Federal Practitioner

American Indian/Alaska Native high school students are almost three times more likely to attempt suicide than high schoolers as a whole, according to newly released data from the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

The prevalence of attempted suicide during the previous 12 months was 8.9% among the 13,677 students in grades 9-12 who took the survey last year, but the rate was 25.5% for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) respondents, almost 2.9 times higher, the YRBS data show.

Respondents with multiple races in their backgrounds, at 12.9%, and African Americans, with a prevalence of 11.8%, also were above the high school average for suicide attempts, while Whites (7.9%) and Asians (7.7%) were under it and Hispanics equaled it, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The number of AI/AN students was insufficient to examine differences by sex, but females in all of the other racial/ethnic groups were more likely than males to have attempted suicide: multiple race (17.8% vs. 7.3%), African American (15.2% vs. 8.5%), Hispanic (11.9% vs. 5.5%), White (9.4% vs. 6.4%), and Asian (8.4% vs. 7.1%), the CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health said.

Among all respondents, 11.0% of females had attempted suicide in the 12 months before the survey, a figure that is significantly higher than the 6.6% prevalence in males. Females also were significantly more likely than males to make a plan about how they would attempt suicide (19.9% vs. 11.3%) and to seriously consider an attempt (24.1% vs. 13.3%), CDC investigators said in a separate report.

Significant differences also were seen when looking at sexual identity. Suicide attempts were reported by 6.4% of heterosexuals, 16.1% of those who weren’t sure, and 23.4% of lesbians/gays/bisexuals (LGBs). For serious consideration of suicide, the respective numbers were 14.5%, 30.4%, and 46.8%, they reported (MMWR Supp. 2020 Aug 21;69[1]:47-55).

For nonheterosexuals, however, males were slightly more likely (23.8%) than females (23.6%) to have attempted suicide, but females were more likely to seriously consider it (49.0% vs. 40.4%) and to make a plan (42.4% vs. 33.0%), according to the YRBS data.

“Adolescence … represents a time for expanded identity development, with sexual identity development representing a complex, multidimensional, and often stressful process for youths,” the CDC investigators said in the MMWR. “To address the health differences in suicidal ideation and behaviors observed by student demographics and to decrease these outcomes overall, a comprehensive approach to suicide prevention, including programs, practices, and policies based on the best available evidence, is needed.”

[email protected]

American Indian/Alaska Native high school students are almost three times more likely to attempt suicide than high schoolers as a whole, according to newly released data from the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

The prevalence of attempted suicide during the previous 12 months was 8.9% among the 13,677 students in grades 9-12 who took the survey last year, but the rate was 25.5% for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) respondents, almost 2.9 times higher, the YRBS data show.

Respondents with multiple races in their backgrounds, at 12.9%, and African Americans, with a prevalence of 11.8%, also were above the high school average for suicide attempts, while Whites (7.9%) and Asians (7.7%) were under it and Hispanics equaled it, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The number of AI/AN students was insufficient to examine differences by sex, but females in all of the other racial/ethnic groups were more likely than males to have attempted suicide: multiple race (17.8% vs. 7.3%), African American (15.2% vs. 8.5%), Hispanic (11.9% vs. 5.5%), White (9.4% vs. 6.4%), and Asian (8.4% vs. 7.1%), the CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health said.

Among all respondents, 11.0% of females had attempted suicide in the 12 months before the survey, a figure that is significantly higher than the 6.6% prevalence in males. Females also were significantly more likely than males to make a plan about how they would attempt suicide (19.9% vs. 11.3%) and to seriously consider an attempt (24.1% vs. 13.3%), CDC investigators said in a separate report.

Significant differences also were seen when looking at sexual identity. Suicide attempts were reported by 6.4% of heterosexuals, 16.1% of those who weren’t sure, and 23.4% of lesbians/gays/bisexuals (LGBs). For serious consideration of suicide, the respective numbers were 14.5%, 30.4%, and 46.8%, they reported (MMWR Supp. 2020 Aug 21;69[1]:47-55).

For nonheterosexuals, however, males were slightly more likely (23.8%) than females (23.6%) to have attempted suicide, but females were more likely to seriously consider it (49.0% vs. 40.4%) and to make a plan (42.4% vs. 33.0%), according to the YRBS data.

“Adolescence … represents a time for expanded identity development, with sexual identity development representing a complex, multidimensional, and often stressful process for youths,” the CDC investigators said in the MMWR. “To address the health differences in suicidal ideation and behaviors observed by student demographics and to decrease these outcomes overall, a comprehensive approach to suicide prevention, including programs, practices, and policies based on the best available evidence, is needed.”

[email protected]

American Indian/Alaska Native high school students are almost three times more likely to attempt suicide than high schoolers as a whole, according to newly released data from the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

The prevalence of attempted suicide during the previous 12 months was 8.9% among the 13,677 students in grades 9-12 who took the survey last year, but the rate was 25.5% for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) respondents, almost 2.9 times higher, the YRBS data show.

Respondents with multiple races in their backgrounds, at 12.9%, and African Americans, with a prevalence of 11.8%, also were above the high school average for suicide attempts, while Whites (7.9%) and Asians (7.7%) were under it and Hispanics equaled it, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The number of AI/AN students was insufficient to examine differences by sex, but females in all of the other racial/ethnic groups were more likely than males to have attempted suicide: multiple race (17.8% vs. 7.3%), African American (15.2% vs. 8.5%), Hispanic (11.9% vs. 5.5%), White (9.4% vs. 6.4%), and Asian (8.4% vs. 7.1%), the CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health said.

Among all respondents, 11.0% of females had attempted suicide in the 12 months before the survey, a figure that is significantly higher than the 6.6% prevalence in males. Females also were significantly more likely than males to make a plan about how they would attempt suicide (19.9% vs. 11.3%) and to seriously consider an attempt (24.1% vs. 13.3%), CDC investigators said in a separate report.

Significant differences also were seen when looking at sexual identity. Suicide attempts were reported by 6.4% of heterosexuals, 16.1% of those who weren’t sure, and 23.4% of lesbians/gays/bisexuals (LGBs). For serious consideration of suicide, the respective numbers were 14.5%, 30.4%, and 46.8%, they reported (MMWR Supp. 2020 Aug 21;69[1]:47-55).

For nonheterosexuals, however, males were slightly more likely (23.8%) than females (23.6%) to have attempted suicide, but females were more likely to seriously consider it (49.0% vs. 40.4%) and to make a plan (42.4% vs. 33.0%), according to the YRBS data.

“Adolescence … represents a time for expanded identity development, with sexual identity development representing a complex, multidimensional, and often stressful process for youths,” the CDC investigators said in the MMWR. “To address the health differences in suicidal ideation and behaviors observed by student demographics and to decrease these outcomes overall, a comprehensive approach to suicide prevention, including programs, practices, and policies based on the best available evidence, is needed.”

[email protected]

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved marketing of the first authorized diagnostic antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 that can be used without an analyzer.

Abbott

The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (Abbott) is similar in some ways to a home pregnancy test. Clinicians read results on a card – one line for a negative result, two lines for positive.

A health care provider swabs a symptomatic patient’s nose, twirls the sample on a test card with a reagent, and waits approximately 15 minutes for results. No additional equipment is required.

Abbott expects the test to cost about $5.00, the company announced.

Office-based physicians, ED physicians, and school nurses could potentially use the product as a point-of-care test. The FDA granted the test emergency use authorization. It is approved for people suspected of having COVID-19 who are within 7 days of symptom onset.

“This new COVID-19 antigen test is an important addition to available tests because the results can be read in minutes, right off the testing card,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in a news release. “This means people will know if they have the virus in almost real time.”

“This fits into the testing landscape as a simple, inexpensive test that does not require additional equipment,” Marcus Lynch, PhD, assistant manager of the Health Care Horizon Scanning program at ECRI, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment. ECRI is an independent, nonprofit organization that reviews and analyses COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics.

The test could help with early triage of patients who test positive, perhaps alerting physicians to the need to start COVID-19 therapy, added Lynch, who specializes in immunology and vaccine development. The test also could be useful in low-resource settings.

The FDA included a caveat: antigen tests are generally less sensitive than molecular assays. “Due to the potential for decreased sensitivity compared to molecular assays, negative results from an antigen test may need to be confirmed with a molecular test prior to making treatment decisions,” the agency noted.

Lynch agreed and said that when a patient tests negative, physicians still need to use their clinical judgment on the basis of symptoms and other factors. The test is not designed for population-based screening of asymptomatic people, he added.

Abbott announced plans to make up to 50 million tests available per month in the United States starting in October. The product comes with a free smartphone app that people can use to share results with an employer or with others as needed.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved marketing of the first authorized diagnostic antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 that can be used without an analyzer.

Abbott

The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (Abbott) is similar in some ways to a home pregnancy test. Clinicians read results on a card – one line for a negative result, two lines for positive.

A health care provider swabs a symptomatic patient’s nose, twirls the sample on a test card with a reagent, and waits approximately 15 minutes for results. No additional equipment is required.

Abbott expects the test to cost about $5.00, the company announced.

Office-based physicians, ED physicians, and school nurses could potentially use the product as a point-of-care test. The FDA granted the test emergency use authorization. It is approved for people suspected of having COVID-19 who are within 7 days of symptom onset.

“This new COVID-19 antigen test is an important addition to available tests because the results can be read in minutes, right off the testing card,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in a news release. “This means people will know if they have the virus in almost real time.”

“This fits into the testing landscape as a simple, inexpensive test that does not require additional equipment,” Marcus Lynch, PhD, assistant manager of the Health Care Horizon Scanning program at ECRI, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment. ECRI is an independent, nonprofit organization that reviews and analyses COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics.

The test could help with early triage of patients who test positive, perhaps alerting physicians to the need to start COVID-19 therapy, added Lynch, who specializes in immunology and vaccine development. The test also could be useful in low-resource settings.

The FDA included a caveat: antigen tests are generally less sensitive than molecular assays. “Due to the potential for decreased sensitivity compared to molecular assays, negative results from an antigen test may need to be confirmed with a molecular test prior to making treatment decisions,” the agency noted.

Lynch agreed and said that when a patient tests negative, physicians still need to use their clinical judgment on the basis of symptoms and other factors. The test is not designed for population-based screening of asymptomatic people, he added.

Abbott announced plans to make up to 50 million tests available per month in the United States starting in October. The product comes with a free smartphone app that people can use to share results with an employer or with others as needed.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved marketing of the first authorized diagnostic antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 that can be used without an analyzer.

Abbott

The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (Abbott) is similar in some ways to a home pregnancy test. Clinicians read results on a card – one line for a negative result, two lines for positive.

A health care provider swabs a symptomatic patient’s nose, twirls the sample on a test card with a reagent, and waits approximately 15 minutes for results. No additional equipment is required.

Abbott expects the test to cost about $5.00, the company announced.

Office-based physicians, ED physicians, and school nurses could potentially use the product as a point-of-care test. The FDA granted the test emergency use authorization. It is approved for people suspected of having COVID-19 who are within 7 days of symptom onset.

“This new COVID-19 antigen test is an important addition to available tests because the results can be read in minutes, right off the testing card,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in a news release. “This means people will know if they have the virus in almost real time.”

“This fits into the testing landscape as a simple, inexpensive test that does not require additional equipment,” Marcus Lynch, PhD, assistant manager of the Health Care Horizon Scanning program at ECRI, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment. ECRI is an independent, nonprofit organization that reviews and analyses COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics.

The test could help with early triage of patients who test positive, perhaps alerting physicians to the need to start COVID-19 therapy, added Lynch, who specializes in immunology and vaccine development. The test also could be useful in low-resource settings.

The FDA included a caveat: antigen tests are generally less sensitive than molecular assays. “Due to the potential for decreased sensitivity compared to molecular assays, negative results from an antigen test may need to be confirmed with a molecular test prior to making treatment decisions,” the agency noted.

Lynch agreed and said that when a patient tests negative, physicians still need to use their clinical judgment on the basis of symptoms and other factors. The test is not designed for population-based screening of asymptomatic people, he added.

Abbott announced plans to make up to 50 million tests available per month in the United States starting in October. The product comes with a free smartphone app that people can use to share results with an employer or with others as needed.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two COVID-19 vaccines are entering phase 3 clinical trials, according to data presented at a virtual meeting of vaccine and infectious disease experts.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.

Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.

Vaccine allocation models

The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.

The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.

In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.

The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.

In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.

The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.

Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.

The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.

A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.

‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage

Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.

This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.

High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.

The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two COVID-19 vaccines are entering phase 3 clinical trials, according to data presented at a virtual meeting of vaccine and infectious disease experts.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.

Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.

Vaccine allocation models

The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.

The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.

In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.

The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.

In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.

The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.

Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.

The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.

A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.

‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage

Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.

This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.

High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.

The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two COVID-19 vaccines are entering phase 3 clinical trials, according to data presented at a virtual meeting of vaccine and infectious disease experts.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.

Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.

Vaccine allocation models

The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.

The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.

In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.

The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.

In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.

The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.

Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.

The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.

A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.

‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage

Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.

This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.

High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.

The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The improvement in survival in many cancer types that is seen with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), when compared to control therapies, is not affected by the patient’s sex, age, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), according to a new meta-analysis.

Therefore, treatment with these immunotherapies should not be withheld on the basis of these factors, the authors concluded.

Asked whether there have been such instances of withholding ICIs, lead author Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told Medscape Medical News: “We did this study solely based on scientific questions we had and not because we were seeing any bias at the moment in the use of ICIs.

“And we saw that the survival benefits were very similar across all of the categories [we analyzed], with a survival benefit of about 20% from immunotherapy across the board, which is clinically meaningful,” he added.

The study was published online August 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“The comparable survival advantage between patients of different sex, age, and ECOG PS may encourage more patients to receive ICI treatment regardless of cancer types, lines of therapy, agents of immunotherapy, and intervention therapies,” the authors commented.

Wang noted that there have been conflicting reports in the literature suggesting that male patients may benefit more from immunotherapy than female patients and that older patients may benefit more from the same treatment than younger patients.

However, there are also suggestions in the literature that women experience a stronger immune response than men and that, with aging, the immune system generally undergoes immunosenescence.

In addition, the PS of oncology patients has been implicated in how well patients respond to immunotherapy.

Wang noted that the findings of past studies have contradicted each other.
 

Findings of the Meta-Analysis

The meta-analysis included 37 randomized clinical trials that involved a total of 23,760 patients with a variety of advanced cancers. “Most of the trials were phase 3 (n = 34) and conduced for subsequent lines of therapy (n = 22),” the authors explained.

The most common cancers treated with an ICI were non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma.

Pooled overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated on the basis of sex, age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older), and an ECOG PS of 0 and 1 or higher.

Responses were stratified on the basis of cancer type, line of therapy, the ICI used, and the immunotherapy strategy used in the ICI arm.

Most of the drugs evaluated were PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The specific drugs assessed included ipilimumab, tremelimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab.

A total of 32 trials that involved more than 20,000 patients reported HRs for death according to the patients’ sex. Thirty-four trials that involved more than 21,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ age, and 30 trials that involved more than 19,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ ECOG PS.

No significant differences in OS benefit were seen by cancer type, line of therapy, agent of immunotherapy, or intervention strategy, the investigators pointed out.

There were also no differences in survival benefit associated with immunotherapy vs control therapies for patients with an ECOG PS of 0 and an ECOG PS of 1 or greater. The OS benefit was 0.81 for those with an ECOG PS of 0 and 0.79 for those with an ECOG PS of 1 or greater.

Wang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com .

The improvement in survival in many cancer types that is seen with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), when compared to control therapies, is not affected by the patient’s sex, age, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), according to a new meta-analysis.

Therefore, treatment with these immunotherapies should not be withheld on the basis of these factors, the authors concluded.

Asked whether there have been such instances of withholding ICIs, lead author Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told Medscape Medical News: “We did this study solely based on scientific questions we had and not because we were seeing any bias at the moment in the use of ICIs.

“And we saw that the survival benefits were very similar across all of the categories [we analyzed], with a survival benefit of about 20% from immunotherapy across the board, which is clinically meaningful,” he added.

The study was published online August 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“The comparable survival advantage between patients of different sex, age, and ECOG PS may encourage more patients to receive ICI treatment regardless of cancer types, lines of therapy, agents of immunotherapy, and intervention therapies,” the authors commented.

Wang noted that there have been conflicting reports in the literature suggesting that male patients may benefit more from immunotherapy than female patients and that older patients may benefit more from the same treatment than younger patients.

However, there are also suggestions in the literature that women experience a stronger immune response than men and that, with aging, the immune system generally undergoes immunosenescence.

In addition, the PS of oncology patients has been implicated in how well patients respond to immunotherapy.

Wang noted that the findings of past studies have contradicted each other.
 

Findings of the Meta-Analysis

The meta-analysis included 37 randomized clinical trials that involved a total of 23,760 patients with a variety of advanced cancers. “Most of the trials were phase 3 (n = 34) and conduced for subsequent lines of therapy (n = 22),” the authors explained.

The most common cancers treated with an ICI were non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma.

Pooled overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated on the basis of sex, age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older), and an ECOG PS of 0 and 1 or higher.

Responses were stratified on the basis of cancer type, line of therapy, the ICI used, and the immunotherapy strategy used in the ICI arm.

Most of the drugs evaluated were PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The specific drugs assessed included ipilimumab, tremelimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab.

A total of 32 trials that involved more than 20,000 patients reported HRs for death according to the patients’ sex. Thirty-four trials that involved more than 21,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ age, and 30 trials that involved more than 19,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ ECOG PS.

No significant differences in OS benefit were seen by cancer type, line of therapy, agent of immunotherapy, or intervention strategy, the investigators pointed out.

There were also no differences in survival benefit associated with immunotherapy vs control therapies for patients with an ECOG PS of 0 and an ECOG PS of 1 or greater. The OS benefit was 0.81 for those with an ECOG PS of 0 and 0.79 for those with an ECOG PS of 1 or greater.

Wang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com .

The improvement in survival in many cancer types that is seen with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), when compared to control therapies, is not affected by the patient’s sex, age, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), according to a new meta-analysis.

Therefore, treatment with these immunotherapies should not be withheld on the basis of these factors, the authors concluded.

Asked whether there have been such instances of withholding ICIs, lead author Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told Medscape Medical News: “We did this study solely based on scientific questions we had and not because we were seeing any bias at the moment in the use of ICIs.

“And we saw that the survival benefits were very similar across all of the categories [we analyzed], with a survival benefit of about 20% from immunotherapy across the board, which is clinically meaningful,” he added.

The study was published online August 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“The comparable survival advantage between patients of different sex, age, and ECOG PS may encourage more patients to receive ICI treatment regardless of cancer types, lines of therapy, agents of immunotherapy, and intervention therapies,” the authors commented.

Wang noted that there have been conflicting reports in the literature suggesting that male patients may benefit more from immunotherapy than female patients and that older patients may benefit more from the same treatment than younger patients.

However, there are also suggestions in the literature that women experience a stronger immune response than men and that, with aging, the immune system generally undergoes immunosenescence.

In addition, the PS of oncology patients has been implicated in how well patients respond to immunotherapy.

Wang noted that the findings of past studies have contradicted each other.
 

Findings of the Meta-Analysis

The meta-analysis included 37 randomized clinical trials that involved a total of 23,760 patients with a variety of advanced cancers. “Most of the trials were phase 3 (n = 34) and conduced for subsequent lines of therapy (n = 22),” the authors explained.

The most common cancers treated with an ICI were non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma.

Pooled overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated on the basis of sex, age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older), and an ECOG PS of 0 and 1 or higher.

Responses were stratified on the basis of cancer type, line of therapy, the ICI used, and the immunotherapy strategy used in the ICI arm.

Most of the drugs evaluated were PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The specific drugs assessed included ipilimumab, tremelimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab.

A total of 32 trials that involved more than 20,000 patients reported HRs for death according to the patients’ sex. Thirty-four trials that involved more than 21,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ age, and 30 trials that involved more than 19,000 patients reported HRs for death according to patients’ ECOG PS.

No significant differences in OS benefit were seen by cancer type, line of therapy, agent of immunotherapy, or intervention strategy, the investigators pointed out.

There were also no differences in survival benefit associated with immunotherapy vs control therapies for patients with an ECOG PS of 0 and an ECOG PS of 1 or greater. The OS benefit was 0.81 for those with an ECOG PS of 0 and 0.79 for those with an ECOG PS of 1 or greater.

Wang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com .

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Internet searches regarding acute anxiety reached an all-time high between March and May 2020, new research shows.

m-imagephotography/Thinkstock.com

Investigators used data collected by Google to monitor the daily percentage of all Internet searches originating in the United States that included the terms “anxiety” or “panic” in combination with “attack” between January 2004 and May 2020.

They found an 11% increase in all acute anxiety queries between March 2020, when President Donald Trump first declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency, and May 2020. This translates into approximately 375,000 more searches than expected.

Most of the increase in inquiries occurred when specific developments in COVID-19 were reported.

“We found record levels of people potentially having panic attacks, as reflected by their online queries since early in the pandemic,” lead author John W. Ayers, PhD, associate adjunct professor of medicine, school of health sciences, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“There are two main take-home messages from our research – one is that we need to think about how to address acute anxiety during COVID-19, and the other is that we need to start thinking about how our messaging impacts acute anxiety,” said Dr. Ayers, who is also vice chief of innovation, division of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California, San Diego.

The study was published online August 24 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Real-time data

“There has been a lot of speculation about collateral consequences of COVID-19, especially in mental health,” Dr. Ayers said.

Most of the research has been conducted via self-report survey, but these types of surveys may miss individuals who do not participate in the surveys or do not seek care, Dr. Ayers added.

“We need a strategy that can measure behavioral health in real time so we can design interventions to meet these needs,” he said.

He explained that he and his colleagues “looked at one case study – panic attacks – because it is the most prevalent form of mental health problem driven by your surroundings, and it is socially contagious, meaning that when someone you know is having a severe acute anxiety or panic attack, you’re more likely to have one yourself.”

The researchers turned to publicly available nonidentifiable data collected via Google Trends – a feature of Google that shows how frequently a given search term is entered into Google’s search engine, relative to the site’s total search volume, over a specific period.

They monitored all searches containing their keywords over a 15-year period (Jan. 1, 2004–May 4, 2020). Search volumes between March 13, 2020 (when the national emergency was declared) and the last date of available data (May 9, 2020) were compared with the expected search volumes that would have been found had COVID-19 not occurred.
 

Headline-related spikes

Cumulatively, all acute anxiety searches were 11% higher than expected for the 58-day study period (95% confidence interval, 7%-14%). There was a dramatic increase in searches (375,000), or a total of 3.4 million searches, during that period.

Most of these searches took place between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2020, when searches were cumulatively 17% higher than expected (95% CI, 13%-22%).

Several COVID-19–related milestones took place during that period.

• First imposition of social distancing guidelines occurred (March 16, 2020).
• The United States surpassed China with the most reported COVID-19 cases (March 26, 2020).
• Extension of social distancing guidelines occurred (March 29, 2020).
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended use of face masks (April 3, 2020).
• The United States surpassed Italy for having the most COVID-19–related deaths (April 11, 2020).

The largest spike in acute anxiety queries occurred on March 28, 2020, on which date there were 52% more searches than expected. Queries returned to expected levels on April 15, 2020, and have fallen within expected ranges since then.

Dr. Ayers noted that, although other stressors have affected people in the United States, including electoral and economic issues, “the headlines around COVID-19 were driving the anxiety, and those days with dramatic headlines were associated with large spikes in queries.”
 

“Our messaging surrounding how COVID-19 is reported may need to change to prevent this,” Dr. Ayers said. “Headlines that hit people in the head by reporting how many people died and bury in the article how we can slow the spread may increase anxiety more than headlines reporting strategies that work right up front.”

He noted that media reporting of suicide has begun to change; there have been fewer sensationalized headlines, and there has been an increase in referrals to suicide hotlines. “We need to be thinking about similar strategies when reporting COVID-19,” said Dr. Ayers.

He also suggested tapping existing resources, such as state suicide hotlines, by training staff to assist persons experiencing acute anxiety and panic attacks.

As an example of this model, the authors point to an Illinois-based hotline, Call4Calm, which helps people cope with acute COVID-19 anxiety.

Google queries concerning panic and anxiety do not yield any links to helplines, although OneBox, a Google feature, provides information to people inquiring about suicide and addiction. “This approach could be used to promote resources about anxiety and panic and COVID-19,” Dr. Ayers suggested.
 

Call to action

Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chair of the department of psychiatry, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, said the study’s recommendations were “interesting and worth amplifying “ and that “headlines calling for calm” were “a good suggestion.” She was not involved with the study.

“A multifaceted, multimedia approach is needed – not only what’s on Google, but it would be helpful if politicians could acknowledge the anxiety and make available more mental health resources,” she added.

Dr. Ritchie, who is also vice chair of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington, suggested that it is a “simple option [during patient visits] to incorporate a question as to how your patient is being affected by the pandemic into your standard template, together with questions about sleep, appetite, sexual functioning, etc.”

Dr. Ayers said that the “call to action” that he and his colleagues are making is to use their methodology to “know what mental health needs are in the population” and to use existing frameworks and strategies to address them.

The study was supported by a grant from the University of California office of the president and by intramural support from the division of infectious diseases and the Center for Data Driven Health at the Qualcomm Institute, both with the University of California, San Diego. One coauthor was funded by Bill and Melinda Gates through the Global Good Fund. Dr. Ayers owns equity positions in Directing Medicine, Health Watcher, and Good Analytics, companies that advise on the use of digital data for public health surveillance. Dr. Ritchie reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Internet searches regarding acute anxiety reached an all-time high between March and May 2020, new research shows.

m-imagephotography/Thinkstock.com

Investigators used data collected by Google to monitor the daily percentage of all Internet searches originating in the United States that included the terms “anxiety” or “panic” in combination with “attack” between January 2004 and May 2020.

They found an 11% increase in all acute anxiety queries between March 2020, when President Donald Trump first declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency, and May 2020. This translates into approximately 375,000 more searches than expected.

Most of the increase in inquiries occurred when specific developments in COVID-19 were reported.

“We found record levels of people potentially having panic attacks, as reflected by their online queries since early in the pandemic,” lead author John W. Ayers, PhD, associate adjunct professor of medicine, school of health sciences, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“There are two main take-home messages from our research – one is that we need to think about how to address acute anxiety during COVID-19, and the other is that we need to start thinking about how our messaging impacts acute anxiety,” said Dr. Ayers, who is also vice chief of innovation, division of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California, San Diego.

The study was published online August 24 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Real-time data

“There has been a lot of speculation about collateral consequences of COVID-19, especially in mental health,” Dr. Ayers said.

Most of the research has been conducted via self-report survey, but these types of surveys may miss individuals who do not participate in the surveys or do not seek care, Dr. Ayers added.

“We need a strategy that can measure behavioral health in real time so we can design interventions to meet these needs,” he said.

He explained that he and his colleagues “looked at one case study – panic attacks – because it is the most prevalent form of mental health problem driven by your surroundings, and it is socially contagious, meaning that when someone you know is having a severe acute anxiety or panic attack, you’re more likely to have one yourself.”

The researchers turned to publicly available nonidentifiable data collected via Google Trends – a feature of Google that shows how frequently a given search term is entered into Google’s search engine, relative to the site’s total search volume, over a specific period.

They monitored all searches containing their keywords over a 15-year period (Jan. 1, 2004–May 4, 2020). Search volumes between March 13, 2020 (when the national emergency was declared) and the last date of available data (May 9, 2020) were compared with the expected search volumes that would have been found had COVID-19 not occurred.
 

Headline-related spikes

Cumulatively, all acute anxiety searches were 11% higher than expected for the 58-day study period (95% confidence interval, 7%-14%). There was a dramatic increase in searches (375,000), or a total of 3.4 million searches, during that period.

Most of these searches took place between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2020, when searches were cumulatively 17% higher than expected (95% CI, 13%-22%).

Several COVID-19–related milestones took place during that period.

• First imposition of social distancing guidelines occurred (March 16, 2020).
• The United States surpassed China with the most reported COVID-19 cases (March 26, 2020).
• Extension of social distancing guidelines occurred (March 29, 2020).
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended use of face masks (April 3, 2020).
• The United States surpassed Italy for having the most COVID-19–related deaths (April 11, 2020).

The largest spike in acute anxiety queries occurred on March 28, 2020, on which date there were 52% more searches than expected. Queries returned to expected levels on April 15, 2020, and have fallen within expected ranges since then.

Dr. Ayers noted that, although other stressors have affected people in the United States, including electoral and economic issues, “the headlines around COVID-19 were driving the anxiety, and those days with dramatic headlines were associated with large spikes in queries.”
 

“Our messaging surrounding how COVID-19 is reported may need to change to prevent this,” Dr. Ayers said. “Headlines that hit people in the head by reporting how many people died and bury in the article how we can slow the spread may increase anxiety more than headlines reporting strategies that work right up front.”

He noted that media reporting of suicide has begun to change; there have been fewer sensationalized headlines, and there has been an increase in referrals to suicide hotlines. “We need to be thinking about similar strategies when reporting COVID-19,” said Dr. Ayers.

He also suggested tapping existing resources, such as state suicide hotlines, by training staff to assist persons experiencing acute anxiety and panic attacks.

As an example of this model, the authors point to an Illinois-based hotline, Call4Calm, which helps people cope with acute COVID-19 anxiety.

Google queries concerning panic and anxiety do not yield any links to helplines, although OneBox, a Google feature, provides information to people inquiring about suicide and addiction. “This approach could be used to promote resources about anxiety and panic and COVID-19,” Dr. Ayers suggested.
 

Call to action

Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chair of the department of psychiatry, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, said the study’s recommendations were “interesting and worth amplifying “ and that “headlines calling for calm” were “a good suggestion.” She was not involved with the study.

“A multifaceted, multimedia approach is needed – not only what’s on Google, but it would be helpful if politicians could acknowledge the anxiety and make available more mental health resources,” she added.

Dr. Ritchie, who is also vice chair of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington, suggested that it is a “simple option [during patient visits] to incorporate a question as to how your patient is being affected by the pandemic into your standard template, together with questions about sleep, appetite, sexual functioning, etc.”

Dr. Ayers said that the “call to action” that he and his colleagues are making is to use their methodology to “know what mental health needs are in the population” and to use existing frameworks and strategies to address them.

The study was supported by a grant from the University of California office of the president and by intramural support from the division of infectious diseases and the Center for Data Driven Health at the Qualcomm Institute, both with the University of California, San Diego. One coauthor was funded by Bill and Melinda Gates through the Global Good Fund. Dr. Ayers owns equity positions in Directing Medicine, Health Watcher, and Good Analytics, companies that advise on the use of digital data for public health surveillance. Dr. Ritchie reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Internet searches regarding acute anxiety reached an all-time high between March and May 2020, new research shows.

m-imagephotography/Thinkstock.com

Investigators used data collected by Google to monitor the daily percentage of all Internet searches originating in the United States that included the terms “anxiety” or “panic” in combination with “attack” between January 2004 and May 2020.

They found an 11% increase in all acute anxiety queries between March 2020, when President Donald Trump first declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency, and May 2020. This translates into approximately 375,000 more searches than expected.

Most of the increase in inquiries occurred when specific developments in COVID-19 were reported.

“We found record levels of people potentially having panic attacks, as reflected by their online queries since early in the pandemic,” lead author John W. Ayers, PhD, associate adjunct professor of medicine, school of health sciences, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“There are two main take-home messages from our research – one is that we need to think about how to address acute anxiety during COVID-19, and the other is that we need to start thinking about how our messaging impacts acute anxiety,” said Dr. Ayers, who is also vice chief of innovation, division of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California, San Diego.

The study was published online August 24 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Real-time data

“There has been a lot of speculation about collateral consequences of COVID-19, especially in mental health,” Dr. Ayers said.

Most of the research has been conducted via self-report survey, but these types of surveys may miss individuals who do not participate in the surveys or do not seek care, Dr. Ayers added.

“We need a strategy that can measure behavioral health in real time so we can design interventions to meet these needs,” he said.

He explained that he and his colleagues “looked at one case study – panic attacks – because it is the most prevalent form of mental health problem driven by your surroundings, and it is socially contagious, meaning that when someone you know is having a severe acute anxiety or panic attack, you’re more likely to have one yourself.”

The researchers turned to publicly available nonidentifiable data collected via Google Trends – a feature of Google that shows how frequently a given search term is entered into Google’s search engine, relative to the site’s total search volume, over a specific period.

They monitored all searches containing their keywords over a 15-year period (Jan. 1, 2004–May 4, 2020). Search volumes between March 13, 2020 (when the national emergency was declared) and the last date of available data (May 9, 2020) were compared with the expected search volumes that would have been found had COVID-19 not occurred.
 

Headline-related spikes

Cumulatively, all acute anxiety searches were 11% higher than expected for the 58-day study period (95% confidence interval, 7%-14%). There was a dramatic increase in searches (375,000), or a total of 3.4 million searches, during that period.

Most of these searches took place between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2020, when searches were cumulatively 17% higher than expected (95% CI, 13%-22%).

Several COVID-19–related milestones took place during that period.

• First imposition of social distancing guidelines occurred (March 16, 2020).
• The United States surpassed China with the most reported COVID-19 cases (March 26, 2020).
• Extension of social distancing guidelines occurred (March 29, 2020).
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended use of face masks (April 3, 2020).
• The United States surpassed Italy for having the most COVID-19–related deaths (April 11, 2020).

The largest spike in acute anxiety queries occurred on March 28, 2020, on which date there were 52% more searches than expected. Queries returned to expected levels on April 15, 2020, and have fallen within expected ranges since then.

Dr. Ayers noted that, although other stressors have affected people in the United States, including electoral and economic issues, “the headlines around COVID-19 were driving the anxiety, and those days with dramatic headlines were associated with large spikes in queries.”
 

“Our messaging surrounding how COVID-19 is reported may need to change to prevent this,” Dr. Ayers said. “Headlines that hit people in the head by reporting how many people died and bury in the article how we can slow the spread may increase anxiety more than headlines reporting strategies that work right up front.”

He noted that media reporting of suicide has begun to change; there have been fewer sensationalized headlines, and there has been an increase in referrals to suicide hotlines. “We need to be thinking about similar strategies when reporting COVID-19,” said Dr. Ayers.

He also suggested tapping existing resources, such as state suicide hotlines, by training staff to assist persons experiencing acute anxiety and panic attacks.

As an example of this model, the authors point to an Illinois-based hotline, Call4Calm, which helps people cope with acute COVID-19 anxiety.

Google queries concerning panic and anxiety do not yield any links to helplines, although OneBox, a Google feature, provides information to people inquiring about suicide and addiction. “This approach could be used to promote resources about anxiety and panic and COVID-19,” Dr. Ayers suggested.
 

Call to action

Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chair of the department of psychiatry, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, said the study’s recommendations were “interesting and worth amplifying “ and that “headlines calling for calm” were “a good suggestion.” She was not involved with the study.

“A multifaceted, multimedia approach is needed – not only what’s on Google, but it would be helpful if politicians could acknowledge the anxiety and make available more mental health resources,” she added.

Dr. Ritchie, who is also vice chair of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington, suggested that it is a “simple option [during patient visits] to incorporate a question as to how your patient is being affected by the pandemic into your standard template, together with questions about sleep, appetite, sexual functioning, etc.”

Dr. Ayers said that the “call to action” that he and his colleagues are making is to use their methodology to “know what mental health needs are in the population” and to use existing frameworks and strategies to address them.

The study was supported by a grant from the University of California office of the president and by intramural support from the division of infectious diseases and the Center for Data Driven Health at the Qualcomm Institute, both with the University of California, San Diego. One coauthor was funded by Bill and Melinda Gates through the Global Good Fund. Dr. Ayers owns equity positions in Directing Medicine, Health Watcher, and Good Analytics, companies that advise on the use of digital data for public health surveillance. Dr. Ritchie reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Investigators conducting randomized controlled clinical trials to gauge the utility of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 are uncertain how studies will be affected now that the US Food and Drug Administration has given an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the therapy.

The agency’s move took many investigators by surprise. The EUA was announced at the White House the day after President Donald J. Trump accused the FDA of delaying approval of therapeutics to hurt his re-election chances.

In a memo describing the decision, the FDA cited data from some controlled and uncontrolled studies and, primarily, data from an open-label expanded-access protocol overseen by the Mayo Clinic.

At the White House, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 who were treated. That figure was later found to have been erroneous, and many experts pointed out that Hahn had conflated an absolute risk reduction with a relative reduction. After a firestorm of criticism, Hahn issued an apology.

“The criticism is entirely justified,” he tweeted. “What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.”

About 15 randomized controlled trials – out of 54 total studies involving convalescent plasma – are underway in the United States, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. The FDA’s Aug. 23 emergency authorization gave clinicians wide leeway to employ convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The agency noted, however, that “adequate and well-controlled randomized trials remain necessary for a definitive demonstration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma efficacy and to determine the optimal product attributes and appropriate patient populations for its use.”

But it’s not clear that people with COVID-19, especially those who are severely ill and hospitalized, will choose to enlist in a clinical trial – where they could receive a placebo – when they instead could get plasma.

“I’ve been asked repeatedly whether the EUA will affect our ability to recruit people into our hospitalized patient trial,” said Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, FIDSA, chief of the department of medicine, infectious diseases division at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York. “I do not know,” she said, on a call with reporters organized by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

“But,” she said, “I do know that the trial will continue and that we will discuss the evidence that we have with our patients and give them all that we can to help them weigh the evidence and make up their minds.”

Pirofski said the study being conducted at Montefiore and four other sites has since late April enrolled 190 patients out of a hoped-for 300.

When the study – which compares convalescent plasma to saline in hospitalized patients – was first designed, “there was not any funding for our trial and honestly not a whole lot of interest,” Pirofski told reporters. Individual donors helped support the initial rollout in late April and the trial quickly enrolled 150 patients as the pandemic peaked in the New York City area.

The National Institutes of Health has since given funding, which allowed the study to expand to New York University, Yale University, the University of Miami, and the University of Texas at Houston.
 

Hopeful, but a long way to go

Shmuel Shoham, MD, FIDSA, associate director of the transplant and oncology infectious diseases center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, said that he’s hopeful that people will continue to enroll in his trial, which is seeking to determine if plasma can prevent COVID-19 in those who’ve been recently exposed.

“Volunteers joining the study is the only way that we’re going to get to know whether this stuff works for prevention and treatment,” Shoham said on the call. He urged physicians and other healthcare workers to talk with patients about considering trial participation.

Shoham’s study is being conducted at 30 US sites and one at the Navajo Nation. It has enrolled 25 out of a hoped-for 500 participants. “We have a long way to go,” said Shoham.

Another Hopkins study to determine whether plasma is helpful in shortening illness in nonhospitalized patients, which is being conducted at the same 31 sites, has enrolled 50 out of 600.

Shoham said recruiting patients with COVID for any study had proven to be difficult. “The vast majority of people that have coronavirus do not come to centers that do clinical trials or interventional trials,” he said, adding that, in addition, most of those “who have coronavirus don’t want to be in a trial. They just want to have coronavirus and get it over with.”

But it’s important to understand how to conduct trials in a pandemic – in part to get answers quickly, he said. Researchers have been looking at convalescent plasma for months, said Shoham. “Why don’t we have the randomized clinical trial data that we want?”

Pirofski noted that trials have also been hobbled in part by “the shifting areas of the pandemic.” Fewer cases make for fewer potential plasma donors.

Both Shoham and Pirofski also said that more needed to be done to encourage plasma donors to participate.

The US Department of Health & Human Services clarified in August that hospitals, physicians, health plans, and other health care workers could contact individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 without violating the HIPAA privacy rule.

Pirofski said she believes that trial investigators know it is legal to reach out to patients. But, she said, “it probably could be better known.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Investigators conducting randomized controlled clinical trials to gauge the utility of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 are uncertain how studies will be affected now that the US Food and Drug Administration has given an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the therapy.

The agency’s move took many investigators by surprise. The EUA was announced at the White House the day after President Donald J. Trump accused the FDA of delaying approval of therapeutics to hurt his re-election chances.

In a memo describing the decision, the FDA cited data from some controlled and uncontrolled studies and, primarily, data from an open-label expanded-access protocol overseen by the Mayo Clinic.

At the White House, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 who were treated. That figure was later found to have been erroneous, and many experts pointed out that Hahn had conflated an absolute risk reduction with a relative reduction. After a firestorm of criticism, Hahn issued an apology.

“The criticism is entirely justified,” he tweeted. “What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.”

About 15 randomized controlled trials – out of 54 total studies involving convalescent plasma – are underway in the United States, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. The FDA’s Aug. 23 emergency authorization gave clinicians wide leeway to employ convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The agency noted, however, that “adequate and well-controlled randomized trials remain necessary for a definitive demonstration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma efficacy and to determine the optimal product attributes and appropriate patient populations for its use.”

But it’s not clear that people with COVID-19, especially those who are severely ill and hospitalized, will choose to enlist in a clinical trial – where they could receive a placebo – when they instead could get plasma.

“I’ve been asked repeatedly whether the EUA will affect our ability to recruit people into our hospitalized patient trial,” said Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, FIDSA, chief of the department of medicine, infectious diseases division at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York. “I do not know,” she said, on a call with reporters organized by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

“But,” she said, “I do know that the trial will continue and that we will discuss the evidence that we have with our patients and give them all that we can to help them weigh the evidence and make up their minds.”

Pirofski said the study being conducted at Montefiore and four other sites has since late April enrolled 190 patients out of a hoped-for 300.

When the study – which compares convalescent plasma to saline in hospitalized patients – was first designed, “there was not any funding for our trial and honestly not a whole lot of interest,” Pirofski told reporters. Individual donors helped support the initial rollout in late April and the trial quickly enrolled 150 patients as the pandemic peaked in the New York City area.

The National Institutes of Health has since given funding, which allowed the study to expand to New York University, Yale University, the University of Miami, and the University of Texas at Houston.
 

Hopeful, but a long way to go

Shmuel Shoham, MD, FIDSA, associate director of the transplant and oncology infectious diseases center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, said that he’s hopeful that people will continue to enroll in his trial, which is seeking to determine if plasma can prevent COVID-19 in those who’ve been recently exposed.

“Volunteers joining the study is the only way that we’re going to get to know whether this stuff works for prevention and treatment,” Shoham said on the call. He urged physicians and other healthcare workers to talk with patients about considering trial participation.

Shoham’s study is being conducted at 30 US sites and one at the Navajo Nation. It has enrolled 25 out of a hoped-for 500 participants. “We have a long way to go,” said Shoham.

Another Hopkins study to determine whether plasma is helpful in shortening illness in nonhospitalized patients, which is being conducted at the same 31 sites, has enrolled 50 out of 600.

Shoham said recruiting patients with COVID for any study had proven to be difficult. “The vast majority of people that have coronavirus do not come to centers that do clinical trials or interventional trials,” he said, adding that, in addition, most of those “who have coronavirus don’t want to be in a trial. They just want to have coronavirus and get it over with.”

But it’s important to understand how to conduct trials in a pandemic – in part to get answers quickly, he said. Researchers have been looking at convalescent plasma for months, said Shoham. “Why don’t we have the randomized clinical trial data that we want?”

Pirofski noted that trials have also been hobbled in part by “the shifting areas of the pandemic.” Fewer cases make for fewer potential plasma donors.

Both Shoham and Pirofski also said that more needed to be done to encourage plasma donors to participate.

The US Department of Health & Human Services clarified in August that hospitals, physicians, health plans, and other health care workers could contact individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 without violating the HIPAA privacy rule.

Pirofski said she believes that trial investigators know it is legal to reach out to patients. But, she said, “it probably could be better known.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Investigators conducting randomized controlled clinical trials to gauge the utility of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 are uncertain how studies will be affected now that the US Food and Drug Administration has given an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the therapy.

The agency’s move took many investigators by surprise. The EUA was announced at the White House the day after President Donald J. Trump accused the FDA of delaying approval of therapeutics to hurt his re-election chances.

In a memo describing the decision, the FDA cited data from some controlled and uncontrolled studies and, primarily, data from an open-label expanded-access protocol overseen by the Mayo Clinic.

At the White House, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 who were treated. That figure was later found to have been erroneous, and many experts pointed out that Hahn had conflated an absolute risk reduction with a relative reduction. After a firestorm of criticism, Hahn issued an apology.

“The criticism is entirely justified,” he tweeted. “What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.”

About 15 randomized controlled trials – out of 54 total studies involving convalescent plasma – are underway in the United States, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. The FDA’s Aug. 23 emergency authorization gave clinicians wide leeway to employ convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The agency noted, however, that “adequate and well-controlled randomized trials remain necessary for a definitive demonstration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma efficacy and to determine the optimal product attributes and appropriate patient populations for its use.”

But it’s not clear that people with COVID-19, especially those who are severely ill and hospitalized, will choose to enlist in a clinical trial – where they could receive a placebo – when they instead could get plasma.

“I’ve been asked repeatedly whether the EUA will affect our ability to recruit people into our hospitalized patient trial,” said Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, FIDSA, chief of the department of medicine, infectious diseases division at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York. “I do not know,” she said, on a call with reporters organized by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

“But,” she said, “I do know that the trial will continue and that we will discuss the evidence that we have with our patients and give them all that we can to help them weigh the evidence and make up their minds.”

Pirofski said the study being conducted at Montefiore and four other sites has since late April enrolled 190 patients out of a hoped-for 300.

When the study – which compares convalescent plasma to saline in hospitalized patients – was first designed, “there was not any funding for our trial and honestly not a whole lot of interest,” Pirofski told reporters. Individual donors helped support the initial rollout in late April and the trial quickly enrolled 150 patients as the pandemic peaked in the New York City area.

The National Institutes of Health has since given funding, which allowed the study to expand to New York University, Yale University, the University of Miami, and the University of Texas at Houston.
 

Hopeful, but a long way to go

Shmuel Shoham, MD, FIDSA, associate director of the transplant and oncology infectious diseases center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, said that he’s hopeful that people will continue to enroll in his trial, which is seeking to determine if plasma can prevent COVID-19 in those who’ve been recently exposed.

“Volunteers joining the study is the only way that we’re going to get to know whether this stuff works for prevention and treatment,” Shoham said on the call. He urged physicians and other healthcare workers to talk with patients about considering trial participation.

Shoham’s study is being conducted at 30 US sites and one at the Navajo Nation. It has enrolled 25 out of a hoped-for 500 participants. “We have a long way to go,” said Shoham.

Another Hopkins study to determine whether plasma is helpful in shortening illness in nonhospitalized patients, which is being conducted at the same 31 sites, has enrolled 50 out of 600.

Shoham said recruiting patients with COVID for any study had proven to be difficult. “The vast majority of people that have coronavirus do not come to centers that do clinical trials or interventional trials,” he said, adding that, in addition, most of those “who have coronavirus don’t want to be in a trial. They just want to have coronavirus and get it over with.”

But it’s important to understand how to conduct trials in a pandemic – in part to get answers quickly, he said. Researchers have been looking at convalescent plasma for months, said Shoham. “Why don’t we have the randomized clinical trial data that we want?”

Pirofski noted that trials have also been hobbled in part by “the shifting areas of the pandemic.” Fewer cases make for fewer potential plasma donors.

Both Shoham and Pirofski also said that more needed to be done to encourage plasma donors to participate.

The US Department of Health & Human Services clarified in August that hospitals, physicians, health plans, and other health care workers could contact individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 without violating the HIPAA privacy rule.

Pirofski said she believes that trial investigators know it is legal to reach out to patients. But, she said, “it probably could be better known.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk of depression is elevated in patients with cardiovascular diseases, but several specific antihypertensive therapies are associated with a reduced risk, and none appear to increase the risk, according to a population-based study that evaluated 10 years of data in nearly 4 million subjects.

“As the first study on individual antihypertensives and risk of depression, we found a decreased risk of depression with nine drugs,” reported a collaborative group of investigators from multiple institutions in Denmark where the study was undertaken.

In a study period spanning from 2005 to 2015, risk of a diagnosis of depression was evaluated in patients taking any of 41 antihypertensive therapies in four major categories. These were identified as angiotensin agents (ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers), calcium antagonists, beta-blockers, and diuretics.

Within these groups, agents associated with a reduced risk of depression were: two angiotensin agents, enalapril and ramipril; three calcium antagonists, amlodipine, verapamil, and verapamil combinations; and four beta-blockers, propranolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, and carvedilol. The remaining drugs in these classes and diuretics were not associated with a reduced risk of depression. However, no antihypertensive agent was linked to an increased risk of depression.

All people living in Denmark are assigned a unique personal identification number that permits health information to be tracked across multiple registers. In this study, information was linked for several registries, including the Danish Medical Register on Vital Statistics, the Medicinal Product Statistics, and the Danish Psychiatric Central Register.

Data from a total of 3.75 million patients exposed to antihypertensive therapy during the study period were evaluated. Roughly 1 million of them were exposed to angiotensin drugs and slightly more than a million were exposed to diuretics. For calcium antagonists or beta-blockers, the numbers were approximately 835,000 and 775,000, respectively.

After adjustment for such factors as concomitant somatic diagnoses, sex, age, and employment status, the hazard ratios for depression among drugs associated with protection identified a risk reduction of 10%-25% in most cases when those who had been given 6-10 prescriptions or more than 10 prescriptions were compared with those who received 2 or fewer.

At the level of 10 or more prescriptions, for example, the risk reductions were 17% for ramipril (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), 8% for enalapril (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), 18% for amlodipine (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86), 15% for verapamil (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.83), 28% for propranolol (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), 20% for atenolol (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.86), 25% for bisoprolol (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84), and 16% for carvedilol (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95).

For verapamil combinations, the risk reduction was 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.63), but the investigators cautioned that only 130 individuals were exposed to verapamil combinations, limiting the reliability of this analysis.
 

Interpreting the findings

A study hypothesis, the observed protective effect against depression, was expected for angiotensin drugs and calcium-channel blockers, but not for beta-blockers, according to the investigators.

“The renin-angiotensin systems is one of the pathways known to modulate inflammation in the central nervous system and seems involved in the regulation of the stress response. Angiotensin agents may also exert anti-inflammatory effects,” the investigators explained. “Dysregulation of intracellular calcium is evident in depression, including receptor-regulated calcium signaling.”

In contrast, beta-blockers have been associated with increased risk of depression in some but not all studies, according to the investigators. They maintained that some clinicians avoid these agents in patients with a history of mood disorders.

In attempting to account for the variability within drug classes regarding protection and lack of protection against depression, the investigators speculated that differences in pharmacologic properties, such as relative lipophilicity or anti-inflammatory effect, might be important.

Despite the large amount of data, William B. White, MD, professor emeritus at the Calhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut, Farmington, is not convinced.

“In observational studies, even those with very large samples sizes, bias and confounding are hard to extricate with controls and propensity-score matching,” Dr. White said. From his perspective, the protective effects of some but not all drugs within a class “give one the impression that the findings are likely random.”

A member of the editorial board of the journal in which this study appeared, Dr. White said he was not involved in the review of the manuscript. Ultimately, he believed that the results are difficult to interpret.

“For example, there is no plausible rationale for why 2 of the 16 ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers or 4 of the 15 beta-blockers or 3 of the 10 calcium-channel blockers would reduce depression while the others in the class would have no effect,” he said.

Despite the investigators’ conclusion that these data should drive drug choice for patients at risk of depression, “I would say the results of this analysis would not lead me to alter clinical practice,” Dr. White added.

According to the principal investigator of the study, Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DSc, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen, many variables affect choice of antihypertensive drug. However, the depression risk is elevated in patients with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease and hypertension.

When risk of a mood disorder is a concern, use of one of the nine drugs associated with protection from depression should be considered, “especially in patients at increased risk of developing depression, including patients with prior depression or anxiety and patients with a family history of depression,” he and his coinvestigators concluded.

However, Dr. Kessing said in an interview that the data do not help with individual treatment choices. “We do not compare different antihypertensives against each other due to the risk of confounding by indications, so, no, it is not reasonable to consider relative risk among specific agents.”

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest involving this topic.

SOURCE: Kessing LV et al. Hypertension. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15605.

The risk of depression is elevated in patients with cardiovascular diseases, but several specific antihypertensive therapies are associated with a reduced risk, and none appear to increase the risk, according to a population-based study that evaluated 10 years of data in nearly 4 million subjects.

“As the first study on individual antihypertensives and risk of depression, we found a decreased risk of depression with nine drugs,” reported a collaborative group of investigators from multiple institutions in Denmark where the study was undertaken.

In a study period spanning from 2005 to 2015, risk of a diagnosis of depression was evaluated in patients taking any of 41 antihypertensive therapies in four major categories. These were identified as angiotensin agents (ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers), calcium antagonists, beta-blockers, and diuretics.

Within these groups, agents associated with a reduced risk of depression were: two angiotensin agents, enalapril and ramipril; three calcium antagonists, amlodipine, verapamil, and verapamil combinations; and four beta-blockers, propranolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, and carvedilol. The remaining drugs in these classes and diuretics were not associated with a reduced risk of depression. However, no antihypertensive agent was linked to an increased risk of depression.

All people living in Denmark are assigned a unique personal identification number that permits health information to be tracked across multiple registers. In this study, information was linked for several registries, including the Danish Medical Register on Vital Statistics, the Medicinal Product Statistics, and the Danish Psychiatric Central Register.

Data from a total of 3.75 million patients exposed to antihypertensive therapy during the study period were evaluated. Roughly 1 million of them were exposed to angiotensin drugs and slightly more than a million were exposed to diuretics. For calcium antagonists or beta-blockers, the numbers were approximately 835,000 and 775,000, respectively.

After adjustment for such factors as concomitant somatic diagnoses, sex, age, and employment status, the hazard ratios for depression among drugs associated with protection identified a risk reduction of 10%-25% in most cases when those who had been given 6-10 prescriptions or more than 10 prescriptions were compared with those who received 2 or fewer.

At the level of 10 or more prescriptions, for example, the risk reductions were 17% for ramipril (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), 8% for enalapril (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), 18% for amlodipine (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86), 15% for verapamil (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.83), 28% for propranolol (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), 20% for atenolol (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.86), 25% for bisoprolol (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84), and 16% for carvedilol (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95).

For verapamil combinations, the risk reduction was 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.63), but the investigators cautioned that only 130 individuals were exposed to verapamil combinations, limiting the reliability of this analysis.
 

Interpreting the findings

A study hypothesis, the observed protective effect against depression, was expected for angiotensin drugs and calcium-channel blockers, but not for beta-blockers, according to the investigators.

“The renin-angiotensin systems is one of the pathways known to modulate inflammation in the central nervous system and seems involved in the regulation of the stress response. Angiotensin agents may also exert anti-inflammatory effects,” the investigators explained. “Dysregulation of intracellular calcium is evident in depression, including receptor-regulated calcium signaling.”

In contrast, beta-blockers have been associated with increased risk of depression in some but not all studies, according to the investigators. They maintained that some clinicians avoid these agents in patients with a history of mood disorders.

In attempting to account for the variability within drug classes regarding protection and lack of protection against depression, the investigators speculated that differences in pharmacologic properties, such as relative lipophilicity or anti-inflammatory effect, might be important.

Despite the large amount of data, William B. White, MD, professor emeritus at the Calhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut, Farmington, is not convinced.

“In observational studies, even those with very large samples sizes, bias and confounding are hard to extricate with controls and propensity-score matching,” Dr. White said. From his perspective, the protective effects of some but not all drugs within a class “give one the impression that the findings are likely random.”

A member of the editorial board of the journal in which this study appeared, Dr. White said he was not involved in the review of the manuscript. Ultimately, he believed that the results are difficult to interpret.

“For example, there is no plausible rationale for why 2 of the 16 ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers or 4 of the 15 beta-blockers or 3 of the 10 calcium-channel blockers would reduce depression while the others in the class would have no effect,” he said.

Despite the investigators’ conclusion that these data should drive drug choice for patients at risk of depression, “I would say the results of this analysis would not lead me to alter clinical practice,” Dr. White added.

According to the principal investigator of the study, Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DSc, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen, many variables affect choice of antihypertensive drug. However, the depression risk is elevated in patients with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease and hypertension.

When risk of a mood disorder is a concern, use of one of the nine drugs associated with protection from depression should be considered, “especially in patients at increased risk of developing depression, including patients with prior depression or anxiety and patients with a family history of depression,” he and his coinvestigators concluded.

However, Dr. Kessing said in an interview that the data do not help with individual treatment choices. “We do not compare different antihypertensives against each other due to the risk of confounding by indications, so, no, it is not reasonable to consider relative risk among specific agents.”

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest involving this topic.

SOURCE: Kessing LV et al. Hypertension. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15605.

The risk of depression is elevated in patients with cardiovascular diseases, but several specific antihypertensive therapies are associated with a reduced risk, and none appear to increase the risk, according to a population-based study that evaluated 10 years of data in nearly 4 million subjects.

“As the first study on individual antihypertensives and risk of depression, we found a decreased risk of depression with nine drugs,” reported a collaborative group of investigators from multiple institutions in Denmark where the study was undertaken.

In a study period spanning from 2005 to 2015, risk of a diagnosis of depression was evaluated in patients taking any of 41 antihypertensive therapies in four major categories. These were identified as angiotensin agents (ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers), calcium antagonists, beta-blockers, and diuretics.

Within these groups, agents associated with a reduced risk of depression were: two angiotensin agents, enalapril and ramipril; three calcium antagonists, amlodipine, verapamil, and verapamil combinations; and four beta-blockers, propranolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, and carvedilol. The remaining drugs in these classes and diuretics were not associated with a reduced risk of depression. However, no antihypertensive agent was linked to an increased risk of depression.

All people living in Denmark are assigned a unique personal identification number that permits health information to be tracked across multiple registers. In this study, information was linked for several registries, including the Danish Medical Register on Vital Statistics, the Medicinal Product Statistics, and the Danish Psychiatric Central Register.

Data from a total of 3.75 million patients exposed to antihypertensive therapy during the study period were evaluated. Roughly 1 million of them were exposed to angiotensin drugs and slightly more than a million were exposed to diuretics. For calcium antagonists or beta-blockers, the numbers were approximately 835,000 and 775,000, respectively.

After adjustment for such factors as concomitant somatic diagnoses, sex, age, and employment status, the hazard ratios for depression among drugs associated with protection identified a risk reduction of 10%-25% in most cases when those who had been given 6-10 prescriptions or more than 10 prescriptions were compared with those who received 2 or fewer.

At the level of 10 or more prescriptions, for example, the risk reductions were 17% for ramipril (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), 8% for enalapril (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), 18% for amlodipine (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86), 15% for verapamil (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.83), 28% for propranolol (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), 20% for atenolol (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.86), 25% for bisoprolol (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84), and 16% for carvedilol (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95).

For verapamil combinations, the risk reduction was 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.63), but the investigators cautioned that only 130 individuals were exposed to verapamil combinations, limiting the reliability of this analysis.