort.

Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, also said that systemic reactions were more common in that age group.

He argued for making the 16- and 17-year-olds a “special population” that would get specific attention and guidance for vaccination from the federal agencies and professional societies.

Bernstein said he did not want to sow any more doubts in parents’ minds about vaccination, noting that hesitancy was a growing concern. “A successful pediatric vaccination program depends on creating and sustaining parental confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine,” he said.

Many panelists, however, noted that there has been no evidence to suggest that the vaccine is not safe or less effective in that younger age group.

Yvonne Maldonado, MD, the American Academy of Pediatrics representative on the panel, said that this age group should not be denied the vaccine as they often have essential or front-line jobs that put them at higher risk for infection.

“I am very concerned about this message being sent out that this vaccine will not be safe in children,” said Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine in California.

“We currently have no evidence that that is the case,” she said, adding there is also no indication younger children are biologically or physiologically different in their response or safety risk than 18-year-olds.

Vaccine = hope

Committee members breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the 2-day meeting, saying that although the Pfizer vaccine is not perfect, it represents a scientific milestone and a significant advance against the continuing march of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

“This vaccine and future vaccines do provide a promise for a lot of progress in the future,” said panelist Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH, clinical professor of global health at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.

Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH, executive vice-chair and vice-chair for research at the University of California, Los Angeles pediatrics department, said, “I’m really hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic.”

“The need for this vaccine is profound,” said Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in West Bloomfield, Michigan.

The ACIP panel also made the argument that while the at least $10 billion spent on vaccine development by the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed alone has been a good investment, more spending is needed to actually get Americans vaccinated.

The imbalance between the two is “shocking and needs to be corrected,” said Bell. “We are not going to be able to protect the American public if we don’t have a way to deliver the vaccine to them.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee recommended on December 12 the recently authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people age 16 and over in the United States, stating they found it was safe and effective.

The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.

CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.

The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.

ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.

The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.

Allergies, pregnant women?

ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.

The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.

The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.

She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.

“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.

ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.

“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”

A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.

On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.

The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.

Should teens be a special population?

At least one ACIP panel member — Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, FAAP — said he was concerned that backing use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds was a leap of faith, given that Pfizer had extremely limited data on this cohort.

Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, also said that systemic reactions were more common in that age group.

He argued for making the 16- and 17-year-olds a “special population” that would get specific attention and guidance for vaccination from the federal agencies and professional societies.

Bernstein said he did not want to sow any more doubts in parents’ minds about vaccination, noting that hesitancy was a growing concern. “A successful pediatric vaccination program depends on creating and sustaining parental confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine,” he said.

Many panelists, however, noted that there has been no evidence to suggest that the vaccine is not safe or less effective in that younger age group.

Yvonne Maldonado, MD, the American Academy of Pediatrics representative on the panel, said that this age group should not be denied the vaccine as they often have essential or front-line jobs that put them at higher risk for infection.

“I am very concerned about this message being sent out that this vaccine will not be safe in children,” said Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine in California.

“We currently have no evidence that that is the case,” she said, adding there is also no indication younger children are biologically or physiologically different in their response or safety risk than 18-year-olds.

Vaccine = hope

Committee members breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the 2-day meeting, saying that although the Pfizer vaccine is not perfect, it represents a scientific milestone and a significant advance against the continuing march of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

“This vaccine and future vaccines do provide a promise for a lot of progress in the future,” said panelist Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH, clinical professor of global health at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.

Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH, executive vice-chair and vice-chair for research at the University of California, Los Angeles pediatrics department, said, “I’m really hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic.”

“The need for this vaccine is profound,” said Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in West Bloomfield, Michigan.

The ACIP panel also made the argument that while the at least $10 billion spent on vaccine development by the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed alone has been a good investment, more spending is needed to actually get Americans vaccinated.

The imbalance between the two is “shocking and needs to be corrected,” said Bell. “We are not going to be able to protect the American public if we don’t have a way to deliver the vaccine to them.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee recommended on December 12 the recently authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people age 16 and over in the United States, stating they found it was safe and effective.

The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.

CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.

The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.

ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.

The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.

Allergies, pregnant women?

ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.

The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.

The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.

She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.

“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.

ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.

“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”

A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.

On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.

The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.

Should teens be a special population?

At least one ACIP panel member — Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, FAAP — said he was concerned that backing use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds was a leap of faith, given that Pfizer had extremely limited data on this cohort.

Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, also said that systemic reactions were more common in that age group.

He argued for making the 16- and 17-year-olds a “special population” that would get specific attention and guidance for vaccination from the federal agencies and professional societies.

Bernstein said he did not want to sow any more doubts in parents’ minds about vaccination, noting that hesitancy was a growing concern. “A successful pediatric vaccination program depends on creating and sustaining parental confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine,” he said.

Many panelists, however, noted that there has been no evidence to suggest that the vaccine is not safe or less effective in that younger age group.

Yvonne Maldonado, MD, the American Academy of Pediatrics representative on the panel, said that this age group should not be denied the vaccine as they often have essential or front-line jobs that put them at higher risk for infection.

“I am very concerned about this message being sent out that this vaccine will not be safe in children,” said Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine in California.

“We currently have no evidence that that is the case,” she said, adding there is also no indication younger children are biologically or physiologically different in their response or safety risk than 18-year-olds.

Vaccine = hope

Committee members breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the 2-day meeting, saying that although the Pfizer vaccine is not perfect, it represents a scientific milestone and a significant advance against the continuing march of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

“This vaccine and future vaccines do provide a promise for a lot of progress in the future,” said panelist Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH, clinical professor of global health at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.

Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH, executive vice-chair and vice-chair for research at the University of California, Los Angeles pediatrics department, said, “I’m really hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic.”

“The need for this vaccine is profound,” said Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in West Bloomfield, Michigan.

The ACIP panel also made the argument that while the at least $10 billion spent on vaccine development by the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed alone has been a good investment, more spending is needed to actually get Americans vaccinated.

The imbalance between the two is “shocking and needs to be corrected,” said Bell. “We are not going to be able to protect the American public if we don’t have a way to deliver the vaccine to them.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use in people 16 years of age and older. 

The much-anticipated emergency use authorization (EUA) of this vaccine — the first such approval in the United States — was greeted with optimism by infectious disease and pulmonary experts, although unanswered questions remain regarding use in people with allergic hypersensitivity, safety in pregnant women, and how smooth distribution will be.

“I am delighted. This is a first, firm step on a long path to getting this COVID pandemic under control,” William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview.

The FDA gave the green light after the December 10 recommendation from the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. The committee voted 17-4 in favor of the emergency authorization.

Allergic reactions reported in the UK

After vaccinations with the Pfizer vaccine began in the UK on December 8, reports surfaced of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions. They have since recovered, but officials warned that people with a history of severe allergic reactions should not receive the Pfizer vaccine at this time.

“For the moment, they are asking people who have had notable allergic reactions to step aside while this is investigated. It shows you that the system is working,” Schaffner said.

Both vaccine recipients who experienced anaphylaxis carried EpiPens, as they were at high risk for allergic reactions, Hewlett said. Also, if other COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in the future, people allergic to the Pfizer vaccine might have another option, he added.

Reassuring role models

Schaffner supports the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decision to start vaccinations with healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities.

“Vaccinating healthcare workers, in particular, will be a model for the general public,” said Schaffner, who is also a former member of the IDSA board of directors. “If they see those of us in white coats and blue scrubs lining up for the vaccine, that will provide confidence.”

To further increase acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine, public health officials need to provide information and reassure the general public, Schaffner said.

Hewlett agreed. “I know there are a lot of people in the population who are very hesitant about vaccines. As infection disease specialists and people in public health, we are trying to allay a lot of concerns people have.”

Reassurance will be especially important in minority communities. “They have been disproportionately affected by the virus, and they have a traditional history of not being optimally vaccinated,” Schaffner said. “We need to reach them in particular with good information and reassurance…so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families.”

No vaccine is 100% effective or completely free of side effects. “There is always a chance there can be adverse reactions, but we think for the most part this is going to be a safe and effective vaccine,” said Hewlett, medical director at the Division of Disease Control and deputy to commissioner of health at the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, New York.

Distribution: Smooth or full of strife?

In addition to the concern that some people will not take advantage of vaccination against COVID-19, there could be vaccine supply issues down the road, Schaffner said.

Culver agreed. “In the early phases, I expect that there will be some kinks to work out, but because the numbers are relatively small, this should be okay,” he said.

“I think when we start to get into larger-scale vaccination programs — the supply chain, transport, and storage will be a Herculean undertaking,” Culver added. “It will take careful coordination between healthcare providers, distributors, suppliers, and public health officials to pull this off.”

Planning and distribution also should focus beyond US borders. Any issues in vaccine distribution or administration in the United States “will only be multiplied in several other parts of the world,” Culver said. Because COVID-19 is a pandemic, “we need to think about vaccinating globally.”

Investigating adverse events

Adverse events common to vaccinations in general — injection site pain, headaches, and fever — would not be unexpected with the COVID-19 vaccines. However, experts remain concerned that other, unrelated adverse events might be erroneously attributed to vaccination. For example, if a fall, heart attack, or death occurs within days of immunization, some might immediately blame the vaccine product.

“It’s important to remember that any new, highly touted medical therapy like this will receive a lot of scrutiny, so it would be unusual not to hear about something happening to somebody,” Culver said. Vaccine companies and health agencies will be carefully evaluating any reported adverse events to ensure no safety signal was missed in the trials.

“Fortunately, there are systems in place to investigate these events immediately,” Schaffner said.

Pregnancy recommendations pending

One question still looms: Is the COVID-19 vaccination safe for pregnant women? This isn’t just a question for the general public, either, Schaffner said. He estimated that about 70 percent of healthcare workers are women, and data suggests about 300,000 of these healthcare workers are pregnant.

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will speak to that just as soon as the EUA is issued,” he added.

Patients are asking Culver about the priority order for vaccination. He said it’s difficult to provide firm guidance at this point.

People also have “lingering skepticism” about whether vaccine development was done in a prudent way, Culver said. Some people question whether the Pfizer vaccine and others were rushed to market. “So we try to spend time with the patients, reassuring them that all the usual safety evaluations were carefully done,” he said.

Another concern is whether mRNA vaccines can interact with human DNA. “The quick, short, and definitive answer is no,” Schaffner said. The m stands for messenger — the vaccines transmit information. "Once it gets into a cell, the mRNA does not go anywhere near the DNA, and once it transmits its information to the cell appropriately, it gets metabolized, and we excrete all the remnants."

Hewlett pointed out that investigations and surveillance will continue. Because this is an EUA and not full approval, “that essentially means they will still be obligated to collect a lot more data than they would ordinarily,” he said.

How long immunoprotection will last also remains an unknown. “The big question left on the table now is the durability,” Culver said. “Of course, we won’t know the answer to that for quite some time.”

Schaffner and Culver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Hewlett was an employee of Pfizer until mid-2019. His previous work as Pfizer’s senior medical director of global medical product evaluation was not associated with development of the COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use in people 16 years of age and older. 

The much-anticipated emergency use authorization (EUA) of this vaccine — the first such approval in the United States — was greeted with optimism by infectious disease and pulmonary experts, although unanswered questions remain regarding use in people with allergic hypersensitivity, safety in pregnant women, and how smooth distribution will be.

“I am delighted. This is a first, firm step on a long path to getting this COVID pandemic under control,” William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview.

The FDA gave the green light after the December 10 recommendation from the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. The committee voted 17-4 in favor of the emergency authorization.

Allergic reactions reported in the UK

After vaccinations with the Pfizer vaccine began in the UK on December 8, reports surfaced of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions. They have since recovered, but officials warned that people with a history of severe allergic reactions should not receive the Pfizer vaccine at this time.

“For the moment, they are asking people who have had notable allergic reactions to step aside while this is investigated. It shows you that the system is working,” Schaffner said.

Both vaccine recipients who experienced anaphylaxis carried EpiPens, as they were at high risk for allergic reactions, Hewlett said. Also, if other COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in the future, people allergic to the Pfizer vaccine might have another option, he added.

Reassuring role models

Schaffner supports the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decision to start vaccinations with healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities.

“Vaccinating healthcare workers, in particular, will be a model for the general public,” said Schaffner, who is also a former member of the IDSA board of directors. “If they see those of us in white coats and blue scrubs lining up for the vaccine, that will provide confidence.”

To further increase acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine, public health officials need to provide information and reassure the general public, Schaffner said.

Hewlett agreed. “I know there are a lot of people in the population who are very hesitant about vaccines. As infection disease specialists and people in public health, we are trying to allay a lot of concerns people have.”

Reassurance will be especially important in minority communities. “They have been disproportionately affected by the virus, and they have a traditional history of not being optimally vaccinated,” Schaffner said. “We need to reach them in particular with good information and reassurance…so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families.”

No vaccine is 100% effective or completely free of side effects. “There is always a chance there can be adverse reactions, but we think for the most part this is going to be a safe and effective vaccine,” said Hewlett, medical director at the Division of Disease Control and deputy to commissioner of health at the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, New York.

Distribution: Smooth or full of strife?

In addition to the concern that some people will not take advantage of vaccination against COVID-19, there could be vaccine supply issues down the road, Schaffner said.

Culver agreed. “In the early phases, I expect that there will be some kinks to work out, but because the numbers are relatively small, this should be okay,” he said.

“I think when we start to get into larger-scale vaccination programs — the supply chain, transport, and storage will be a Herculean undertaking,” Culver added. “It will take careful coordination between healthcare providers, distributors, suppliers, and public health officials to pull this off.”

Planning and distribution also should focus beyond US borders. Any issues in vaccine distribution or administration in the United States “will only be multiplied in several other parts of the world,” Culver said. Because COVID-19 is a pandemic, “we need to think about vaccinating globally.”

Investigating adverse events

Adverse events common to vaccinations in general — injection site pain, headaches, and fever — would not be unexpected with the COVID-19 vaccines. However, experts remain concerned that other, unrelated adverse events might be erroneously attributed to vaccination. For example, if a fall, heart attack, or death occurs within days of immunization, some might immediately blame the vaccine product.

“It’s important to remember that any new, highly touted medical therapy like this will receive a lot of scrutiny, so it would be unusual not to hear about something happening to somebody,” Culver said. Vaccine companies and health agencies will be carefully evaluating any reported adverse events to ensure no safety signal was missed in the trials.

“Fortunately, there are systems in place to investigate these events immediately,” Schaffner said.

Pregnancy recommendations pending

One question still looms: Is the COVID-19 vaccination safe for pregnant women? This isn’t just a question for the general public, either, Schaffner said. He estimated that about 70 percent of healthcare workers are women, and data suggests about 300,000 of these healthcare workers are pregnant.

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will speak to that just as soon as the EUA is issued,” he added.

Patients are asking Culver about the priority order for vaccination. He said it’s difficult to provide firm guidance at this point.

People also have “lingering skepticism” about whether vaccine development was done in a prudent way, Culver said. Some people question whether the Pfizer vaccine and others were rushed to market. “So we try to spend time with the patients, reassuring them that all the usual safety evaluations were carefully done,” he said.

Another concern is whether mRNA vaccines can interact with human DNA. “The quick, short, and definitive answer is no,” Schaffner said. The m stands for messenger — the vaccines transmit information. "Once it gets into a cell, the mRNA does not go anywhere near the DNA, and once it transmits its information to the cell appropriately, it gets metabolized, and we excrete all the remnants."

Hewlett pointed out that investigations and surveillance will continue. Because this is an EUA and not full approval, “that essentially means they will still be obligated to collect a lot more data than they would ordinarily,” he said.

How long immunoprotection will last also remains an unknown. “The big question left on the table now is the durability,” Culver said. “Of course, we won’t know the answer to that for quite some time.”

Schaffner and Culver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Hewlett was an employee of Pfizer until mid-2019. His previous work as Pfizer’s senior medical director of global medical product evaluation was not associated with development of the COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use in people 16 years of age and older. 

The much-anticipated emergency use authorization (EUA) of this vaccine — the first such approval in the United States — was greeted with optimism by infectious disease and pulmonary experts, although unanswered questions remain regarding use in people with allergic hypersensitivity, safety in pregnant women, and how smooth distribution will be.

“I am delighted. This is a first, firm step on a long path to getting this COVID pandemic under control,” William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview.

The FDA gave the green light after the December 10 recommendation from the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. The committee voted 17-4 in favor of the emergency authorization.

Allergic reactions reported in the UK

After vaccinations with the Pfizer vaccine began in the UK on December 8, reports surfaced of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions. They have since recovered, but officials warned that people with a history of severe allergic reactions should not receive the Pfizer vaccine at this time.

“For the moment, they are asking people who have had notable allergic reactions to step aside while this is investigated. It shows you that the system is working,” Schaffner said.

Both vaccine recipients who experienced anaphylaxis carried EpiPens, as they were at high risk for allergic reactions, Hewlett said. Also, if other COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in the future, people allergic to the Pfizer vaccine might have another option, he added.

Reassuring role models

Schaffner supports the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decision to start vaccinations with healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities.

“Vaccinating healthcare workers, in particular, will be a model for the general public,” said Schaffner, who is also a former member of the IDSA board of directors. “If they see those of us in white coats and blue scrubs lining up for the vaccine, that will provide confidence.”

To further increase acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine, public health officials need to provide information and reassure the general public, Schaffner said.

Hewlett agreed. “I know there are a lot of people in the population who are very hesitant about vaccines. As infection disease specialists and people in public health, we are trying to allay a lot of concerns people have.”

Reassurance will be especially important in minority communities. “They have been disproportionately affected by the virus, and they have a traditional history of not being optimally vaccinated,” Schaffner said. “We need to reach them in particular with good information and reassurance…so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families.”

No vaccine is 100% effective or completely free of side effects. “There is always a chance there can be adverse reactions, but we think for the most part this is going to be a safe and effective vaccine,” said Hewlett, medical director at the Division of Disease Control and deputy to commissioner of health at the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, New York.

Distribution: Smooth or full of strife?

In addition to the concern that some people will not take advantage of vaccination against COVID-19, there could be vaccine supply issues down the road, Schaffner said.

Culver agreed. “In the early phases, I expect that there will be some kinks to work out, but because the numbers are relatively small, this should be okay,” he said.

“I think when we start to get into larger-scale vaccination programs — the supply chain, transport, and storage will be a Herculean undertaking,” Culver added. “It will take careful coordination between healthcare providers, distributors, suppliers, and public health officials to pull this off.”

Planning and distribution also should focus beyond US borders. Any issues in vaccine distribution or administration in the United States “will only be multiplied in several other parts of the world,” Culver said. Because COVID-19 is a pandemic, “we need to think about vaccinating globally.”

Investigating adverse events

Adverse events common to vaccinations in general — injection site pain, headaches, and fever — would not be unexpected with the COVID-19 vaccines. However, experts remain concerned that other, unrelated adverse events might be erroneously attributed to vaccination. For example, if a fall, heart attack, or death occurs within days of immunization, some might immediately blame the vaccine product.

“It’s important to remember that any new, highly touted medical therapy like this will receive a lot of scrutiny, so it would be unusual not to hear about something happening to somebody,” Culver said. Vaccine companies and health agencies will be carefully evaluating any reported adverse events to ensure no safety signal was missed in the trials.

“Fortunately, there are systems in place to investigate these events immediately,” Schaffner said.

Pregnancy recommendations pending

One question still looms: Is the COVID-19 vaccination safe for pregnant women? This isn’t just a question for the general public, either, Schaffner said. He estimated that about 70 percent of healthcare workers are women, and data suggests about 300,000 of these healthcare workers are pregnant.

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will speak to that just as soon as the EUA is issued,” he added.

Patients are asking Culver about the priority order for vaccination. He said it’s difficult to provide firm guidance at this point.

People also have “lingering skepticism” about whether vaccine development was done in a prudent way, Culver said. Some people question whether the Pfizer vaccine and others were rushed to market. “So we try to spend time with the patients, reassuring them that all the usual safety evaluations were carefully done,” he said.

Another concern is whether mRNA vaccines can interact with human DNA. “The quick, short, and definitive answer is no,” Schaffner said. The m stands for messenger — the vaccines transmit information. "Once it gets into a cell, the mRNA does not go anywhere near the DNA, and once it transmits its information to the cell appropriately, it gets metabolized, and we excrete all the remnants."

Hewlett pointed out that investigations and surveillance will continue. Because this is an EUA and not full approval, “that essentially means they will still be obligated to collect a lot more data than they would ordinarily,” he said.

How long immunoprotection will last also remains an unknown. “The big question left on the table now is the durability,” Culver said. “Of course, we won’t know the answer to that for quite some time.”

Schaffner and Culver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Hewlett was an employee of Pfizer until mid-2019. His previous work as Pfizer’s senior medical director of global medical product evaluation was not associated with development of the COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For B-cell malignancies, synthetic lethality is a viable treatment approach, according to preliminary clinical trial data with once-daily oral DTRM-555. The triple combination therapy, DTRM-555, combines a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor and pomalidomide, an immunomodulatory imide drug (IMiD), according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held virtually.
 

Richter’s transformation, a rare event

Dr. Mato’s phase 1 clinical trial included 13 patients with Richter’s transformation (RT) and 11 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Richter’s transformation, a rare event occurring in 5%-7% of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cases, has no clear standard of care and universally poor outcomes (overall survival, 3-12 months) once it becomes refractory to anthracycline-based chemotherapy, according to Dr. Mato.

Despite great progress in treating DLBCL, cure rates with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), the standard of care, are in the 50%-60% range and much lower (30%-40%) with poor-risk features. Furthermore, most (60%-70%) patients receiving autologous stem cell transplant or CAR-T still require additional lines of therapy.

The “synthetic lethality” (SL) strategy, which has become a focus of cancer treatment in the last decade, identifies multiple disease primary aberrant and compensatory pathways and then inhibits them together in a manner lethal to cell survival. Preclinical studies have shown low doses of a BTK inhibitor/mTOR inhibitor/IMiD to synergistically kill malignant B cells. DTRM-555 is an optimized, oral, once-daily triplet combination of a novel and clinically differentiated irreversible BTK inhibitor (DTRM-12), everolimus and pomalidomide, Dr. Mato explained.

Individuals (38% women) included in the trial had a median of 2 (1-10) prior lines of therapy, with a CD20 monoclonal antibody as one of them in all cases, and 83% with R-CHOP. All patients had life expectancy >12 weeks, with 0-1 performance status and adequate organ and hematologic function.

DTRM-12 plasma concentrations, Dr. Mato noted, were unaffected by coadministration with everolimus with or without pomalidomide.
 

Manageable adverse events

Among adverse events, neutropenia (grade 3-4, 33%/21%) and thrombocytopenia (grade 3-4, 29%/8%) were most common. One patient had grade 4 leukopenia (4%). No patients discontinued treatment on account of adverse events, however, and nonhematologic adverse event rates were low, without grade 4 events. Eight different grade 3 adverse events (atrial fibrillation [with prior history], diarrhea, hyponatremia pneumonia, pulmonary opportunistic infection, rash maculopapular, rash acneiform, skin ulceration) were reported, each in one patient. Pharmacokinetic data supported once-daily dosing for DTRM-12, with an estimated half-life of 5-9 hours that was comparable with that of once-daily ibrutinib, and longer than that of other agents of the same class. The recommended phase 2 dose going forward was 200 mg for DTRM-12, 5 mg for everolimus and 2 mg for pomalidomide.
 

Favorable responses

In efficacy analysis for 22 evaluable patients (11 in the RT group, 11 in the DLBCL ), there was 1 complete response in the RT group and 2 in the DLBCL group, with partial responses in 4 and 3, respectively, giving overall response rates of 46% in the RT group and 45% in the DLBCL group. Two and four patients, respectively, in the RT and DLBCL groups, had stable disease, Dr. Mato said, and most patients (71%) had SPD (sum of the product of the diameters) lymph node reductions, with lymph node reductions of 50% or more in 43%.

“Encouraging clinical activity was observed in high-risk, heavily pretreated Richter’s transformation and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Mato concluded. He also noted that the main safety findings were “expected and manageable.”

The session moderator, Chaitra S. Ujjani, MD, of the Seattle Health Care Alliance, asked if the DTRM-555 regimen should be considered definitive therapy in patients who are responding, or if moving on to cellular therapies or a consolidative approach should be considered.

“If they are responding, it is reasonable to consider consolidating with a cellular therapy at this point in time,” Dr. Mato replied. He did observe, however, that many of the included patients had tried experimental therapies, including cellular therapy. “Without [data from] a much larger patient population and longer-term follow-up, I think that, for responding patients with a durable remission who have a [chimeric antigen receptor] T or transplant option, these, at the least, have to be discussed with them.”

To an additional question as to whether any of the subjects had prior exposure to BTK inhibitors, Dr. Mato responded, “There is a high exposure to BTK inhibitors, and almost universally these patients were progressors. So again, this is supportive of the hypothesis that hitting multiple pathways simultaneously is somewhat different from hitting just BTK by itself, even in the setting of progression.”

A DTRM-555 triple fixed-dose combination tablet is under development, and a double fixed-dose tablet (DTRM-505) is ready for the ongoing phase 2 U.S. study (NCT04030544) among patients with relapsed/refractory CLL or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (RT, DLBCL or transformed follicular lymphoma) with prior exposure to a novel agent.

Dr. Mato, disclosed consultancy and research funding relationships with multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 126.

For B-cell malignancies, synthetic lethality is a viable treatment approach, according to preliminary clinical trial data with once-daily oral DTRM-555. The triple combination therapy, DTRM-555, combines a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor and pomalidomide, an immunomodulatory imide drug (IMiD), according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held virtually.
 

Richter’s transformation, a rare event

Dr. Mato’s phase 1 clinical trial included 13 patients with Richter’s transformation (RT) and 11 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Richter’s transformation, a rare event occurring in 5%-7% of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cases, has no clear standard of care and universally poor outcomes (overall survival, 3-12 months) once it becomes refractory to anthracycline-based chemotherapy, according to Dr. Mato.

Despite great progress in treating DLBCL, cure rates with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), the standard of care, are in the 50%-60% range and much lower (30%-40%) with poor-risk features. Furthermore, most (60%-70%) patients receiving autologous stem cell transplant or CAR-T still require additional lines of therapy.

The “synthetic lethality” (SL) strategy, which has become a focus of cancer treatment in the last decade, identifies multiple disease primary aberrant and compensatory pathways and then inhibits them together in a manner lethal to cell survival. Preclinical studies have shown low doses of a BTK inhibitor/mTOR inhibitor/IMiD to synergistically kill malignant B cells. DTRM-555 is an optimized, oral, once-daily triplet combination of a novel and clinically differentiated irreversible BTK inhibitor (DTRM-12), everolimus and pomalidomide, Dr. Mato explained.

Individuals (38% women) included in the trial had a median of 2 (1-10) prior lines of therapy, with a CD20 monoclonal antibody as one of them in all cases, and 83% with R-CHOP. All patients had life expectancy >12 weeks, with 0-1 performance status and adequate organ and hematologic function.

DTRM-12 plasma concentrations, Dr. Mato noted, were unaffected by coadministration with everolimus with or without pomalidomide.
 

Manageable adverse events

Among adverse events, neutropenia (grade 3-4, 33%/21%) and thrombocytopenia (grade 3-4, 29%/8%) were most common. One patient had grade 4 leukopenia (4%). No patients discontinued treatment on account of adverse events, however, and nonhematologic adverse event rates were low, without grade 4 events. Eight different grade 3 adverse events (atrial fibrillation [with prior history], diarrhea, hyponatremia pneumonia, pulmonary opportunistic infection, rash maculopapular, rash acneiform, skin ulceration) were reported, each in one patient. Pharmacokinetic data supported once-daily dosing for DTRM-12, with an estimated half-life of 5-9 hours that was comparable with that of once-daily ibrutinib, and longer than that of other agents of the same class. The recommended phase 2 dose going forward was 200 mg for DTRM-12, 5 mg for everolimus and 2 mg for pomalidomide.
 

Favorable responses

In efficacy analysis for 22 evaluable patients (11 in the RT group, 11 in the DLBCL ), there was 1 complete response in the RT group and 2 in the DLBCL group, with partial responses in 4 and 3, respectively, giving overall response rates of 46% in the RT group and 45% in the DLBCL group. Two and four patients, respectively, in the RT and DLBCL groups, had stable disease, Dr. Mato said, and most patients (71%) had SPD (sum of the product of the diameters) lymph node reductions, with lymph node reductions of 50% or more in 43%.

“Encouraging clinical activity was observed in high-risk, heavily pretreated Richter’s transformation and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Mato concluded. He also noted that the main safety findings were “expected and manageable.”

The session moderator, Chaitra S. Ujjani, MD, of the Seattle Health Care Alliance, asked if the DTRM-555 regimen should be considered definitive therapy in patients who are responding, or if moving on to cellular therapies or a consolidative approach should be considered.

“If they are responding, it is reasonable to consider consolidating with a cellular therapy at this point in time,” Dr. Mato replied. He did observe, however, that many of the included patients had tried experimental therapies, including cellular therapy. “Without [data from] a much larger patient population and longer-term follow-up, I think that, for responding patients with a durable remission who have a [chimeric antigen receptor] T or transplant option, these, at the least, have to be discussed with them.”

To an additional question as to whether any of the subjects had prior exposure to BTK inhibitors, Dr. Mato responded, “There is a high exposure to BTK inhibitors, and almost universally these patients were progressors. So again, this is supportive of the hypothesis that hitting multiple pathways simultaneously is somewhat different from hitting just BTK by itself, even in the setting of progression.”

A DTRM-555 triple fixed-dose combination tablet is under development, and a double fixed-dose tablet (DTRM-505) is ready for the ongoing phase 2 U.S. study (NCT04030544) among patients with relapsed/refractory CLL or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (RT, DLBCL or transformed follicular lymphoma) with prior exposure to a novel agent.

Dr. Mato, disclosed consultancy and research funding relationships with multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 126.

For B-cell malignancies, synthetic lethality is a viable treatment approach, according to preliminary clinical trial data with once-daily oral DTRM-555. The triple combination therapy, DTRM-555, combines a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor and pomalidomide, an immunomodulatory imide drug (IMiD), according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held virtually.
 

Richter’s transformation, a rare event

Dr. Mato’s phase 1 clinical trial included 13 patients with Richter’s transformation (RT) and 11 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Richter’s transformation, a rare event occurring in 5%-7% of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cases, has no clear standard of care and universally poor outcomes (overall survival, 3-12 months) once it becomes refractory to anthracycline-based chemotherapy, according to Dr. Mato.

Despite great progress in treating DLBCL, cure rates with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), the standard of care, are in the 50%-60% range and much lower (30%-40%) with poor-risk features. Furthermore, most (60%-70%) patients receiving autologous stem cell transplant or CAR-T still require additional lines of therapy.

The “synthetic lethality” (SL) strategy, which has become a focus of cancer treatment in the last decade, identifies multiple disease primary aberrant and compensatory pathways and then inhibits them together in a manner lethal to cell survival. Preclinical studies have shown low doses of a BTK inhibitor/mTOR inhibitor/IMiD to synergistically kill malignant B cells. DTRM-555 is an optimized, oral, once-daily triplet combination of a novel and clinically differentiated irreversible BTK inhibitor (DTRM-12), everolimus and pomalidomide, Dr. Mato explained.

Individuals (38% women) included in the trial had a median of 2 (1-10) prior lines of therapy, with a CD20 monoclonal antibody as one of them in all cases, and 83% with R-CHOP. All patients had life expectancy >12 weeks, with 0-1 performance status and adequate organ and hematologic function.

DTRM-12 plasma concentrations, Dr. Mato noted, were unaffected by coadministration with everolimus with or without pomalidomide.
 

Manageable adverse events

Among adverse events, neutropenia (grade 3-4, 33%/21%) and thrombocytopenia (grade 3-4, 29%/8%) were most common. One patient had grade 4 leukopenia (4%). No patients discontinued treatment on account of adverse events, however, and nonhematologic adverse event rates were low, without grade 4 events. Eight different grade 3 adverse events (atrial fibrillation [with prior history], diarrhea, hyponatremia pneumonia, pulmonary opportunistic infection, rash maculopapular, rash acneiform, skin ulceration) were reported, each in one patient. Pharmacokinetic data supported once-daily dosing for DTRM-12, with an estimated half-life of 5-9 hours that was comparable with that of once-daily ibrutinib, and longer than that of other agents of the same class. The recommended phase 2 dose going forward was 200 mg for DTRM-12, 5 mg for everolimus and 2 mg for pomalidomide.
 

Favorable responses

In efficacy analysis for 22 evaluable patients (11 in the RT group, 11 in the DLBCL ), there was 1 complete response in the RT group and 2 in the DLBCL group, with partial responses in 4 and 3, respectively, giving overall response rates of 46% in the RT group and 45% in the DLBCL group. Two and four patients, respectively, in the RT and DLBCL groups, had stable disease, Dr. Mato said, and most patients (71%) had SPD (sum of the product of the diameters) lymph node reductions, with lymph node reductions of 50% or more in 43%.

“Encouraging clinical activity was observed in high-risk, heavily pretreated Richter’s transformation and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Mato concluded. He also noted that the main safety findings were “expected and manageable.”

The session moderator, Chaitra S. Ujjani, MD, of the Seattle Health Care Alliance, asked if the DTRM-555 regimen should be considered definitive therapy in patients who are responding, or if moving on to cellular therapies or a consolidative approach should be considered.

“If they are responding, it is reasonable to consider consolidating with a cellular therapy at this point in time,” Dr. Mato replied. He did observe, however, that many of the included patients had tried experimental therapies, including cellular therapy. “Without [data from] a much larger patient population and longer-term follow-up, I think that, for responding patients with a durable remission who have a [chimeric antigen receptor] T or transplant option, these, at the least, have to be discussed with them.”

To an additional question as to whether any of the subjects had prior exposure to BTK inhibitors, Dr. Mato responded, “There is a high exposure to BTK inhibitors, and almost universally these patients were progressors. So again, this is supportive of the hypothesis that hitting multiple pathways simultaneously is somewhat different from hitting just BTK by itself, even in the setting of progression.”

A DTRM-555 triple fixed-dose combination tablet is under development, and a double fixed-dose tablet (DTRM-505) is ready for the ongoing phase 2 U.S. study (NCT04030544) among patients with relapsed/refractory CLL or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (RT, DLBCL or transformed follicular lymphoma) with prior exposure to a novel agent.

Dr. Mato, disclosed consultancy and research funding relationships with multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 126.

Hyper-CVAD (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) with sequential blinatumomab is highly effective as frontline therapy for Philadelphia Chromosome (Ph)–negative B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to results of a phase 2 study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Favorable minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and overall survival with low higher-grade toxicities suggest that reductions in chemotherapy in this setting are feasible, said Nicholas J. Short, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

While complete response rates with current ALL therapy are 80%-90%, long-term overall survival is only 40%-50%. Blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell–engaging CD3-CD19 antibody, has been shown to be superior to chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL, and to produce high rates of MRD eradication, the most important prognostic factor in ALL, Dr. Short said at the meeting, which was held virtually.

The hypothesis of the current study was that early incorporation of blinatumomab with hyper-CVAD in patients with newly diagnosed Ph-negative B-cell ALL would decrease the need for intensive chemotherapy and lead to higher efficacy and cure rates with less myelosuppression. Patients were required to have a performance status of 3 or less, total bilirubin 2 mg/dL or less and creatinine 2 mg/dL or less. Investigators enrolled 38 patients (mean age, 37 years,; range, 17-59) with most (79%) in performance status 0-1. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS).
 

Study details

Patients received hyper-CVAD alternating with high-dose methotrexate and cytarabine for up to four cycles followed by four cycles of blinatumomab at standard doses. Those with CD20-positive disease (1% or greater percentage of the cells) received eight doses of ofatumumab or rituximab, and prophylactic intrathecal chemotherapy was given eight times in the first four cycles. Maintenance consisted of alternating blocks of POMP (6-mercaptopurine, vincristine, methotrexate, prednisone) and blinatumomab. When two patients with high-risk features experienced early relapse, investigators amended the protocol to allow blinatumomab after only two cycles of hyper-CVAD in those with high-risk features (e.g., CRLF2 positive by flow cytometry, complex karyotype, KMT2A rearranged, low hypodiploidy/near triploidy, TP53 mutation, or persistent MRD). Nineteen patients (56%) had at least one high-risk feature, and 82% received ofatumumab or rituximab. Six patients were in complete remission at the start of the study (four of them MRD negative).

Complete responses

After induction, complete responses were achieved in 81% (26/32), with all patients achieving a complete response at some point, according to Dr. Short. The MRD negativity rate was 71% (24/34) after induction and 97% (33/34) at any time. Among the 38 patients, all with complete response at median follow-up of 24 months (range, 2-45), relapses occurred only in those 5 patients with high-risk features. Twelve patients underwent transplant in the first remission. Two relapsed, both with high-risk features. The other 21 patients had ongoing complete responses.

RFS at 1- and 2-years was 80% and 71%, respectively. Five among seven relapses were without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and 2 were post HSCT. Two deaths occurred in patients with complete responses (one pulmonary embolism and one with post-HSCT complications). Overall survival at 1 and 2 years was 85% and 80%, respectively, with the 2-year rate comparable with prior reports for hyper-CVAD plus ofatumumab, Dr. Short said.

The most common nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events with hyper-CVAD plus blinatumomab were ALT/AST elevation (24%) and hyperglycemia (21%). The overall cytokine release syndrome rate was 13%, with 3% for higher-grade reactions. The rate for blinatumomab-related neurologic events was 45% overall and 13% for higher grades, with 1 discontinuation attributed to grade 2 encephalopathy and dysphasia.

“Overall, this study shows the potential benefit of incorporating frontline blinatumomab into the treatment of younger adults with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–negative B-cell lymphoma, and shows, as well, that reduction of chemotherapy in this context is feasible,” Dr. Short stated.

“Ultimately, often for any patients with acute leukemias and ALL, our only chance to cure them is in the frontline setting, so our approach is to include all of the most effective agents we have. So that means including blinatumomab in all of our frontline regimens in clinical trials – and now we’ve amended that to add inotuzumab ozogamicin with the goal of deepening responses and increasing cure rates,” he added.

Dr. Short reported consulting with Takeda Oncology and Astrazeneca, and receiving research funding and honoraria from Amgen, Astella, and Takeda Oncology.

SOURCE: Short NG et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 464.

Hyper-CVAD (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) with sequential blinatumomab is highly effective as frontline therapy for Philadelphia Chromosome (Ph)–negative B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to results of a phase 2 study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Favorable minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and overall survival with low higher-grade toxicities suggest that reductions in chemotherapy in this setting are feasible, said Nicholas J. Short, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

While complete response rates with current ALL therapy are 80%-90%, long-term overall survival is only 40%-50%. Blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell–engaging CD3-CD19 antibody, has been shown to be superior to chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL, and to produce high rates of MRD eradication, the most important prognostic factor in ALL, Dr. Short said at the meeting, which was held virtually.

The hypothesis of the current study was that early incorporation of blinatumomab with hyper-CVAD in patients with newly diagnosed Ph-negative B-cell ALL would decrease the need for intensive chemotherapy and lead to higher efficacy and cure rates with less myelosuppression. Patients were required to have a performance status of 3 or less, total bilirubin 2 mg/dL or less and creatinine 2 mg/dL or less. Investigators enrolled 38 patients (mean age, 37 years,; range, 17-59) with most (79%) in performance status 0-1. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS).
 

Study details

Patients received hyper-CVAD alternating with high-dose methotrexate and cytarabine for up to four cycles followed by four cycles of blinatumomab at standard doses. Those with CD20-positive disease (1% or greater percentage of the cells) received eight doses of ofatumumab or rituximab, and prophylactic intrathecal chemotherapy was given eight times in the first four cycles. Maintenance consisted of alternating blocks of POMP (6-mercaptopurine, vincristine, methotrexate, prednisone) and blinatumomab. When two patients with high-risk features experienced early relapse, investigators amended the protocol to allow blinatumomab after only two cycles of hyper-CVAD in those with high-risk features (e.g., CRLF2 positive by flow cytometry, complex karyotype, KMT2A rearranged, low hypodiploidy/near triploidy, TP53 mutation, or persistent MRD). Nineteen patients (56%) had at least one high-risk feature, and 82% received ofatumumab or rituximab. Six patients were in complete remission at the start of the study (four of them MRD negative).

Complete responses

After induction, complete responses were achieved in 81% (26/32), with all patients achieving a complete response at some point, according to Dr. Short. The MRD negativity rate was 71% (24/34) after induction and 97% (33/34) at any time. Among the 38 patients, all with complete response at median follow-up of 24 months (range, 2-45), relapses occurred only in those 5 patients with high-risk features. Twelve patients underwent transplant in the first remission. Two relapsed, both with high-risk features. The other 21 patients had ongoing complete responses.

RFS at 1- and 2-years was 80% and 71%, respectively. Five among seven relapses were without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and 2 were post HSCT. Two deaths occurred in patients with complete responses (one pulmonary embolism and one with post-HSCT complications). Overall survival at 1 and 2 years was 85% and 80%, respectively, with the 2-year rate comparable with prior reports for hyper-CVAD plus ofatumumab, Dr. Short said.

The most common nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events with hyper-CVAD plus blinatumomab were ALT/AST elevation (24%) and hyperglycemia (21%). The overall cytokine release syndrome rate was 13%, with 3% for higher-grade reactions. The rate for blinatumomab-related neurologic events was 45% overall and 13% for higher grades, with 1 discontinuation attributed to grade 2 encephalopathy and dysphasia.

“Overall, this study shows the potential benefit of incorporating frontline blinatumomab into the treatment of younger adults with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–negative B-cell lymphoma, and shows, as well, that reduction of chemotherapy in this context is feasible,” Dr. Short stated.

“Ultimately, often for any patients with acute leukemias and ALL, our only chance to cure them is in the frontline setting, so our approach is to include all of the most effective agents we have. So that means including blinatumomab in all of our frontline regimens in clinical trials – and now we’ve amended that to add inotuzumab ozogamicin with the goal of deepening responses and increasing cure rates,” he added.

Dr. Short reported consulting with Takeda Oncology and Astrazeneca, and receiving research funding and honoraria from Amgen, Astella, and Takeda Oncology.

SOURCE: Short NG et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 464.

Hyper-CVAD (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) with sequential blinatumomab is highly effective as frontline therapy for Philadelphia Chromosome (Ph)–negative B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to results of a phase 2 study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Favorable minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and overall survival with low higher-grade toxicities suggest that reductions in chemotherapy in this setting are feasible, said Nicholas J. Short, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

While complete response rates with current ALL therapy are 80%-90%, long-term overall survival is only 40%-50%. Blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell–engaging CD3-CD19 antibody, has been shown to be superior to chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL, and to produce high rates of MRD eradication, the most important prognostic factor in ALL, Dr. Short said at the meeting, which was held virtually.

The hypothesis of the current study was that early incorporation of blinatumomab with hyper-CVAD in patients with newly diagnosed Ph-negative B-cell ALL would decrease the need for intensive chemotherapy and lead to higher efficacy and cure rates with less myelosuppression. Patients were required to have a performance status of 3 or less, total bilirubin 2 mg/dL or less and creatinine 2 mg/dL or less. Investigators enrolled 38 patients (mean age, 37 years,; range, 17-59) with most (79%) in performance status 0-1. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS).
 

Study details

Patients received hyper-CVAD alternating with high-dose methotrexate and cytarabine for up to four cycles followed by four cycles of blinatumomab at standard doses. Those with CD20-positive disease (1% or greater percentage of the cells) received eight doses of ofatumumab or rituximab, and prophylactic intrathecal chemotherapy was given eight times in the first four cycles. Maintenance consisted of alternating blocks of POMP (6-mercaptopurine, vincristine, methotrexate, prednisone) and blinatumomab. When two patients with high-risk features experienced early relapse, investigators amended the protocol to allow blinatumomab after only two cycles of hyper-CVAD in those with high-risk features (e.g., CRLF2 positive by flow cytometry, complex karyotype, KMT2A rearranged, low hypodiploidy/near triploidy, TP53 mutation, or persistent MRD). Nineteen patients (56%) had at least one high-risk feature, and 82% received ofatumumab or rituximab. Six patients were in complete remission at the start of the study (four of them MRD negative).

Complete responses

After induction, complete responses were achieved in 81% (26/32), with all patients achieving a complete response at some point, according to Dr. Short. The MRD negativity rate was 71% (24/34) after induction and 97% (33/34) at any time. Among the 38 patients, all with complete response at median follow-up of 24 months (range, 2-45), relapses occurred only in those 5 patients with high-risk features. Twelve patients underwent transplant in the first remission. Two relapsed, both with high-risk features. The other 21 patients had ongoing complete responses.

RFS at 1- and 2-years was 80% and 71%, respectively. Five among seven relapses were without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and 2 were post HSCT. Two deaths occurred in patients with complete responses (one pulmonary embolism and one with post-HSCT complications). Overall survival at 1 and 2 years was 85% and 80%, respectively, with the 2-year rate comparable with prior reports for hyper-CVAD plus ofatumumab, Dr. Short said.

The most common nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events with hyper-CVAD plus blinatumomab were ALT/AST elevation (24%) and hyperglycemia (21%). The overall cytokine release syndrome rate was 13%, with 3% for higher-grade reactions. The rate for blinatumomab-related neurologic events was 45% overall and 13% for higher grades, with 1 discontinuation attributed to grade 2 encephalopathy and dysphasia.

“Overall, this study shows the potential benefit of incorporating frontline blinatumomab into the treatment of younger adults with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–negative B-cell lymphoma, and shows, as well, that reduction of chemotherapy in this context is feasible,” Dr. Short stated.

“Ultimately, often for any patients with acute leukemias and ALL, our only chance to cure them is in the frontline setting, so our approach is to include all of the most effective agents we have. So that means including blinatumomab in all of our frontline regimens in clinical trials – and now we’ve amended that to add inotuzumab ozogamicin with the goal of deepening responses and increasing cure rates,” he added.

Dr. Short reported consulting with Takeda Oncology and Astrazeneca, and receiving research funding and honoraria from Amgen, Astella, and Takeda Oncology.

SOURCE: Short NG et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 464.

When a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, who will be first in line? According to an “Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations” published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in October, the Departments of Defense (DoD) and State, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Indian Health Services, and Bureau of Prisons will all receive a direct allocation, but the distribution of those allocations will depend on the outcomes of an elaborately branched decision tree.

Although the DoD will distribute the vaccine directly to all of its personnel, including retirees and dependents, the plan for members of the Reserve and National Guard is not yet clear. Employees at VHA facilities will receive the vaccine from their departments. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced a “limited-supply phase” for distribution followed by a “general implementation phase.”

The CDC will provide the vaccine to tribal nations that have selected the IHS for distribution (as opposed to the state). According to Government Executive, a separate internal IHS plan suggests the agency would distribute immunizations to tens of thousands of health care and other essential workers, but it isn’t known whether that number includes all of the agency’s workers. 

The VA is likely to receive the largest distribution of vaccine doses, according to internal documents obtained by Government Executive. The agency has said it will only finalize its vaccine strategy after a candidate is approved for use. In a Nov. 17 press release, the VA said, “The plan will be a phased approach based on scientific and historical evidence, lessons learned from past pandemic vaccine plans and input from scientific experts both within and outside VA.”

However, the VA has been criticized for not publicizing a detailed vaccine distribution plan. Several Democrats on the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for instance, sent a cautionary letter to VA leaders on Nov. 23, saying, “For COVID-19 vaccine distribution to succeed there must be a well-organized plan to meet the needs of all veterans and their providers…. If the states and other federal agencies have already publicly released their plans, why is VA lagging behind?”

As with most federal and non-federal entities, the VA’s allotment of vaccine will be distributed in phases, based on availability and the number of those in the highest-risk populations, such as frontline health care workers and the elderly, within the organization. But the distribution strategy resembles a set of matryoshka dolls, with priorities nested within priorities.

Staff will be 4 of the first 5 populations to receive the vaccine. Employees at VA nursing homes and the 25 Spinal Cord Injuries and Disorders Centers also are due to receive the first batch, followed by veterans at those facilities. Next would come staff in emergency departments, COVID-19 ICUs, and COVID-19 non-ICUs. After that, employees in “other congregate living settings” and veterans aged > 85 years  would be vaccinated. Other employees critical in the COVID-19 response, such as police, would be next, followed by inpatient staff in other units and staff performing high-risk procedures. Finally, the priorities will be other groups of patients, veterans in other descending-age groups, and homeless veterans and homeless outreach workers.

The general thinking is that it makes more sense to vaccinate the health care workers first. However, even within that calculation there are further decisions to make. The VA has said it’s focusing on the highest-risk individuals for the first inoculations, but it has emphasized that it considers the risk of transmitting the virus to others above the personal risk of severe illness to the employees themselves.

The VA will not require employees to receive an inoculation, although it plans to encourage staff to do so to protect themselves and veterans they serve.

When a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, who will be first in line? According to an “Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations” published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in October, the Departments of Defense (DoD) and State, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Indian Health Services, and Bureau of Prisons will all receive a direct allocation, but the distribution of those allocations will depend on the outcomes of an elaborately branched decision tree.

Although the DoD will distribute the vaccine directly to all of its personnel, including retirees and dependents, the plan for members of the Reserve and National Guard is not yet clear. Employees at VHA facilities will receive the vaccine from their departments. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced a “limited-supply phase” for distribution followed by a “general implementation phase.”

The CDC will provide the vaccine to tribal nations that have selected the IHS for distribution (as opposed to the state). According to Government Executive, a separate internal IHS plan suggests the agency would distribute immunizations to tens of thousands of health care and other essential workers, but it isn’t known whether that number includes all of the agency’s workers. 

The VA is likely to receive the largest distribution of vaccine doses, according to internal documents obtained by Government Executive. The agency has said it will only finalize its vaccine strategy after a candidate is approved for use. In a Nov. 17 press release, the VA said, “The plan will be a phased approach based on scientific and historical evidence, lessons learned from past pandemic vaccine plans and input from scientific experts both within and outside VA.”

However, the VA has been criticized for not publicizing a detailed vaccine distribution plan. Several Democrats on the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for instance, sent a cautionary letter to VA leaders on Nov. 23, saying, “For COVID-19 vaccine distribution to succeed there must be a well-organized plan to meet the needs of all veterans and their providers…. If the states and other federal agencies have already publicly released their plans, why is VA lagging behind?”

As with most federal and non-federal entities, the VA’s allotment of vaccine will be distributed in phases, based on availability and the number of those in the highest-risk populations, such as frontline health care workers and the elderly, within the organization. But the distribution strategy resembles a set of matryoshka dolls, with priorities nested within priorities.

Staff will be 4 of the first 5 populations to receive the vaccine. Employees at VA nursing homes and the 25 Spinal Cord Injuries and Disorders Centers also are due to receive the first batch, followed by veterans at those facilities. Next would come staff in emergency departments, COVID-19 ICUs, and COVID-19 non-ICUs. After that, employees in “other congregate living settings” and veterans aged > 85 years  would be vaccinated. Other employees critical in the COVID-19 response, such as police, would be next, followed by inpatient staff in other units and staff performing high-risk procedures. Finally, the priorities will be other groups of patients, veterans in other descending-age groups, and homeless veterans and homeless outreach workers.

The general thinking is that it makes more sense to vaccinate the health care workers first. However, even within that calculation there are further decisions to make. The VA has said it’s focusing on the highest-risk individuals for the first inoculations, but it has emphasized that it considers the risk of transmitting the virus to others above the personal risk of severe illness to the employees themselves.

The VA will not require employees to receive an inoculation, although it plans to encourage staff to do so to protect themselves and veterans they serve.

When a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, who will be first in line? According to an “Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations” published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in October, the Departments of Defense (DoD) and State, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Indian Health Services, and Bureau of Prisons will all receive a direct allocation, but the distribution of those allocations will depend on the outcomes of an elaborately branched decision tree.

Although the DoD will distribute the vaccine directly to all of its personnel, including retirees and dependents, the plan for members of the Reserve and National Guard is not yet clear. Employees at VHA facilities will receive the vaccine from their departments. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced a “limited-supply phase” for distribution followed by a “general implementation phase.”

The CDC will provide the vaccine to tribal nations that have selected the IHS for distribution (as opposed to the state). According to Government Executive, a separate internal IHS plan suggests the agency would distribute immunizations to tens of thousands of health care and other essential workers, but it isn’t known whether that number includes all of the agency’s workers. 

The VA is likely to receive the largest distribution of vaccine doses, according to internal documents obtained by Government Executive. The agency has said it will only finalize its vaccine strategy after a candidate is approved for use. In a Nov. 17 press release, the VA said, “The plan will be a phased approach based on scientific and historical evidence, lessons learned from past pandemic vaccine plans and input from scientific experts both within and outside VA.”

However, the VA has been criticized for not publicizing a detailed vaccine distribution plan. Several Democrats on the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for instance, sent a cautionary letter to VA leaders on Nov. 23, saying, “For COVID-19 vaccine distribution to succeed there must be a well-organized plan to meet the needs of all veterans and their providers…. If the states and other federal agencies have already publicly released their plans, why is VA lagging behind?”

As with most federal and non-federal entities, the VA’s allotment of vaccine will be distributed in phases, based on availability and the number of those in the highest-risk populations, such as frontline health care workers and the elderly, within the organization. But the distribution strategy resembles a set of matryoshka dolls, with priorities nested within priorities.

Staff will be 4 of the first 5 populations to receive the vaccine. Employees at VA nursing homes and the 25 Spinal Cord Injuries and Disorders Centers also are due to receive the first batch, followed by veterans at those facilities. Next would come staff in emergency departments, COVID-19 ICUs, and COVID-19 non-ICUs. After that, employees in “other congregate living settings” and veterans aged > 85 years  would be vaccinated. Other employees critical in the COVID-19 response, such as police, would be next, followed by inpatient staff in other units and staff performing high-risk procedures. Finally, the priorities will be other groups of patients, veterans in other descending-age groups, and homeless veterans and homeless outreach workers.

The general thinking is that it makes more sense to vaccinate the health care workers first. However, even within that calculation there are further decisions to make. The VA has said it’s focusing on the highest-risk individuals for the first inoculations, but it has emphasized that it considers the risk of transmitting the virus to others above the personal risk of severe illness to the employees themselves.

The VA will not require employees to receive an inoculation, although it plans to encourage staff to do so to protect themselves and veterans they serve.

COVID-19 infection rates have been nearly 4 times higher among American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) when compared with those of non-Hispanic Whites, and AI/ANs are more than 4 times more likely to be hospitalized with the virus. Some mitigation measures have been harder to maintain in Native American communities. Frequent handwashing is difficult when water is at a premium, and social distancing is not always possible when extended families—including elderly—may be living in a single residence.

So vaccination “remains the most promising intervention,” the Indian Health Service Vaccine Task Force wrote in its COVID-19 Pandemic Vaccine Plan, released in November. The plan details how the IHS health care system will prepare for and distribute a vaccine when one becomes available in the US.

The Vaccine Task Force was established by the IHS Headquarters Incident Command Structure, which was activated in early March to respond to COVID-19. In September, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began a series of consultations with tribes and urban Indian organizations for input on the plan, which aligns as well with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

To “ensure that vaccines are effectively delivered throughout Indian Country in ways that make sense for tribal communities,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar says the Trump Administration has given all tribal health programs and urban Indian organizations two ways to receive the vaccine: through the IHS or through the state.

The CDC, along with IHS, states, and tribes, are coordinating the distribution of a vaccine for federal sites, tribal health programs, and Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs). CDC has issued data requirements that all health care facilities must meet for COVID-19 vaccine administration, inventory, and monitoring.

“There are system-wide planning efforts in place to make sure we’re ready to implement vaccination activities as soon as a US Food and Drug Administration authorized or approved vaccine is available,” said IHS Director RADM Michael Weahkee in a press release. The program’s success, he said, depends on “the strong partnership between the federal government, tribes, and urban leaders.”

The list of IHS, tribal health programs, and UIOs facilities that will receive the COVID-19 vaccine from the IHS, broken down by IHS area, is available on the IHS coronavirus website.

COVID-19 infection rates have been nearly 4 times higher among American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) when compared with those of non-Hispanic Whites, and AI/ANs are more than 4 times more likely to be hospitalized with the virus. Some mitigation measures have been harder to maintain in Native American communities. Frequent handwashing is difficult when water is at a premium, and social distancing is not always possible when extended families—including elderly—may be living in a single residence.

So vaccination “remains the most promising intervention,” the Indian Health Service Vaccine Task Force wrote in its COVID-19 Pandemic Vaccine Plan, released in November. The plan details how the IHS health care system will prepare for and distribute a vaccine when one becomes available in the US.

The Vaccine Task Force was established by the IHS Headquarters Incident Command Structure, which was activated in early March to respond to COVID-19. In September, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began a series of consultations with tribes and urban Indian organizations for input on the plan, which aligns as well with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

To “ensure that vaccines are effectively delivered throughout Indian Country in ways that make sense for tribal communities,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar says the Trump Administration has given all tribal health programs and urban Indian organizations two ways to receive the vaccine: through the IHS or through the state.

The CDC, along with IHS, states, and tribes, are coordinating the distribution of a vaccine for federal sites, tribal health programs, and Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs). CDC has issued data requirements that all health care facilities must meet for COVID-19 vaccine administration, inventory, and monitoring.

“There are system-wide planning efforts in place to make sure we’re ready to implement vaccination activities as soon as a US Food and Drug Administration authorized or approved vaccine is available,” said IHS Director RADM Michael Weahkee in a press release. The program’s success, he said, depends on “the strong partnership between the federal government, tribes, and urban leaders.”

The list of IHS, tribal health programs, and UIOs facilities that will receive the COVID-19 vaccine from the IHS, broken down by IHS area, is available on the IHS coronavirus website.

COVID-19 infection rates have been nearly 4 times higher among American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) when compared with those of non-Hispanic Whites, and AI/ANs are more than 4 times more likely to be hospitalized with the virus. Some mitigation measures have been harder to maintain in Native American communities. Frequent handwashing is difficult when water is at a premium, and social distancing is not always possible when extended families—including elderly—may be living in a single residence.

So vaccination “remains the most promising intervention,” the Indian Health Service Vaccine Task Force wrote in its COVID-19 Pandemic Vaccine Plan, released in November. The plan details how the IHS health care system will prepare for and distribute a vaccine when one becomes available in the US.

The Vaccine Task Force was established by the IHS Headquarters Incident Command Structure, which was activated in early March to respond to COVID-19. In September, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began a series of consultations with tribes and urban Indian organizations for input on the plan, which aligns as well with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

To “ensure that vaccines are effectively delivered throughout Indian Country in ways that make sense for tribal communities,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar says the Trump Administration has given all tribal health programs and urban Indian organizations two ways to receive the vaccine: through the IHS or through the state.

The CDC, along with IHS, states, and tribes, are coordinating the distribution of a vaccine for federal sites, tribal health programs, and Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs). CDC has issued data requirements that all health care facilities must meet for COVID-19 vaccine administration, inventory, and monitoring.

“There are system-wide planning efforts in place to make sure we’re ready to implement vaccination activities as soon as a US Food and Drug Administration authorized or approved vaccine is available,” said IHS Director RADM Michael Weahkee in a press release. The program’s success, he said, depends on “the strong partnership between the federal government, tribes, and urban leaders.”

The list of IHS, tribal health programs, and UIOs facilities that will receive the COVID-19 vaccine from the IHS, broken down by IHS area, is available on the IHS coronavirus website.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Michigan Department of Health and Human Services surveyed health care personnel in 27 hospitals and 7 medical control agencies that coordinate emergency medical services in the Detroit metropolitan area. Of 16,397 participants, 6.9% had COVID-19 antibodies (although only 2.7% reported a history of a positive real-time transcription polymerase chain reaction test); however, participants had about 6 times the odds of exposure to the virus at home when compared with the workplace. Of those who reported close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with confirmed COVID-19 for ≥ 10 minutes, seroprevalence was highest among those with exposure to a household member (34.3%).

The survey revealed a pattern that suggested community acquisition was a common underlying factor of infection risk, the researchers say. Workers were only more vulnerable at home and when they were closer to the metropolitan center. Seropositivity was more common within 9 miles of Detroit’s center, regardless of occupation and health care setting. The farther away from the center, the lower the seroprevalence.

By work location, seroprevalence was highest among participants who worked in hospital wards (8.8%) and lowest among those in police departments (3.9%). In hospitals, participants working in wards and EDs had higher seropositivity (8.8% and 8.1%, respectively) than did those in ICUs and ORs (6.1% and 4.5%, respectively). Nurses and nurse assistants were more likely to be seropositive than physicians. Nurse assistants had the highest incidence, regardless of where they worked.

Reducing community spread through population-based measures may directly protect healthcare workers on 2 fronts, the researchers say: reduced occupational exposure as a result of fewer infected patients in the less controlled workplace setting such as the ED, and reduced exposure in their homes and communities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Michigan Department of Health and Human Services surveyed health care personnel in 27 hospitals and 7 medical control agencies that coordinate emergency medical services in the Detroit metropolitan area. Of 16,397 participants, 6.9% had COVID-19 antibodies (although only 2.7% reported a history of a positive real-time transcription polymerase chain reaction test); however, participants had about 6 times the odds of exposure to the virus at home when compared with the workplace. Of those who reported close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with confirmed COVID-19 for ≥ 10 minutes, seroprevalence was highest among those with exposure to a household member (34.3%).

The survey revealed a pattern that suggested community acquisition was a common underlying factor of infection risk, the researchers say. Workers were only more vulnerable at home and when they were closer to the metropolitan center. Seropositivity was more common within 9 miles of Detroit’s center, regardless of occupation and health care setting. The farther away from the center, the lower the seroprevalence.

By work location, seroprevalence was highest among participants who worked in hospital wards (8.8%) and lowest among those in police departments (3.9%). In hospitals, participants working in wards and EDs had higher seropositivity (8.8% and 8.1%, respectively) than did those in ICUs and ORs (6.1% and 4.5%, respectively). Nurses and nurse assistants were more likely to be seropositive than physicians. Nurse assistants had the highest incidence, regardless of where they worked.

Reducing community spread through population-based measures may directly protect healthcare workers on 2 fronts, the researchers say: reduced occupational exposure as a result of fewer infected patients in the less controlled workplace setting such as the ED, and reduced exposure in their homes and communities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Michigan Department of Health and Human Services surveyed health care personnel in 27 hospitals and 7 medical control agencies that coordinate emergency medical services in the Detroit metropolitan area. Of 16,397 participants, 6.9% had COVID-19 antibodies (although only 2.7% reported a history of a positive real-time transcription polymerase chain reaction test); however, participants had about 6 times the odds of exposure to the virus at home when compared with the workplace. Of those who reported close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with confirmed COVID-19 for ≥ 10 minutes, seroprevalence was highest among those with exposure to a household member (34.3%).

The survey revealed a pattern that suggested community acquisition was a common underlying factor of infection risk, the researchers say. Workers were only more vulnerable at home and when they were closer to the metropolitan center. Seropositivity was more common within 9 miles of Detroit’s center, regardless of occupation and health care setting. The farther away from the center, the lower the seroprevalence.

By work location, seroprevalence was highest among participants who worked in hospital wards (8.8%) and lowest among those in police departments (3.9%). In hospitals, participants working in wards and EDs had higher seropositivity (8.8% and 8.1%, respectively) than did those in ICUs and ORs (6.1% and 4.5%, respectively). Nurses and nurse assistants were more likely to be seropositive than physicians. Nurse assistants had the highest incidence, regardless of where they worked.

Reducing community spread through population-based measures may directly protect healthcare workers on 2 fronts, the researchers say: reduced occupational exposure as a result of fewer infected patients in the less controlled workplace setting such as the ED, and reduced exposure in their homes and communities.

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.

Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)

These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.

The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.

The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.

For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.

The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.

Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.

The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).

Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.

Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).

Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)

However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”

The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.

Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)

These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.

The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.

The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.

For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.

The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.

Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.

The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).

Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.

Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).

Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)

However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”

The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.

Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)

These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.

The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.

The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.

For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.

The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.

Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.

The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).

Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.

Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).

Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)

However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”

The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

The novel bispecific antibody odronextamab (REGN1979) is demonstrating encouraging activity, durable responses, and acceptable safety in a phase 1 study of patients with highly refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to an investigator.

Durable complete responses (CRs) to odronextamab are being observed in more than 80% of heavily pretreated patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) in the ongoing study, said Rajat Bannerji, MD, PhD, of Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick.

Likewise, durable CRs were seen in greater than 80% of patients diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not previously exposed to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, and also in about 20% of patients who were treated with CAR T cells, Dr. Bannerji reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, held virtually this year.

For these patients with FL or DLBCL in the phase 1 study, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity events did not exceed grade 3 in severity, and no cases of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) were observed, Dr. Bannerji added in his presentation.

Those findings suggest odronextamab, which binds to CD3 on T cells and CD20 on malignant B cells, may offer an “off-the-shelf, primarily outpatient treatment option” for patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL, he said in concluding remarks on the study.

This first-in-human study took a conservative approach, according to Dr. Bannerji, by mandating hospital admission during an initial step-up dosing schedule used along with dexamethasone to mitigate risk of CRS.

“With our step-up dosing and steroid premedication, we really have not seen too many cytokine release issues, and I do think that in the future it would be safe even to do step-up in the majority of patients as an outpatient,” he said in a discussion following his presentation.