Federal Practitioner

More evidence has linked the Kawasaki-like multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children to COVID-19 and suggests that black children have a greater risk of the condition, according to a study published in the BMJ.

A small observational study in Paris found more than half of the 21 children who were admitted for the condition at the city’s pediatric hospital for COVID-19 patients were of African ancestry.

“The observation of a higher proportion of patients of African ancestry is consistent with recent findings, suggesting an effect of either social and living conditions or genetic susceptibility,” wrote Julie Toubiana, MD, PhD, of the University of Paris and the Pasteur Institute, and colleagues.

The findings did not surprise Edward M. Behrens, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, whose institution has seen similar disparities that he attributes to social disadvantages.

“Infection rate will be higher in vulnerable populations that are less able to socially distance, have disproportionate numbers of essential workers, and have less access to health care and other resources,” Dr. Behrens said in an interview. “While there may be a role for genetics, environment – including social disparities – is almost certainly playing a role.”

Although the study’s small size is a limitation, he said, “the features described seem to mirror the experience of our center and what has been discussed more broadly amongst U.S. physicians.”

Byron Whyte, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in southeast Washington, found the differences in race interesting, but said the study was too small to draw any conclusions or generalize to the United States. But social disparities related to race are likely similar in France as they are in the United States, he said.

The prospective observational study assessed the clinical and demographic characteristics of all patients under age 18 who met the criteria for Kawasaki disease and were admitted between April 27 and May 20 to the Necker Hospital for Sick Children in Paris.

The 21 children had an average age of 8 years (ranging from 3 to 16), and 57% had at least one parent from sub-Saharan Africa or a Caribbean island; 14% had parents from Asia (two from China and one from Sri Lanka). The authors noted in their discussion that past U.S. and U.K. studies of Kawasaki disease have found a 2.5 times greater risk in Asian-American children and 1.5 times greater risk in African-American children compared with children with European ancestry.

Most of the patients (81%) needed intensive care, with 57% presenting with Kawasaki disease shock syndrome and 67% with myocarditis. Dr. Toubiana and associates also noted that “gastrointestinal symptoms were also unusually common, affecting all of our 21 patients.”

Only nine of the children reported having symptoms of a viral-like illness when they were admitted, primarily headache, cough, coryza, and fever, plus anosmia in one child. Among those children, the Kawasaki symptoms began a median 45 days after onset of the viral symptoms (range 18-79 days).

Only two children showed no positive test result for current COVID-19 infection or antibodies. Eight (38%) of the children had positive PCR tests for SARS-CoV2, and 19 (90%) had positive tests for IgG antibodies. The two patients with both negative tests did not require intensive care and did not have myocarditis.

About half the patients (52%) met all the criteria of Kawasaki disease, and the other 10 had “incomplete Kawasaki disease.” The most common Kawasaki symptoms were the polymorphous skin rash, occurring in 76% of the patients, changes to the lips and oral cavity (76%), and bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection (81%). Three patients (14%) had pleural effusion, and 10 of them (48%) had pericardial effusion, Dr. Toubiana and associates reported.

But Dr. Behrens said he disagrees with the assertion that the illness described in the paper and what he is seeing at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is related to Kawasaki disease.

“Most experts here in the U.S. seem to agree this is not Kawasaki disease, but a distinct clinical syndrome called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, or MIS-C, that seems to have some overlap with the most nonspecific features of Kawasaki disease,” said Dr. Behrens, who is the Joseph Lee Hollander Chair in Pediatric Rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He has coauthored a study currently under review and available as a preprint soon that examines the biologic mechanisms underlying MIS-C.

Neither Dr. Behrens nor Dr. Whyte believed the findings had clinical implications that might change practice, but Dr. Whyte said he will be paying closer attention to the black children he treats – 99% of his practice – who are recovering from COVID-19.

“And, because we know that the concerns of African Americans are often overlooked in health care,” Dr. Whyte said, physicians should “pay a little more attention to symptom reporting on those kids, since there is a possibility that those kids would need hospitalization.”

All the patients in the study were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin, and corticosteroids were administered to 10 of them (48%). Their median hospital stay was 8 days (5 days in intensive care), and all were discharged without any deaths.

“Only one patient had symptoms suggestive of acute covid-19 and most had positive serum test results for IgG antibodies, suggesting that the development of Kawasaki disease in these patients is more likely to be the result of a postviral immunological reaction,” Dr. Toubiana and associates said.

The research received no external funding, and neither the authors nor other quoted physicians had any relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Toubiana J et al. BMJ. 2020 Jun 3, doi: 10.1136 bmj.m2094.

More evidence has linked the Kawasaki-like multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children to COVID-19 and suggests that black children have a greater risk of the condition, according to a study published in the BMJ.

A small observational study in Paris found more than half of the 21 children who were admitted for the condition at the city’s pediatric hospital for COVID-19 patients were of African ancestry.

“The observation of a higher proportion of patients of African ancestry is consistent with recent findings, suggesting an effect of either social and living conditions or genetic susceptibility,” wrote Julie Toubiana, MD, PhD, of the University of Paris and the Pasteur Institute, and colleagues.

The findings did not surprise Edward M. Behrens, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, whose institution has seen similar disparities that he attributes to social disadvantages.

“Infection rate will be higher in vulnerable populations that are less able to socially distance, have disproportionate numbers of essential workers, and have less access to health care and other resources,” Dr. Behrens said in an interview. “While there may be a role for genetics, environment – including social disparities – is almost certainly playing a role.”

Although the study’s small size is a limitation, he said, “the features described seem to mirror the experience of our center and what has been discussed more broadly amongst U.S. physicians.”

Byron Whyte, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in southeast Washington, found the differences in race interesting, but said the study was too small to draw any conclusions or generalize to the United States. But social disparities related to race are likely similar in France as they are in the United States, he said.

The prospective observational study assessed the clinical and demographic characteristics of all patients under age 18 who met the criteria for Kawasaki disease and were admitted between April 27 and May 20 to the Necker Hospital for Sick Children in Paris.

The 21 children had an average age of 8 years (ranging from 3 to 16), and 57% had at least one parent from sub-Saharan Africa or a Caribbean island; 14% had parents from Asia (two from China and one from Sri Lanka). The authors noted in their discussion that past U.S. and U.K. studies of Kawasaki disease have found a 2.5 times greater risk in Asian-American children and 1.5 times greater risk in African-American children compared with children with European ancestry.

Most of the patients (81%) needed intensive care, with 57% presenting with Kawasaki disease shock syndrome and 67% with myocarditis. Dr. Toubiana and associates also noted that “gastrointestinal symptoms were also unusually common, affecting all of our 21 patients.”

Only nine of the children reported having symptoms of a viral-like illness when they were admitted, primarily headache, cough, coryza, and fever, plus anosmia in one child. Among those children, the Kawasaki symptoms began a median 45 days after onset of the viral symptoms (range 18-79 days).

Only two children showed no positive test result for current COVID-19 infection or antibodies. Eight (38%) of the children had positive PCR tests for SARS-CoV2, and 19 (90%) had positive tests for IgG antibodies. The two patients with both negative tests did not require intensive care and did not have myocarditis.

About half the patients (52%) met all the criteria of Kawasaki disease, and the other 10 had “incomplete Kawasaki disease.” The most common Kawasaki symptoms were the polymorphous skin rash, occurring in 76% of the patients, changes to the lips and oral cavity (76%), and bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection (81%). Three patients (14%) had pleural effusion, and 10 of them (48%) had pericardial effusion, Dr. Toubiana and associates reported.

But Dr. Behrens said he disagrees with the assertion that the illness described in the paper and what he is seeing at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is related to Kawasaki disease.

“Most experts here in the U.S. seem to agree this is not Kawasaki disease, but a distinct clinical syndrome called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, or MIS-C, that seems to have some overlap with the most nonspecific features of Kawasaki disease,” said Dr. Behrens, who is the Joseph Lee Hollander Chair in Pediatric Rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He has coauthored a study currently under review and available as a preprint soon that examines the biologic mechanisms underlying MIS-C.

Neither Dr. Behrens nor Dr. Whyte believed the findings had clinical implications that might change practice, but Dr. Whyte said he will be paying closer attention to the black children he treats – 99% of his practice – who are recovering from COVID-19.

“And, because we know that the concerns of African Americans are often overlooked in health care,” Dr. Whyte said, physicians should “pay a little more attention to symptom reporting on those kids, since there is a possibility that those kids would need hospitalization.”

All the patients in the study were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin, and corticosteroids were administered to 10 of them (48%). Their median hospital stay was 8 days (5 days in intensive care), and all were discharged without any deaths.

“Only one patient had symptoms suggestive of acute covid-19 and most had positive serum test results for IgG antibodies, suggesting that the development of Kawasaki disease in these patients is more likely to be the result of a postviral immunological reaction,” Dr. Toubiana and associates said.

The research received no external funding, and neither the authors nor other quoted physicians had any relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Toubiana J et al. BMJ. 2020 Jun 3, doi: 10.1136 bmj.m2094.

More evidence has linked the Kawasaki-like multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children to COVID-19 and suggests that black children have a greater risk of the condition, according to a study published in the BMJ.

A small observational study in Paris found more than half of the 21 children who were admitted for the condition at the city’s pediatric hospital for COVID-19 patients were of African ancestry.

“The observation of a higher proportion of patients of African ancestry is consistent with recent findings, suggesting an effect of either social and living conditions or genetic susceptibility,” wrote Julie Toubiana, MD, PhD, of the University of Paris and the Pasteur Institute, and colleagues.

The findings did not surprise Edward M. Behrens, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, whose institution has seen similar disparities that he attributes to social disadvantages.

“Infection rate will be higher in vulnerable populations that are less able to socially distance, have disproportionate numbers of essential workers, and have less access to health care and other resources,” Dr. Behrens said in an interview. “While there may be a role for genetics, environment – including social disparities – is almost certainly playing a role.”

Although the study’s small size is a limitation, he said, “the features described seem to mirror the experience of our center and what has been discussed more broadly amongst U.S. physicians.”

Byron Whyte, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in southeast Washington, found the differences in race interesting, but said the study was too small to draw any conclusions or generalize to the United States. But social disparities related to race are likely similar in France as they are in the United States, he said.

The prospective observational study assessed the clinical and demographic characteristics of all patients under age 18 who met the criteria for Kawasaki disease and were admitted between April 27 and May 20 to the Necker Hospital for Sick Children in Paris.

The 21 children had an average age of 8 years (ranging from 3 to 16), and 57% had at least one parent from sub-Saharan Africa or a Caribbean island; 14% had parents from Asia (two from China and one from Sri Lanka). The authors noted in their discussion that past U.S. and U.K. studies of Kawasaki disease have found a 2.5 times greater risk in Asian-American children and 1.5 times greater risk in African-American children compared with children with European ancestry.

Most of the patients (81%) needed intensive care, with 57% presenting with Kawasaki disease shock syndrome and 67% with myocarditis. Dr. Toubiana and associates also noted that “gastrointestinal symptoms were also unusually common, affecting all of our 21 patients.”

Only nine of the children reported having symptoms of a viral-like illness when they were admitted, primarily headache, cough, coryza, and fever, plus anosmia in one child. Among those children, the Kawasaki symptoms began a median 45 days after onset of the viral symptoms (range 18-79 days).

Only two children showed no positive test result for current COVID-19 infection or antibodies. Eight (38%) of the children had positive PCR tests for SARS-CoV2, and 19 (90%) had positive tests for IgG antibodies. The two patients with both negative tests did not require intensive care and did not have myocarditis.

About half the patients (52%) met all the criteria of Kawasaki disease, and the other 10 had “incomplete Kawasaki disease.” The most common Kawasaki symptoms were the polymorphous skin rash, occurring in 76% of the patients, changes to the lips and oral cavity (76%), and bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection (81%). Three patients (14%) had pleural effusion, and 10 of them (48%) had pericardial effusion, Dr. Toubiana and associates reported.

But Dr. Behrens said he disagrees with the assertion that the illness described in the paper and what he is seeing at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is related to Kawasaki disease.

“Most experts here in the U.S. seem to agree this is not Kawasaki disease, but a distinct clinical syndrome called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, or MIS-C, that seems to have some overlap with the most nonspecific features of Kawasaki disease,” said Dr. Behrens, who is the Joseph Lee Hollander Chair in Pediatric Rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He has coauthored a study currently under review and available as a preprint soon that examines the biologic mechanisms underlying MIS-C.

Neither Dr. Behrens nor Dr. Whyte believed the findings had clinical implications that might change practice, but Dr. Whyte said he will be paying closer attention to the black children he treats – 99% of his practice – who are recovering from COVID-19.

“And, because we know that the concerns of African Americans are often overlooked in health care,” Dr. Whyte said, physicians should “pay a little more attention to symptom reporting on those kids, since there is a possibility that those kids would need hospitalization.”

All the patients in the study were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin, and corticosteroids were administered to 10 of them (48%). Their median hospital stay was 8 days (5 days in intensive care), and all were discharged without any deaths.

“Only one patient had symptoms suggestive of acute covid-19 and most had positive serum test results for IgG antibodies, suggesting that the development of Kawasaki disease in these patients is more likely to be the result of a postviral immunological reaction,” Dr. Toubiana and associates said.

The research received no external funding, and neither the authors nor other quoted physicians had any relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Toubiana J et al. BMJ. 2020 Jun 3, doi: 10.1136 bmj.m2094.

Neurologic effects can be a significant part of COVID-19, but does the SARS-CoV-2 virus directly damage the central nervous system or are the neurologic symptoms attributable to secondary mechanisms? A new review article summarizes what is known so far, and what clinicians need to look out for.

“We frequently see neurological conditions in people with COVID-19, but we understand very little about these effects. Is it the virus entering the brain/nerves or are they a result of a general inflammation or immune response – a bystander effect of people being severely ill. It is probably a combination of both,” said senior author Serena Spudich, MD, Gilbert H. Glaser Professor of Neurology; division chief of neurological infections & global neurology; and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“Our message is that there are fairly frequent neurological sequelae of COVID-19 and we need to be alert to these, and to try to understand the potential long-term consequences,” she said.

The review was published online May 29 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Brain changes linked to loss of smell

In a separate article also published online in JAMA Neurology the same day, an Italian group describes a COVID-19 patient with anosmia (loss of sense of smell) who showed brain abnormalities on MRI in the areas associated with smell – the right gyrus rectus and the olfactory bulbs. These changes were resolved on later scan and the patient recovered her sense of smell.

“Based on the MRI findings, we can speculate that SARS-CoV-2 might invade the brain through the olfactory pathway,” conclude the researchers, led by first author Letterio S. Politi, MD, of the department of neuroradiology at IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas and Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
 

Can coronaviruses enter the CNS?

Dr. Spudich described this case report as “compelling evidence suggesting that loss of smell is a neurologic effect.”

“Loss of smell and/or taste is a common symptom in COVID-19, so this may suggest that an awful lot of people have some neurological involvement,” Dr. Spudich commented. “While a transient loss of smell or taste is not serious, if the virus has infected brain tissue the question is could this then spread to other parts of the brain and cause other more serious neurological effects,” she added.

In their review article, Dr. Spudich and colleagues present evidence showing that coronaviruses can enter the CNS.

“We know that SARS-1 and MERS have been shown to enter the nervous system and several coronaviruses have been shown to cause direct brain effects,” she said. “There is also some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can do this too. As well as these latest MRI findings linked to loss of smell, there is a report of the virus being found in endothelial cells in the brain and a French autopsy study has also detected virus in the brain.”
 

Complications of other systemic effects?

Dr. Spudich is a neurologist specializing in neurologic consequences of infectious disease. “We don’t normally have such vast numbers of patients but in the last 3 months there has been an avalanche,” she says. From her personal experience, she believes the majority of neurologic symptoms in COVID-19 patients are most probably complications of other systemic effects, such as kidney, heart, or liver problems. But there is likely also a direct viral effect on the CNS in some patients.

“Reports from China suggested that serious neurologic effects were present in about one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. I would say in our experience the figure would be less than that – maybe around 10%,” she noted.

Some COVID-19 patients are presenting with primary neurologic symptoms. For example, an elderly person may first develop confusion rather than a cough or shortness of breath; others have had severe headache as an initial COVID-19 symptom, Dr. Spudich reported. “Medical staff need to be aware of this – a severe headache in a patient who doesn’t normally get headaches could be a sign of the virus.”

Some of the neurologic symptoms could be caused by autoimmunity. Dr. Spudich explained that, in acute HIV infection a small proportion of patients can first present with autoimmune neurologic effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune condition of the nerves which causes a tingling sensation in the hands and feet. “This is well described in HIV, but we are also now seeing this in COVID-19 patients too,” she said. “A panoply of conditions can be caused by autoimmunity.”

On the increase in strokes that has been reported in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Spudich said, “this could be due to direct effects of the virus (e.g., causing an increase in coagulation or infecting the endothelial cells in the brain) or it could just be the final trigger for patients who were at risk of stroke anyway.”

There have been some very high-profile reports of younger patients with major strokes, she said, “but we haven’t seen that in our hospital. For the most part in my experience, strokes are happening in older COVID-19 patients with stroke risk factors such as AF [atrial fibrillation], hypertension, and diabetes. We haven’t seen a preponderance of strokes in young, otherwise healthy people.”

Even in patients who have neurologic effects as the first sign of COVID-19 infection, it is not known whether these symptoms are caused directly by the virus.

“We know that flu can cause people to have headaches, but that is because of an increase in inflammatory cytokines. On the other hand, patients with acute HIV infection often have headaches as a result of the virus getting into the brain. We don’t know where in this [cluster] COVID-19 virus falls,” Dr. Spudich said.
 

Much is still unknown

“The information we have is very sparse at this point. We need far more systematic information on this from CSF samples and imaging.” Dr. Spudich urged clinicians to try to collect such information in patients with neurologic symptoms.

Acknowledging that fewer such tests are being done at present because of concerns over infection risk, Dr. Spudich suggested that some changes in procedure may help. “In our hospital we have a portable MRI scanner which can be brought to the patient. This means the patient does not have to move across the hospital for a scan. This helps us to decide whether the patient has had a stroke, which can be missed when patients are on a ventilator.”

It is also unclear whether the neurologic effects seen during COVID-19 infection will last long term.

Dr. Spudich noted that there have been reports of COVID-19 patients discharged from intensive care having difficulty with higher cognitive function for some time thereafter. “This can happen after being in ICU but is it more pronounced in COVID-19 patients? An ongoing study is underway to look at this,” she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neurologic effects can be a significant part of COVID-19, but does the SARS-CoV-2 virus directly damage the central nervous system or are the neurologic symptoms attributable to secondary mechanisms? A new review article summarizes what is known so far, and what clinicians need to look out for.

“We frequently see neurological conditions in people with COVID-19, but we understand very little about these effects. Is it the virus entering the brain/nerves or are they a result of a general inflammation or immune response – a bystander effect of people being severely ill. It is probably a combination of both,” said senior author Serena Spudich, MD, Gilbert H. Glaser Professor of Neurology; division chief of neurological infections & global neurology; and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“Our message is that there are fairly frequent neurological sequelae of COVID-19 and we need to be alert to these, and to try to understand the potential long-term consequences,” she said.

The review was published online May 29 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Brain changes linked to loss of smell

In a separate article also published online in JAMA Neurology the same day, an Italian group describes a COVID-19 patient with anosmia (loss of sense of smell) who showed brain abnormalities on MRI in the areas associated with smell – the right gyrus rectus and the olfactory bulbs. These changes were resolved on later scan and the patient recovered her sense of smell.

“Based on the MRI findings, we can speculate that SARS-CoV-2 might invade the brain through the olfactory pathway,” conclude the researchers, led by first author Letterio S. Politi, MD, of the department of neuroradiology at IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas and Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
 

Can coronaviruses enter the CNS?

Dr. Spudich described this case report as “compelling evidence suggesting that loss of smell is a neurologic effect.”

“Loss of smell and/or taste is a common symptom in COVID-19, so this may suggest that an awful lot of people have some neurological involvement,” Dr. Spudich commented. “While a transient loss of smell or taste is not serious, if the virus has infected brain tissue the question is could this then spread to other parts of the brain and cause other more serious neurological effects,” she added.

In their review article, Dr. Spudich and colleagues present evidence showing that coronaviruses can enter the CNS.

“We know that SARS-1 and MERS have been shown to enter the nervous system and several coronaviruses have been shown to cause direct brain effects,” she said. “There is also some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can do this too. As well as these latest MRI findings linked to loss of smell, there is a report of the virus being found in endothelial cells in the brain and a French autopsy study has also detected virus in the brain.”
 

Complications of other systemic effects?

Dr. Spudich is a neurologist specializing in neurologic consequences of infectious disease. “We don’t normally have such vast numbers of patients but in the last 3 months there has been an avalanche,” she says. From her personal experience, she believes the majority of neurologic symptoms in COVID-19 patients are most probably complications of other systemic effects, such as kidney, heart, or liver problems. But there is likely also a direct viral effect on the CNS in some patients.

“Reports from China suggested that serious neurologic effects were present in about one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. I would say in our experience the figure would be less than that – maybe around 10%,” she noted.

Some COVID-19 patients are presenting with primary neurologic symptoms. For example, an elderly person may first develop confusion rather than a cough or shortness of breath; others have had severe headache as an initial COVID-19 symptom, Dr. Spudich reported. “Medical staff need to be aware of this – a severe headache in a patient who doesn’t normally get headaches could be a sign of the virus.”

Some of the neurologic symptoms could be caused by autoimmunity. Dr. Spudich explained that, in acute HIV infection a small proportion of patients can first present with autoimmune neurologic effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune condition of the nerves which causes a tingling sensation in the hands and feet. “This is well described in HIV, but we are also now seeing this in COVID-19 patients too,” she said. “A panoply of conditions can be caused by autoimmunity.”

On the increase in strokes that has been reported in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Spudich said, “this could be due to direct effects of the virus (e.g., causing an increase in coagulation or infecting the endothelial cells in the brain) or it could just be the final trigger for patients who were at risk of stroke anyway.”

There have been some very high-profile reports of younger patients with major strokes, she said, “but we haven’t seen that in our hospital. For the most part in my experience, strokes are happening in older COVID-19 patients with stroke risk factors such as AF [atrial fibrillation], hypertension, and diabetes. We haven’t seen a preponderance of strokes in young, otherwise healthy people.”

Even in patients who have neurologic effects as the first sign of COVID-19 infection, it is not known whether these symptoms are caused directly by the virus.

“We know that flu can cause people to have headaches, but that is because of an increase in inflammatory cytokines. On the other hand, patients with acute HIV infection often have headaches as a result of the virus getting into the brain. We don’t know where in this [cluster] COVID-19 virus falls,” Dr. Spudich said.
 

Much is still unknown

“The information we have is very sparse at this point. We need far more systematic information on this from CSF samples and imaging.” Dr. Spudich urged clinicians to try to collect such information in patients with neurologic symptoms.

Acknowledging that fewer such tests are being done at present because of concerns over infection risk, Dr. Spudich suggested that some changes in procedure may help. “In our hospital we have a portable MRI scanner which can be brought to the patient. This means the patient does not have to move across the hospital for a scan. This helps us to decide whether the patient has had a stroke, which can be missed when patients are on a ventilator.”

It is also unclear whether the neurologic effects seen during COVID-19 infection will last long term.

Dr. Spudich noted that there have been reports of COVID-19 patients discharged from intensive care having difficulty with higher cognitive function for some time thereafter. “This can happen after being in ICU but is it more pronounced in COVID-19 patients? An ongoing study is underway to look at this,” she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neurologic effects can be a significant part of COVID-19, but does the SARS-CoV-2 virus directly damage the central nervous system or are the neurologic symptoms attributable to secondary mechanisms? A new review article summarizes what is known so far, and what clinicians need to look out for.

“We frequently see neurological conditions in people with COVID-19, but we understand very little about these effects. Is it the virus entering the brain/nerves or are they a result of a general inflammation or immune response – a bystander effect of people being severely ill. It is probably a combination of both,” said senior author Serena Spudich, MD, Gilbert H. Glaser Professor of Neurology; division chief of neurological infections & global neurology; and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“Our message is that there are fairly frequent neurological sequelae of COVID-19 and we need to be alert to these, and to try to understand the potential long-term consequences,” she said.

The review was published online May 29 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Brain changes linked to loss of smell

In a separate article also published online in JAMA Neurology the same day, an Italian group describes a COVID-19 patient with anosmia (loss of sense of smell) who showed brain abnormalities on MRI in the areas associated with smell – the right gyrus rectus and the olfactory bulbs. These changes were resolved on later scan and the patient recovered her sense of smell.

“Based on the MRI findings, we can speculate that SARS-CoV-2 might invade the brain through the olfactory pathway,” conclude the researchers, led by first author Letterio S. Politi, MD, of the department of neuroradiology at IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas and Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
 

Can coronaviruses enter the CNS?

Dr. Spudich described this case report as “compelling evidence suggesting that loss of smell is a neurologic effect.”

“Loss of smell and/or taste is a common symptom in COVID-19, so this may suggest that an awful lot of people have some neurological involvement,” Dr. Spudich commented. “While a transient loss of smell or taste is not serious, if the virus has infected brain tissue the question is could this then spread to other parts of the brain and cause other more serious neurological effects,” she added.

In their review article, Dr. Spudich and colleagues present evidence showing that coronaviruses can enter the CNS.

“We know that SARS-1 and MERS have been shown to enter the nervous system and several coronaviruses have been shown to cause direct brain effects,” she said. “There is also some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can do this too. As well as these latest MRI findings linked to loss of smell, there is a report of the virus being found in endothelial cells in the brain and a French autopsy study has also detected virus in the brain.”
 

Complications of other systemic effects?

Dr. Spudich is a neurologist specializing in neurologic consequences of infectious disease. “We don’t normally have such vast numbers of patients but in the last 3 months there has been an avalanche,” she says. From her personal experience, she believes the majority of neurologic symptoms in COVID-19 patients are most probably complications of other systemic effects, such as kidney, heart, or liver problems. But there is likely also a direct viral effect on the CNS in some patients.

“Reports from China suggested that serious neurologic effects were present in about one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. I would say in our experience the figure would be less than that – maybe around 10%,” she noted.

Some COVID-19 patients are presenting with primary neurologic symptoms. For example, an elderly person may first develop confusion rather than a cough or shortness of breath; others have had severe headache as an initial COVID-19 symptom, Dr. Spudich reported. “Medical staff need to be aware of this – a severe headache in a patient who doesn’t normally get headaches could be a sign of the virus.”

Some of the neurologic symptoms could be caused by autoimmunity. Dr. Spudich explained that, in acute HIV infection a small proportion of patients can first present with autoimmune neurologic effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune condition of the nerves which causes a tingling sensation in the hands and feet. “This is well described in HIV, but we are also now seeing this in COVID-19 patients too,” she said. “A panoply of conditions can be caused by autoimmunity.”

On the increase in strokes that has been reported in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Spudich said, “this could be due to direct effects of the virus (e.g., causing an increase in coagulation or infecting the endothelial cells in the brain) or it could just be the final trigger for patients who were at risk of stroke anyway.”

There have been some very high-profile reports of younger patients with major strokes, she said, “but we haven’t seen that in our hospital. For the most part in my experience, strokes are happening in older COVID-19 patients with stroke risk factors such as AF [atrial fibrillation], hypertension, and diabetes. We haven’t seen a preponderance of strokes in young, otherwise healthy people.”

Even in patients who have neurologic effects as the first sign of COVID-19 infection, it is not known whether these symptoms are caused directly by the virus.

“We know that flu can cause people to have headaches, but that is because of an increase in inflammatory cytokines. On the other hand, patients with acute HIV infection often have headaches as a result of the virus getting into the brain. We don’t know where in this [cluster] COVID-19 virus falls,” Dr. Spudich said.
 

Much is still unknown

“The information we have is very sparse at this point. We need far more systematic information on this from CSF samples and imaging.” Dr. Spudich urged clinicians to try to collect such information in patients with neurologic symptoms.

Acknowledging that fewer such tests are being done at present because of concerns over infection risk, Dr. Spudich suggested that some changes in procedure may help. “In our hospital we have a portable MRI scanner which can be brought to the patient. This means the patient does not have to move across the hospital for a scan. This helps us to decide whether the patient has had a stroke, which can be missed when patients are on a ventilator.”

It is also unclear whether the neurologic effects seen during COVID-19 infection will last long term.

Dr. Spudich noted that there have been reports of COVID-19 patients discharged from intensive care having difficulty with higher cognitive function for some time thereafter. “This can happen after being in ICU but is it more pronounced in COVID-19 patients? An ongoing study is underway to look at this,” she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Recarbrio (imipenem-cilastatin and relebactam) for the treatment of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in people aged 18 years and older.

Approval for Recarbrio was based on results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial of 535 hospitalized adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia who received either Recarbrio or piperacillin-tazobactam. After 28 days, 16% of patients who received Recarbrio and 21% of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam had died.

The most common adverse events associated with Recarbrio are increased alanine aminotransferase/ aspartate aminotransferase, anemia, diarrhea, hypokalemia, and hyponatremia. Recarbrio was previously approved by the FDA to treat patients with complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections who have limited or no alternative treatment options, according to an FDA press release.

“As a public health agency, the FDA addresses the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections by facilitating the development of safe and effective new treatments. These efforts provide more options to fight serious bacterial infections and get new, safe and effective therapies to patients as soon as possible,” said Sumathi Nambiar, MD, MPH, director of the division of anti-infectives within the office of infectious disease at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Recarbrio (imipenem-cilastatin and relebactam) for the treatment of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in people aged 18 years and older.

Approval for Recarbrio was based on results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial of 535 hospitalized adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia who received either Recarbrio or piperacillin-tazobactam. After 28 days, 16% of patients who received Recarbrio and 21% of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam had died.

The most common adverse events associated with Recarbrio are increased alanine aminotransferase/ aspartate aminotransferase, anemia, diarrhea, hypokalemia, and hyponatremia. Recarbrio was previously approved by the FDA to treat patients with complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections who have limited or no alternative treatment options, according to an FDA press release.

“As a public health agency, the FDA addresses the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections by facilitating the development of safe and effective new treatments. These efforts provide more options to fight serious bacterial infections and get new, safe and effective therapies to patients as soon as possible,” said Sumathi Nambiar, MD, MPH, director of the division of anti-infectives within the office of infectious disease at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Recarbrio (imipenem-cilastatin and relebactam) for the treatment of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in people aged 18 years and older.

Approval for Recarbrio was based on results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial of 535 hospitalized adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia who received either Recarbrio or piperacillin-tazobactam. After 28 days, 16% of patients who received Recarbrio and 21% of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam had died.

The most common adverse events associated with Recarbrio are increased alanine aminotransferase/ aspartate aminotransferase, anemia, diarrhea, hypokalemia, and hyponatremia. Recarbrio was previously approved by the FDA to treat patients with complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections who have limited or no alternative treatment options, according to an FDA press release.

“As a public health agency, the FDA addresses the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections by facilitating the development of safe and effective new treatments. These efforts provide more options to fight serious bacterial infections and get new, safe and effective therapies to patients as soon as possible,” said Sumathi Nambiar, MD, MPH, director of the division of anti-infectives within the office of infectious disease at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

[email protected]

As the rigor of COVID-19 research comes under increasing scrutiny, a deep dive into contemporary trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions finds intricate ties with industry and the art of spin on full display.

After examining 216 randomized, controlled trials published in the past decade, researchers found that more than half (53.2%) were commercially funded. In 18.3% of these trials, the sponsor was involved with the trial conduct and reporting.

Commercially sponsored trials were significantly more likely to report results that favored the experimental therapy than trials without commercial sponsorship (64.3% vs. 48.5%; P = .02).

The association remained statistically significant after adjustment for differences in trial characteristics (exponent of regression coefficient beta, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-7.18; P = .03), the authors reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“To make this clear, this is not an attack on industry-sponsored trials,” study author and cardiac surgeon Mario Gaudino, MD, of New York–Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. “Because industry has more money, they have the best trialists, the best research organization. So they generally do a pretty good trial; they’re larger, they have a higher Fragility Index, which means they’re more solid.

“And, most importantly, more than half of the trials were sponsored by industry,” he said. “So without industry, there wouldn’t be half the research in that 10-year period we explored.”

Previous research in cardiology and in other fields has shown that trials supported by for-profit organizations are more likely to report positive findings. The explanations often focus on bias and differential quality in how the trials were designed and reported.

In the present analysis, however, the authors found no difference between trials with and without industry funding in terms of estimated treatment effect, length of follow-up, use of composite or clinically significant outcomes, or outcome modification, compared with the published protocol.

Part of the explanation may be that industry-sponsored trials more often used a noninferiority design (26.1% vs. 14.9%) and had a higher loss of patients to follow-up (median of sample, 1.0% vs. 0.1%), Dr. Gaudino said. “But I think more, in general, it’s not so much a difference in the measurable characteristics of the trial. It’s the selection of the sites that participate, the patient population that is targeted that makes the trial very likely to get the result that industry would like to see.”

“Just think of the differences in the transcatheter MitraClip results between MITRA-FR and COAPT – basically they were related to the fact they enrolled different patients,” he said.
 

Significant spin

The analysis included 216 coronary, vascular, and structural interventional cardiology and vascular and cardiac surgical randomized, controlled trials published from January 2008 to May 31, 2019. Most were multicenter trials (78.7%); 58% originated from Europe, 12% from North America, and 10.6% from Asia.

One in six trials (16.2%) were not prospectively registered before the start of enrollment, and at least one major discrepancy existed between the registered and published primary outcome in 38% of registered trials.

“If you don’t register the trial then you can make all the changes you want to the protocol up until the moment you publish,” Dr. Gaudino observed. “There really is no rational justification for not registering a trial.”

Overall, the trials were not particularly robust, he noted. In 62 trials in which the Fragility Index was measured, only a median of five patients experiencing a different outcome in a commercially sponsored trial would change statistically significant results to nonsignificant. For noncommercially sponsored trials, that number was 4.5 and in four trials; the change in condition of only one patient was needed to switch the statistical significance.

“This finding is concerning given the substantial role that [randomized, controlled trials] results play in federal device approvals, payer criteria, and clinical consensus guidelines,” the authors wrote.

The authors also looked for interpretation bias in the trials. In the 84 trials with nonsignificant differences in the primary outcomes, 65.5% contained spin, such as focusing on statistically significant secondary outcomes or interpreting nonsignificant primary outcomes as showing treatment equivalence or comparable effectiveness. Spin was present in 80.6% of the trials with commercial sponsorship and in 54.2% without (P = .02) – a finding that remained significant after trial differences were controlled for (beta, 4.64; 95% CI, 1.05-20.54; P = .04).
 

A pivot point

“It’s just another paper showing there are issues with conflicts of interest in industry trials. I’m not particularly surprised,” said David Moher, PhD, MSc, director of the Centre for Journalology, based at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

“It’s sort of high time people from all sides sat down together and tried to resolve how to actually move forward with industry wanting to do trials,” he said. “They are hugely important in drug development. How can these trials be done where the impact of industry and, for that matter, academia is minimized?”

Dr. Gaudino suggested the “ideal situation” would be to have industry put its funding into an existing funding organization, such as the National Institutes of Health or a newly created independent organization – a concept that has been floated before without much forward movement.

“We may be at a pivot point,” Dr. Moher said. “It’s quite clear that COVID has indicated some serious problems with how trials are done, how they’re disseminated, the notion of open science. I think this could be an opportunity. Whether there is so much noise, whether anybody will be able to take any of these initiative forward, I don’t know.”

No matter how trial funding is revised, patients must be brought to the table, he said.

“What frustrates me quite a bit is this almost parental view of all of this – the scientists know best, industry knows best,” Dr. Moher said. “We actually need the most important groups: patients and the public. They need to have an enormous amount of say in how this actually is formed.”

Commenting further, Dr. Moher said that “industry and academia can only do trials when they have patients willing to participate, and yet in the discussions you and I are having, what do patients think about spin in trials? I would imagine they would be horrified that they are going into studies – in a sense in many cases risking their lives – and yet people are spinning the results.”

Dr. Gaudino and Dr. Moher reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

As the rigor of COVID-19 research comes under increasing scrutiny, a deep dive into contemporary trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions finds intricate ties with industry and the art of spin on full display.

After examining 216 randomized, controlled trials published in the past decade, researchers found that more than half (53.2%) were commercially funded. In 18.3% of these trials, the sponsor was involved with the trial conduct and reporting.

Commercially sponsored trials were significantly more likely to report results that favored the experimental therapy than trials without commercial sponsorship (64.3% vs. 48.5%; P = .02).

The association remained statistically significant after adjustment for differences in trial characteristics (exponent of regression coefficient beta, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-7.18; P = .03), the authors reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“To make this clear, this is not an attack on industry-sponsored trials,” study author and cardiac surgeon Mario Gaudino, MD, of New York–Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. “Because industry has more money, they have the best trialists, the best research organization. So they generally do a pretty good trial; they’re larger, they have a higher Fragility Index, which means they’re more solid.

“And, most importantly, more than half of the trials were sponsored by industry,” he said. “So without industry, there wouldn’t be half the research in that 10-year period we explored.”

Previous research in cardiology and in other fields has shown that trials supported by for-profit organizations are more likely to report positive findings. The explanations often focus on bias and differential quality in how the trials were designed and reported.

In the present analysis, however, the authors found no difference between trials with and without industry funding in terms of estimated treatment effect, length of follow-up, use of composite or clinically significant outcomes, or outcome modification, compared with the published protocol.

Part of the explanation may be that industry-sponsored trials more often used a noninferiority design (26.1% vs. 14.9%) and had a higher loss of patients to follow-up (median of sample, 1.0% vs. 0.1%), Dr. Gaudino said. “But I think more, in general, it’s not so much a difference in the measurable characteristics of the trial. It’s the selection of the sites that participate, the patient population that is targeted that makes the trial very likely to get the result that industry would like to see.”

“Just think of the differences in the transcatheter MitraClip results between MITRA-FR and COAPT – basically they were related to the fact they enrolled different patients,” he said.
 

Significant spin

The analysis included 216 coronary, vascular, and structural interventional cardiology and vascular and cardiac surgical randomized, controlled trials published from January 2008 to May 31, 2019. Most were multicenter trials (78.7%); 58% originated from Europe, 12% from North America, and 10.6% from Asia.

One in six trials (16.2%) were not prospectively registered before the start of enrollment, and at least one major discrepancy existed between the registered and published primary outcome in 38% of registered trials.

“If you don’t register the trial then you can make all the changes you want to the protocol up until the moment you publish,” Dr. Gaudino observed. “There really is no rational justification for not registering a trial.”

Overall, the trials were not particularly robust, he noted. In 62 trials in which the Fragility Index was measured, only a median of five patients experiencing a different outcome in a commercially sponsored trial would change statistically significant results to nonsignificant. For noncommercially sponsored trials, that number was 4.5 and in four trials; the change in condition of only one patient was needed to switch the statistical significance.

“This finding is concerning given the substantial role that [randomized, controlled trials] results play in federal device approvals, payer criteria, and clinical consensus guidelines,” the authors wrote.

The authors also looked for interpretation bias in the trials. In the 84 trials with nonsignificant differences in the primary outcomes, 65.5% contained spin, such as focusing on statistically significant secondary outcomes or interpreting nonsignificant primary outcomes as showing treatment equivalence or comparable effectiveness. Spin was present in 80.6% of the trials with commercial sponsorship and in 54.2% without (P = .02) – a finding that remained significant after trial differences were controlled for (beta, 4.64; 95% CI, 1.05-20.54; P = .04).
 

A pivot point

“It’s just another paper showing there are issues with conflicts of interest in industry trials. I’m not particularly surprised,” said David Moher, PhD, MSc, director of the Centre for Journalology, based at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

“It’s sort of high time people from all sides sat down together and tried to resolve how to actually move forward with industry wanting to do trials,” he said. “They are hugely important in drug development. How can these trials be done where the impact of industry and, for that matter, academia is minimized?”

Dr. Gaudino suggested the “ideal situation” would be to have industry put its funding into an existing funding organization, such as the National Institutes of Health or a newly created independent organization – a concept that has been floated before without much forward movement.

“We may be at a pivot point,” Dr. Moher said. “It’s quite clear that COVID has indicated some serious problems with how trials are done, how they’re disseminated, the notion of open science. I think this could be an opportunity. Whether there is so much noise, whether anybody will be able to take any of these initiative forward, I don’t know.”

No matter how trial funding is revised, patients must be brought to the table, he said.

“What frustrates me quite a bit is this almost parental view of all of this – the scientists know best, industry knows best,” Dr. Moher said. “We actually need the most important groups: patients and the public. They need to have an enormous amount of say in how this actually is formed.”

Commenting further, Dr. Moher said that “industry and academia can only do trials when they have patients willing to participate, and yet in the discussions you and I are having, what do patients think about spin in trials? I would imagine they would be horrified that they are going into studies – in a sense in many cases risking their lives – and yet people are spinning the results.”

Dr. Gaudino and Dr. Moher reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

As the rigor of COVID-19 research comes under increasing scrutiny, a deep dive into contemporary trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions finds intricate ties with industry and the art of spin on full display.

After examining 216 randomized, controlled trials published in the past decade, researchers found that more than half (53.2%) were commercially funded. In 18.3% of these trials, the sponsor was involved with the trial conduct and reporting.

Commercially sponsored trials were significantly more likely to report results that favored the experimental therapy than trials without commercial sponsorship (64.3% vs. 48.5%; P = .02).

The association remained statistically significant after adjustment for differences in trial characteristics (exponent of regression coefficient beta, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-7.18; P = .03), the authors reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“To make this clear, this is not an attack on industry-sponsored trials,” study author and cardiac surgeon Mario Gaudino, MD, of New York–Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. “Because industry has more money, they have the best trialists, the best research organization. So they generally do a pretty good trial; they’re larger, they have a higher Fragility Index, which means they’re more solid.

“And, most importantly, more than half of the trials were sponsored by industry,” he said. “So without industry, there wouldn’t be half the research in that 10-year period we explored.”

Previous research in cardiology and in other fields has shown that trials supported by for-profit organizations are more likely to report positive findings. The explanations often focus on bias and differential quality in how the trials were designed and reported.

In the present analysis, however, the authors found no difference between trials with and without industry funding in terms of estimated treatment effect, length of follow-up, use of composite or clinically significant outcomes, or outcome modification, compared with the published protocol.

Part of the explanation may be that industry-sponsored trials more often used a noninferiority design (26.1% vs. 14.9%) and had a higher loss of patients to follow-up (median of sample, 1.0% vs. 0.1%), Dr. Gaudino said. “But I think more, in general, it’s not so much a difference in the measurable characteristics of the trial. It’s the selection of the sites that participate, the patient population that is targeted that makes the trial very likely to get the result that industry would like to see.”

“Just think of the differences in the transcatheter MitraClip results between MITRA-FR and COAPT – basically they were related to the fact they enrolled different patients,” he said.
 

Significant spin

The analysis included 216 coronary, vascular, and structural interventional cardiology and vascular and cardiac surgical randomized, controlled trials published from January 2008 to May 31, 2019. Most were multicenter trials (78.7%); 58% originated from Europe, 12% from North America, and 10.6% from Asia.

One in six trials (16.2%) were not prospectively registered before the start of enrollment, and at least one major discrepancy existed between the registered and published primary outcome in 38% of registered trials.

“If you don’t register the trial then you can make all the changes you want to the protocol up until the moment you publish,” Dr. Gaudino observed. “There really is no rational justification for not registering a trial.”

Overall, the trials were not particularly robust, he noted. In 62 trials in which the Fragility Index was measured, only a median of five patients experiencing a different outcome in a commercially sponsored trial would change statistically significant results to nonsignificant. For noncommercially sponsored trials, that number was 4.5 and in four trials; the change in condition of only one patient was needed to switch the statistical significance.

“This finding is concerning given the substantial role that [randomized, controlled trials] results play in federal device approvals, payer criteria, and clinical consensus guidelines,” the authors wrote.

The authors also looked for interpretation bias in the trials. In the 84 trials with nonsignificant differences in the primary outcomes, 65.5% contained spin, such as focusing on statistically significant secondary outcomes or interpreting nonsignificant primary outcomes as showing treatment equivalence or comparable effectiveness. Spin was present in 80.6% of the trials with commercial sponsorship and in 54.2% without (P = .02) – a finding that remained significant after trial differences were controlled for (beta, 4.64; 95% CI, 1.05-20.54; P = .04).
 

A pivot point

“It’s just another paper showing there are issues with conflicts of interest in industry trials. I’m not particularly surprised,” said David Moher, PhD, MSc, director of the Centre for Journalology, based at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

“It’s sort of high time people from all sides sat down together and tried to resolve how to actually move forward with industry wanting to do trials,” he said. “They are hugely important in drug development. How can these trials be done where the impact of industry and, for that matter, academia is minimized?”

Dr. Gaudino suggested the “ideal situation” would be to have industry put its funding into an existing funding organization, such as the National Institutes of Health or a newly created independent organization – a concept that has been floated before without much forward movement.

“We may be at a pivot point,” Dr. Moher said. “It’s quite clear that COVID has indicated some serious problems with how trials are done, how they’re disseminated, the notion of open science. I think this could be an opportunity. Whether there is so much noise, whether anybody will be able to take any of these initiative forward, I don’t know.”

No matter how trial funding is revised, patients must be brought to the table, he said.

“What frustrates me quite a bit is this almost parental view of all of this – the scientists know best, industry knows best,” Dr. Moher said. “We actually need the most important groups: patients and the public. They need to have an enormous amount of say in how this actually is formed.”

Commenting further, Dr. Moher said that “industry and academia can only do trials when they have patients willing to participate, and yet in the discussions you and I are having, what do patients think about spin in trials? I would imagine they would be horrified that they are going into studies – in a sense in many cases risking their lives – and yet people are spinning the results.”

Dr. Gaudino and Dr. Moher reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Click here to read the supplement.

Author

1. Apte RS, Chen DS, Ferrara N. VEGF in signaling and disease: beyond discovery and development. Cell. 2019;176(6):1248-1264.

Click here to read the supplement.

Author

1. Apte RS, Chen DS, Ferrara N. VEGF in signaling and disease: beyond discovery and development. Cell. 2019;176(6):1248-1264.

Click here to read the supplement.

Author

1. Apte RS, Chen DS, Ferrara N. VEGF in signaling and disease: beyond discovery and development. Cell. 2019;176(6):1248-1264.

The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.

The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.

Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.

The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.

Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.

The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”

The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.

“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”

In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.

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






 

The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.

The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.

Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.

The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.

Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.

The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”

The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.

“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”

In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.

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






 

The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.

The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.

Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.

The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.

Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.

The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”

The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.

“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”

In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.

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






 

Wearing a mask at home, even when everyone is feeling fine, might reduce the risk of frontline healthcare workers transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infection to their families, a recent study from China suggests. But the benefits might not outweigh the costs, according to several physicians interviewed.

“My gut reaction is that home mask use for healthcare workers would place an inordinately high burden on those healthcare workers and their families,” said Jeanne Noble, MD, an emergency care physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “Wearing a mask for a 10-hour shift already represents significant physical discomfort, causing sores across the nose and behind the ears. The emotional toll of the physical distance that comes with mask use, with limited facial expression, is also quite real.”

The suggested benefit of home mask use comes from research published online May 28 in BMJ Global Health. To assess predictors of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Yu Wang, MD, of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 124 families in Beijing in which there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 as of February 21. The researchers surveyed family members by telephone about household hygiene and behaviors during the pandemic to examine risk factors for transmission.

During the 2 weeks following onset of the primary case, secondary transmission occurred in 41 families. Overall, 77 of 335 family members developed COVID-19.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis found that in households in which family members wore masks at home before the first person became ill, there was less likelihood of transmission of disease to a family member, compared with families in which no one wore a mask prior to illness onset.

“Facemasks were 79% effective and disinfection was 77% effective in preventing transmission,” the researchers report, “whilst close frequent contact in the household increased the risk of transmission 18 times, and diarrhea in the index patient increased the risk by four times.

However, wearing masks after symptom onset was not protective, according to the analysis. The findings support “universal face mask use, and also provides guidance on risk reduction for families living with someone in quarantine or isolation, and families of health workers, who may face ongoing risk,” the authors write.

Still, other precautions may be more important, experts say.

“I think by far the best way for healthcare professionals to protect their families is to carefully employ appropriate infection prevention measures at work,” said Mark E. Rupp, MD, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. “The combination of administrative interventions, engineering improvements, and personal protective equipment is very effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in the workplace.”

Many physicians already wear masks at home, and this study “only reemphasized the importance of doing so,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, who recently reviewed studies about masks and COVID-19.

Home mask use provides “one more layer of protection that might help mitigate the risk of transmission to family members,” Tirupathi said. But it does not obviate the need to follow other preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper hygiene.

But Rupp, whose advice on how healthcare workers can protect their families was recently highlighted by the American Medical Association, isn’t convinced. He said he won’t be adding home mask use to his list of recommendations. “It would be intrusive, cumbersome, and impractical to wear a mask in the home setting,” Rupp said in an interview.

However, when out in the community, all family members must protect one another by practicing social distancing, wearing masks, and practicing proper hand hygiene. “I also think that it is a good idea to have some masks on hand in case anyone does develop symptoms in the household and to wear them if a family member falls ill ― at least until testing can confirm COVID-19,” Rupp said. “If a family member does fall ill, masks for the ill person as well as the well persons would be indicated along with other home quarantine measures.”

For her part, Noble, who has provided guidance about proper mask use, said that targeted use of masks at home, such as around older visiting relatives or other more vulnerable family members, may be more realistic than continuous in-home use.

When a household member becomes ill, recommendations for preventing disease spread include having a sick family member sleep in a separate bedroom, using a separate bathroom, and wearing a mask when within 6 feet of other household members. They also should avoid sharing meals. “For a household member who is a medical provider, to follow these self-isolation precautions while at home for months on end would have a significant emotional toll,” Noble said in an email. “With no end in sight for the pandemic, perpetual mask use in both the private and public sphere strikes me as overwhelming ― I write this near the end of my 10-hour shift wearing both an N95 and surgical mask and counting the minutes before I can take them off!”

A limitation of the study was its reliance on telephone interviews, which are subject to recall bias, the authors note.

The study was funded by the Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wearing a mask at home, even when everyone is feeling fine, might reduce the risk of frontline healthcare workers transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infection to their families, a recent study from China suggests. But the benefits might not outweigh the costs, according to several physicians interviewed.

“My gut reaction is that home mask use for healthcare workers would place an inordinately high burden on those healthcare workers and their families,” said Jeanne Noble, MD, an emergency care physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “Wearing a mask for a 10-hour shift already represents significant physical discomfort, causing sores across the nose and behind the ears. The emotional toll of the physical distance that comes with mask use, with limited facial expression, is also quite real.”

The suggested benefit of home mask use comes from research published online May 28 in BMJ Global Health. To assess predictors of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Yu Wang, MD, of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 124 families in Beijing in which there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 as of February 21. The researchers surveyed family members by telephone about household hygiene and behaviors during the pandemic to examine risk factors for transmission.

During the 2 weeks following onset of the primary case, secondary transmission occurred in 41 families. Overall, 77 of 335 family members developed COVID-19.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis found that in households in which family members wore masks at home before the first person became ill, there was less likelihood of transmission of disease to a family member, compared with families in which no one wore a mask prior to illness onset.

“Facemasks were 79% effective and disinfection was 77% effective in preventing transmission,” the researchers report, “whilst close frequent contact in the household increased the risk of transmission 18 times, and diarrhea in the index patient increased the risk by four times.

However, wearing masks after symptom onset was not protective, according to the analysis. The findings support “universal face mask use, and also provides guidance on risk reduction for families living with someone in quarantine or isolation, and families of health workers, who may face ongoing risk,” the authors write.

Still, other precautions may be more important, experts say.

“I think by far the best way for healthcare professionals to protect their families is to carefully employ appropriate infection prevention measures at work,” said Mark E. Rupp, MD, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. “The combination of administrative interventions, engineering improvements, and personal protective equipment is very effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in the workplace.”

Many physicians already wear masks at home, and this study “only reemphasized the importance of doing so,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, who recently reviewed studies about masks and COVID-19.

Home mask use provides “one more layer of protection that might help mitigate the risk of transmission to family members,” Tirupathi said. But it does not obviate the need to follow other preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper hygiene.

But Rupp, whose advice on how healthcare workers can protect their families was recently highlighted by the American Medical Association, isn’t convinced. He said he won’t be adding home mask use to his list of recommendations. “It would be intrusive, cumbersome, and impractical to wear a mask in the home setting,” Rupp said in an interview.

However, when out in the community, all family members must protect one another by practicing social distancing, wearing masks, and practicing proper hand hygiene. “I also think that it is a good idea to have some masks on hand in case anyone does develop symptoms in the household and to wear them if a family member falls ill ― at least until testing can confirm COVID-19,” Rupp said. “If a family member does fall ill, masks for the ill person as well as the well persons would be indicated along with other home quarantine measures.”

For her part, Noble, who has provided guidance about proper mask use, said that targeted use of masks at home, such as around older visiting relatives or other more vulnerable family members, may be more realistic than continuous in-home use.

When a household member becomes ill, recommendations for preventing disease spread include having a sick family member sleep in a separate bedroom, using a separate bathroom, and wearing a mask when within 6 feet of other household members. They also should avoid sharing meals. “For a household member who is a medical provider, to follow these self-isolation precautions while at home for months on end would have a significant emotional toll,” Noble said in an email. “With no end in sight for the pandemic, perpetual mask use in both the private and public sphere strikes me as overwhelming ― I write this near the end of my 10-hour shift wearing both an N95 and surgical mask and counting the minutes before I can take them off!”

A limitation of the study was its reliance on telephone interviews, which are subject to recall bias, the authors note.

The study was funded by the Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wearing a mask at home, even when everyone is feeling fine, might reduce the risk of frontline healthcare workers transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infection to their families, a recent study from China suggests. But the benefits might not outweigh the costs, according to several physicians interviewed.

“My gut reaction is that home mask use for healthcare workers would place an inordinately high burden on those healthcare workers and their families,” said Jeanne Noble, MD, an emergency care physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “Wearing a mask for a 10-hour shift already represents significant physical discomfort, causing sores across the nose and behind the ears. The emotional toll of the physical distance that comes with mask use, with limited facial expression, is also quite real.”

The suggested benefit of home mask use comes from research published online May 28 in BMJ Global Health. To assess predictors of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Yu Wang, MD, of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 124 families in Beijing in which there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 as of February 21. The researchers surveyed family members by telephone about household hygiene and behaviors during the pandemic to examine risk factors for transmission.

During the 2 weeks following onset of the primary case, secondary transmission occurred in 41 families. Overall, 77 of 335 family members developed COVID-19.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis found that in households in which family members wore masks at home before the first person became ill, there was less likelihood of transmission of disease to a family member, compared with families in which no one wore a mask prior to illness onset.

“Facemasks were 79% effective and disinfection was 77% effective in preventing transmission,” the researchers report, “whilst close frequent contact in the household increased the risk of transmission 18 times, and diarrhea in the index patient increased the risk by four times.

However, wearing masks after symptom onset was not protective, according to the analysis. The findings support “universal face mask use, and also provides guidance on risk reduction for families living with someone in quarantine or isolation, and families of health workers, who may face ongoing risk,” the authors write.

Still, other precautions may be more important, experts say.

“I think by far the best way for healthcare professionals to protect their families is to carefully employ appropriate infection prevention measures at work,” said Mark E. Rupp, MD, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. “The combination of administrative interventions, engineering improvements, and personal protective equipment is very effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in the workplace.”

Many physicians already wear masks at home, and this study “only reemphasized the importance of doing so,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, who recently reviewed studies about masks and COVID-19.

Home mask use provides “one more layer of protection that might help mitigate the risk of transmission to family members,” Tirupathi said. But it does not obviate the need to follow other preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper hygiene.

But Rupp, whose advice on how healthcare workers can protect their families was recently highlighted by the American Medical Association, isn’t convinced. He said he won’t be adding home mask use to his list of recommendations. “It would be intrusive, cumbersome, and impractical to wear a mask in the home setting,” Rupp said in an interview.

However, when out in the community, all family members must protect one another by practicing social distancing, wearing masks, and practicing proper hand hygiene. “I also think that it is a good idea to have some masks on hand in case anyone does develop symptoms in the household and to wear them if a family member falls ill ― at least until testing can confirm COVID-19,” Rupp said. “If a family member does fall ill, masks for the ill person as well as the well persons would be indicated along with other home quarantine measures.”

For her part, Noble, who has provided guidance about proper mask use, said that targeted use of masks at home, such as around older visiting relatives or other more vulnerable family members, may be more realistic than continuous in-home use.

When a household member becomes ill, recommendations for preventing disease spread include having a sick family member sleep in a separate bedroom, using a separate bathroom, and wearing a mask when within 6 feet of other household members. They also should avoid sharing meals. “For a household member who is a medical provider, to follow these self-isolation precautions while at home for months on end would have a significant emotional toll,” Noble said in an email. “With no end in sight for the pandemic, perpetual mask use in both the private and public sphere strikes me as overwhelming ― I write this near the end of my 10-hour shift wearing both an N95 and surgical mask and counting the minutes before I can take them off!”

A limitation of the study was its reliance on telephone interviews, which are subject to recall bias, the authors note.

The study was funded by the Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests.

“These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.”

Machado and his colleagues looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily — considered a moderate to high dose — was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization.

In addition, hospitalization was not associated with biologics; JAK inhibitors; conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate; antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine; or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) — either alone or in combination with other biologics, such as TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The findings were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress and were published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“Initially, there was a huge concern that these drugs could affect the outcome of patients getting COVID-19, but what this is showing is that probably these drugs do not increase their risk of severe outcome,” Machado, who is chair of the EULAR standing committee on epidemiology and health services research, told Medscape Medical News.

As of June 1, 1061 patients from 28 participating countries had been entered into the EULAR COVID-19 database, which was launched as part of the international Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Patient data are categorized by factors such as top rheumatology diagnosis, comorbidities, top-five COVID-19 symptoms, and DMARD therapy at the time of virus infection. Anonymized data will be shared with an international register based in the United States.

Machado’s team combined data from the EULAR and Global Rheumatology Alliance COVID-19 registries from March 24 to April 20. They looked at patient factors — such as age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic diagnosis, comorbidities, and rheumatic therapies — to examine the association of rheumatic therapies with hospitalization rates and COVID-19 disease course.

Of the 277 patients (46%) in the study cohort who required hospitalization, 55 (9%) died. But this finding shouldn’t be viewed as the true rate of hospitalization or death in patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19, said Gerd Burmester, MD, from Charité–University Medicine Berlin.

“There’s tremendous bias in terms of more serious cases of COVID-19 being reported to the registries,” he explained, “because the mild cases won’t even show up at their rheumatologist’s office.”

“This can skew the idea that COVID-19 is much more dangerous to rheumatic patients than to the regular population,” Burmester told Medscape Medical News. “It scares the patients, obviously, but we believe this is not justified.”

It’s still unclear whether rituximab use raises the risk for severe COVID-19, he said. “It appears to be the only biologic for which the jury is still out,” he said.

“Anti-TNFs and anti-IL-6 drugs may even be beneficial, although we don’t have robust data,” he added.

The study can only highlight associations between rheumatic drugs and COVID-19 outcomes. “We cannot say there is a causal relationship between the findings,” Machado said.

Longer-term data, when available, should illuminate “more granular” aspects of COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatic patients, including their risks of requiring ventilation or developing a cytokine storm, he noted.

Burmester and Machado agree that research needs to continue as the pandemic rages on. But so far, “there are no data suggesting that, if you’re on a targeted, dedicated immunomodulator, your risk is higher to have a worse course of COVID-19 than the general population,” Burmester said.

“We simply didn’t know that when the pandemic started, and some patients even discontinued their drugs out of this fear,” he added. “It’s more reassuring than we originally thought.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests.

“These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.”

Machado and his colleagues looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily — considered a moderate to high dose — was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization.

In addition, hospitalization was not associated with biologics; JAK inhibitors; conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate; antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine; or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) — either alone or in combination with other biologics, such as TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The findings were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress and were published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“Initially, there was a huge concern that these drugs could affect the outcome of patients getting COVID-19, but what this is showing is that probably these drugs do not increase their risk of severe outcome,” Machado, who is chair of the EULAR standing committee on epidemiology and health services research, told Medscape Medical News.

As of June 1, 1061 patients from 28 participating countries had been entered into the EULAR COVID-19 database, which was launched as part of the international Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Patient data are categorized by factors such as top rheumatology diagnosis, comorbidities, top-five COVID-19 symptoms, and DMARD therapy at the time of virus infection. Anonymized data will be shared with an international register based in the United States.

Machado’s team combined data from the EULAR and Global Rheumatology Alliance COVID-19 registries from March 24 to April 20. They looked at patient factors — such as age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic diagnosis, comorbidities, and rheumatic therapies — to examine the association of rheumatic therapies with hospitalization rates and COVID-19 disease course.

Of the 277 patients (46%) in the study cohort who required hospitalization, 55 (9%) died. But this finding shouldn’t be viewed as the true rate of hospitalization or death in patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19, said Gerd Burmester, MD, from Charité–University Medicine Berlin.

“There’s tremendous bias in terms of more serious cases of COVID-19 being reported to the registries,” he explained, “because the mild cases won’t even show up at their rheumatologist’s office.”

“This can skew the idea that COVID-19 is much more dangerous to rheumatic patients than to the regular population,” Burmester told Medscape Medical News. “It scares the patients, obviously, but we believe this is not justified.”

It’s still unclear whether rituximab use raises the risk for severe COVID-19, he said. “It appears to be the only biologic for which the jury is still out,” he said.

“Anti-TNFs and anti-IL-6 drugs may even be beneficial, although we don’t have robust data,” he added.

The study can only highlight associations between rheumatic drugs and COVID-19 outcomes. “We cannot say there is a causal relationship between the findings,” Machado said.

Longer-term data, when available, should illuminate “more granular” aspects of COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatic patients, including their risks of requiring ventilation or developing a cytokine storm, he noted.

Burmester and Machado agree that research needs to continue as the pandemic rages on. But so far, “there are no data suggesting that, if you’re on a targeted, dedicated immunomodulator, your risk is higher to have a worse course of COVID-19 than the general population,” Burmester said.

“We simply didn’t know that when the pandemic started, and some patients even discontinued their drugs out of this fear,” he added. “It’s more reassuring than we originally thought.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests.

“These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.”

Machado and his colleagues looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily — considered a moderate to high dose — was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization.

In addition, hospitalization was not associated with biologics; JAK inhibitors; conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate; antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine; or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) — either alone or in combination with other biologics, such as TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The findings were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress and were published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“Initially, there was a huge concern that these drugs could affect the outcome of patients getting COVID-19, but what this is showing is that probably these drugs do not increase their risk of severe outcome,” Machado, who is chair of the EULAR standing committee on epidemiology and health services research, told Medscape Medical News.

As of June 1, 1061 patients from 28 participating countries had been entered into the EULAR COVID-19 database, which was launched as part of the international Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Patient data are categorized by factors such as top rheumatology diagnosis, comorbidities, top-five COVID-19 symptoms, and DMARD therapy at the time of virus infection. Anonymized data will be shared with an international register based in the United States.

Machado’s team combined data from the EULAR and Global Rheumatology Alliance COVID-19 registries from March 24 to April 20. They looked at patient factors — such as age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic diagnosis, comorbidities, and rheumatic therapies — to examine the association of rheumatic therapies with hospitalization rates and COVID-19 disease course.

Of the 277 patients (46%) in the study cohort who required hospitalization, 55 (9%) died. But this finding shouldn’t be viewed as the true rate of hospitalization or death in patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19, said Gerd Burmester, MD, from Charité–University Medicine Berlin.

“There’s tremendous bias in terms of more serious cases of COVID-19 being reported to the registries,” he explained, “because the mild cases won’t even show up at their rheumatologist’s office.”

“This can skew the idea that COVID-19 is much more dangerous to rheumatic patients than to the regular population,” Burmester told Medscape Medical News. “It scares the patients, obviously, but we believe this is not justified.”

It’s still unclear whether rituximab use raises the risk for severe COVID-19, he said. “It appears to be the only biologic for which the jury is still out,” he said.

“Anti-TNFs and anti-IL-6 drugs may even be beneficial, although we don’t have robust data,” he added.

The study can only highlight associations between rheumatic drugs and COVID-19 outcomes. “We cannot say there is a causal relationship between the findings,” Machado said.

Longer-term data, when available, should illuminate “more granular” aspects of COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatic patients, including their risks of requiring ventilation or developing a cytokine storm, he noted.

Burmester and Machado agree that research needs to continue as the pandemic rages on. But so far, “there are no data suggesting that, if you’re on a targeted, dedicated immunomodulator, your risk is higher to have a worse course of COVID-19 than the general population,” Burmester said.

“We simply didn’t know that when the pandemic started, and some patients even discontinued their drugs out of this fear,” he added. “It’s more reassuring than we originally thought.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding durvalumab to first-line pemetrexed and cisplatin improved survival in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in a phase 2 trial, compared with historical controls who received only pemetrexed and cisplatin.

The median overall survival was 20.4 months in patients who received durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin. This is significantly longer than the median overall survival of 12.1 months (P = .0014) observed with pemetrexed-cisplatin in a prior phase 3 study (J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15;21[14]:2636-44).

The new phase 2 results are “promising,” said lead investigator Patrick Forde, MBBCh, director of the thoracic cancer clinical research program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

He presented the results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Dr. Forde noted that a phase 3 trial directly comparing pemetrexed-cisplatin plus durvalumab to pemetrexed-cisplatin will begin recruiting this year. The trial is a collaboration between U.S. investigators and Australian researchers who reported their own phase 2 results with durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin in 2018 (J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Oct;13[10]:S338-339).
 

Study details

Dr. Forde’s phase 2 study enrolled 55 patients with treatment-naive, unresectable MPM. Their median age was 68 years (range, 35-83 years), and 45 (82%) were men. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1.

Epithelioid mesothelioma was the histologic subtype in three-quarters of patients. “It was a fairly typical mesothelioma population,” Dr. Forde said.

The patients received durvalumab at 1,120 mg plus pemetrexed at 500 mg/m² and cisplatin at 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Carboplatin was substituted when cisplatin was contraindicated or patients developed toxicities.

All but one patient had stable or responding disease on radiography and went on to durvalumab maintenance, also given at 1,120 mg every 3 weeks, for up to 1 year from study entry.
 

Results

Dr. Forde said this study had 90% power to detect a 58% improvement in median overall survival, from the 12.1 months seen in historical controls to 19 months, which was the goal of this study.

It was a positive study, he said, as the median overall survival was 20.4 months (P = .0014).

The overall survival rate was 87.2% at 6 months, 70.4% at 12 months, and 44.2% at 24 months. The progression-free survival rate was 69.1% at 6 months, 16.4% at 12 months, and 10.9% at 24 months.

The overall response rate was 56.4%, which comprised 31 partial responses. Forty percent of patients (n = 22) had stable disease. One patient had progressive disease, and one was not evaluable (1.8% each).

To help with future patient selection, the researchers looked for baseline biomarkers that predicted response. Tumor PD-L1 expression, tumor mutation burden, and other potential candidates haven’t worked out so far, but the work continues, Dr. Forde said.

He noted that many of the adverse events in this trial are those typically seen with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events included anemia (n = 14), fatigue (n = 4), decreased appetite (n = 1), and hypomagnesemia (n = 1).

The most common grade 1/2 adverse events of special interest were hypothyroidism (n = 7), rash (n = 5), pruritus (n = 3), AST elevation (n = 3), and hyperthyroidism (n = 3).
 

Putting the results in context

Given the role of inflammation in MPM, durvalumab is among several immunotherapies under investigation for the disease.

A phase 3 French trial showed MPM patients had a median overall survival of 18.8 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin plus bevacizumab versus 16.1 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin only (Lancet. 2016 Apr 2;387[10026]:1405-1414).

The higher overall survival in the French study’s pemetrexed-cisplatin arm, compared with the 2003 trial results, is likely due to the use of modern second-line options, said Marjorie Zauderer, MD, codirector of the mesothelioma program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was the discussant for Dr. Forde’s presentation.

“I think the improvement in overall survival presented by Dr. Forde is potentially clinically meaningful,” she said, but it was “well within the 95% confidence interval” of the bevacizumab trial. Even so, “I look forward” to the phase 3 results, she said.

Dr. Zauderer also pointed out an April press release from Bristol Myers Squibb that reported improved survival over pemetrexed-cisplatin with two of the company’s immunotherapies, nivolumab and ipilimumab, not as additions but as replacement first-line therapy. However, the randomized trial data haven’t been released yet. “We are all eager to evaluate this option further,” she said.

AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab, funded the current study. Dr. Forde is an adviser for the company and reported research funding. Dr. Zauderer reported a relationship with Roche, which markets bevacizumab through its subsidiary, Genentech. She also disclosed research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb.

[email protected]